Mr. SPEAKER.

Having .been called upon yesterday suddenly to consider a motion upon the order paper re telephones in rural post offices, I gave a ruling that, upon more careful and. mature consideration, I am quite sure, would not be held to be well founded. I based my ruling of yesterday upon a motion of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Btain) regarding tire placing of telephones in rural post offices mainly on the general principle that this resolution .appeared to involve a charge upon the revenue and must be considered in 'Committee of the Whole. A careful examination of cases, 'both in England and in this House, shows that where the ex-Mr. BORDEN.

penditure of public money is not directly involved, and the resolution merely expresses .an abstract opinion on a matter which may necessitate a future grant, it may be introduced directly by a private member.

In looking at the authorities I find, in Canadian Commons Journals, 1892, page 133, on a motion moved by Mr. Denison relating to the .deepening of canals, which was of a very similar character and was afterwards withdrawn, no ruling was given. In Canadian Commons Journals, 1897, page 59, .a motion is. presented advocating a bonus on creameries. In that case it was a somewhat similar motion, but would tend more strongly towards a violation of the rule, as it proposed that 'a cent a pound at least should be given upon all butter manufactured in creameries. After that motion had been considered the debate was adjourned and no objection was taken to it. In Canadian Commons Journals, 1899, page 85, we have a motion with reference to indebtedness for seed grain. Mr. Davin, I believe, proposed the motion which, after being debated, was withdrawn and no point of order was raised. These, with a number of other precedents that I have looked up, justify me in. saying that my ruling of yesterday was not exactly sound, but while saying that I would like to quote Bourinot's remarks on the point, because it is a matter that I think the House should take cognizance of in the future. He says:

A practice has grown up in the House allowing the introduction of resolutions by private members, when they do not directly involve the expenditure of public money, but simply express an abstract opinion on a matter vThich may necessitate a future grant.

Then he gives the cases I have quoted here and proceeds:

As this is a question not always understood it may be explained that such resolutions, being framed in general terms, do not bind the House to future legislation on the subject, and are merely intended to point out to the government the importance and necessity of such expenditure.

Referring to this right of members to move such abstract resolutions, all authorities agree that it is one ' which the House exercises, and should always exercise, with very great reserve, and only under peculiar and exceptional circumstances.' Such resolutions are considered virtually ' an evasion of the rules of the House, and are on that account objectionable, and should he discouraged as much as possible.' Nevertheless neither the English nor Canadian House of Commons has ever agreed to the adoption of a rule to fetter their discretion in regard to the entertaining of such propositions.

Therefore, I presume the custom has grown up in that way. It would be in order for the hon. member who had that

motion in charge to move to have it reinstated on the order paper, as otherwise it would be dropped.

Mr. BLAIN.

I would move that the resolution be restored to the order paper.

Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).

No telegram was sent in the terms set forth in this question. A reduction plant necessary to prevent the destruction of or the serious injury to the fishing industry by depredations of dog-fish would be established. [DOT]

1. AVas Mr. Henry Coffin a messenger of the House of Commons in 1896, and was he dismissed?

2. If so, at whose request, by whom was he replaced, and who recommended the appointment of his successor?

3. What were the reasons alleged to justify Air. Coffin's dismissal?

4. AVas there an inquiry, and was the employee placed in a position to defend himself?

1. Air. Henry Coffin was a sessional messenger in the service -of the House of Commons up to July, 1896, when he was discharged.

2. There is no record as to who recommended his discharge, or by whom he was replaced.

3. No. reasons were given.

4. There was no inquiry, and consequently no defence.

1. AA'hat appropriation was made by parliament at the last session for the construction of a branch of the Intercolonial railway in Nova Scotia between Sunnybrae and Gnysborough and Country Harbour?

73 *

2. Were tenders asked for by the late government for the construction of the said branch railway?

3. What are the names of the firms or persons who tendered for the construction of the said branch line?

4. What was the amount of each tender and the cash deposit on each?

5. AVas any tender accepted? If so,, which one ?

6. Was notice of acceptance sent to the successful tenderer?

7. AVas the successful tenderer instructed not to proceed with the work of construction? If so, why?

8. Did the government purchase a branch railway known as the Sunnybrae branch from the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company? If so, what price was paid for said branch railway?

9. With reference to the following language used by the hon. Alinister of Railways and Canals in his speech in the House on January 18, 1912, in reference to the construction of this branch railway, namely:-'I believe that before committing the country to any expenditure, we should be able to give the people a just reason for our action, and we should see that the taxpayers of Canada get a fair return for the money expended, or at least sufficient to pay the interest on the capital,' does the minister apply the same condition to the expenditure involved in the purposed line between Dartmouth and Deans Settlement in the same province?

1. $1,090,000.

2. Yes; by newspaper advertisement.

3. Nova Scotia Construction Company, Limited, Sydney, Nova Scotia; M. J. O'Brien, Renfrew, Ontario; James H. Cor^ bett, Moncton, New Brunswick; Kennedy & MacDonald, Antigonish, Nova Scotia;

S. Pearson & Son, Incorporated, New York, New York; M. P. & J. T. Davis, Ottawa; MacArthur Brothers, Company, Halifax, Nova Scotia; John W. McManus, Company, Limited, Alemramcook, New Brunswick.

4. Nova Scotia Construction Company, $1,057,122.19, cash deposit $100,000; M. J. O'Brien, $1,165,189.17, cash deposit $100,000; James H. Corbett, $1,145,326.10, cash deposit $100,000; Kennedy & McDonald, $1,085,470.86, cash deposit $100,000; S. Pearson & Son, Incorporated, $1,446,020.98, cash deposit $100,000; M. P. & J. T. Davis, $1,066,695.40, cash deposit $100,000; McArthur Bros. Company, $1,272,614.76, cash deposit, $100,000; John W. MacAlanus, Company, $1,300,947.61, cash deposit $100,-

000.

5. Yes; the tender of the Nova Scotia Construction Company.

6. Yes.

7. Yes. Surveys of the whole of the railway had not been completed before tenders were called. The first location of the line was from Sunnybrae easterly along the east branch of the St. Mary's river through the county of Pictou, thence southeasterly to Melrose in Guysborough county.

Another location which was urged was one from Sunnybrae southerly following Barren Brook to the west branch of St. Mary's river, thence easterly through Guysborough county to Melrose, a common point to both locations. The last mentioned location was examined only in a preliminary way. The question as to which of these routes should be adopted had not been settled. No reliable estimate of the cost of the work had been made. There not being at hand sufficient information to show that there was justification for the building of the line, and the incurring of the outlay, it was thought well to cancel the contract and abandon the proceedings until complete and reliable data and information could be obtained, and the minister satisfied that, before committing the country to .the expenditure, the same is justified.

8. Yes. $100,000.

9. Yes. Practically.

Mr. PELLETIER:

.

1. Yes.

2. Yes. The then Postmaster General said that and more.