Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

animal, and who, through his neglect, kills or injures a fellow man is a criminal. The poor trapper or habitant who shoots a deer by mistake which turns out to be a cow moose, has his goods and chattels taken from him; but if it be a human being that he has shot by mistake, he is allowed to go free without even a preliminary investigation. I ask that this Bill and others of a similar nature should be referred to a committee. I do not say that the Bill is one which will cover all the circumstances that may arise, but I do urge that the matter should be taken up by a committee of legal and expert men, and I have no doubt that they will succeed in devising a measure which will cover the case.

TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Mines) moved that the House go into committee on Tuesday next to consider the following proposed resolution:-

Resolved, that it is expedient (a) to regulate the manufacture, importation, storage, handling, testing and use of explosive material of every description ; (b) to grant licenses to factories and magazines for the manufacture and storage of explosives and to provide for the inspection thereof and the payment of fees for such licenses; (c) to make inquiries into the cause of explosions, and of accidents caused by explosives; (d) to provide for the appointment of inspectors and other officers required for the administration of the Act, and the payment of the salaries thereof; (e) to authorize the Governor in Council to make regulations for carrying out the purposes of the Act; and (f) to provide for the imposition of penalties in contravention thereof.

He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been informed of the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the House.

Mr. G. H. PERLEY (Argenteuil).

I desire to say a few words on the subject of questions asked and answered in the House and the way in which the new rule concerning them is being interpreted. There are two points to which I wish to refer. In the first place, answers to questions appeared in ' Hansard ' on Wednesday last in two places. Those answered orally appeared in the first part of ' Hansard ' in the place in which answers to questions always appear; those answered in writing are at the end of ' Hansard.' It seems to me that it would be far better if these answers to questions, whether made orally or in writing, appeared in order in one part of ' Hansard,' as they have always done. The second point is that on Friday last certain questions were answered in writing, and, of course, under the method adopted, they appeared at the end of ' Hansard.' I submit that it would be far better if we had the written answers to questions appearing only on those days on which we reach questions in customary order on the Order Paper. That is, on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, questions are the first order on the Paper, and we naturally look for them on those days. Answers put in writing do not appear in ' Hansard ' in the order in which they were on the Order

Paper. The rule has not been altered, except that certain questions are allowed to be answered in writing and not orally, and I submit that the intention of the rule as worded is that the answers to questions should appear in ' Hansard ' exactly the same as they always have done, and also that whether given orally or in writing they should appear in the order in which they stand on the Order Paper. The object of the new rule, as I understand it, was purely to save time. In order to make that rule welcome to the members of the House it must be made as easy and convenient as possible. Members have always been in the habit of looking at the first part of ' Hansard ' of Monday, Wednesday and Thursday for answers to questions, and the answers should appear on those days, as they have always done. And they should not be printed in ' Hansard ' in the order in which the written answers happen to come in, but in the order given on the Order Paper. Thus, for instance, if I have a question numbered 16 on the Order Paper, I ought to be able to learn, by looking at the relative place in ' Hansard ' whether it has been answered or not.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).

I interpret the rule exactly as my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) does, and think that if his suggestions are followed great confusion will be avoided.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria and HalibuT-ton).

I. would suggest, also, that when a question is answered in writing, a copy should be sent to the gentleman who asks the question, and also a copy laid on the table.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I see no objection to that.

Mr. H. LENNOX (South Simcoe).

Mr. Speaker, when we were discussing the question of an enlarged system of inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee the other day, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) on a number of occasions-

Mr. SPEAKER.

Had not that better come up on going into supply?

Mr. LENNOX.

I am rising to a question of privilege. I am proposing to point out that my memory and that of the Minister of Public Works do not tally on certain points. In referring to what affects myself I would call attention particularly to pages 865 and 866 of Unrevised ' Hansard.' The minister is replying to something that I interjected, including, amongst other things, the question of obstruction :-

Mr. PUGSLEY.

My hon. friend, I am sure, is not serious, when he says that I ever helped to block the committee.

Mr. LENNOX.

Does tlie minister forget tlie sub-target gun case where a lawyer of the government party was chairman and where prominent lawyers of the government party were engaged in the matter, where a minister was assisting, and two other ministers of the Crown were assisting as well. It was about as glaring a case, as barefaced a case of blocking, as ever occurred in any deliberative assembly.