Mr. NORTHRUP:

A few days ago a report was received from the Railway Committee to the effect that the preamble of Bill No. 55, to incorporate the Vancouver Terminal Railway Company, had not been proved. The Bill had been opposed by the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Stevens), and the counsel for the city of Vancouver had objected to the word ''Vancouver" being included in the Bill. I understand that an arrangement has been come to under which the promoters agree that the word "Vancouver" shall be excluded from the Bill. In order that the Bill may be referred back to the committee, to be considered upon its merits, I beg to move:

That that portion of the seventh report of the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines reporting the preamble of Bill No. 55, an Act to incorporate Vancouver Terminal Railway Company, as not

proven, be referred back to the said committee for further consideration.

Mr. STEVENS:

The statement has been made that I entered into an arrangement on behalf of the city of Vancouver whereby it should be agreed that this Bill be referred back to the committee. I wish to state that this is not the case. I made no such arrangement. I was asked if I would move that it be referred back or would agree that this course be taken, but I did not agree either to make the motion or to consent to its being made. I want to make my position in the matter perfectly clfear; I accept no responsibility in that respect.

Mr. LANCASTER:

I suppose it is clearly understood that it is still open to the Railway Committee to reject this Bill if they think it is not a proper Bill; otherwise 1 should ask the House to vote down the motion. There were other objections to the Bill than those mentioned by the hon. gentleman who makes this motion. As Chairman of the Railway Committee, I do not wish to oppose a re-hearing of this Bill if the House thinks it should be referred back to the committee, but I wish it to be understood that if the committee sees fit to reject the Bill it shall not be hampered by this action of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER:

According to the wording of the motion, the matter is left entirely to the judgment of the committee. The motion proposes that the Bill be simply referred back to the committee for further consideration; it is unaccompanied by instructions.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I wish to call the attention of the Government to a statement which appears in the press to-day, namely, that an Order in Council has been passed effecting the transfer of British .ships to persons not qualified for such ownership. Has any such Order in Council been passed?

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

My recollection is that there was an Order in Council on the subject, passed in practically the same form as that which has been adopted in Great Britain. Any action taken was so taken in consequence of representations made to us by the Imperial Government, if my memory serves me correctly, as I think it does.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

All I ask is

that a copy of the Order in Council be brought down, accompanied by a statement of the authority under which it was passed.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Yes.

Mr. GAUVREAU:

I should like to put

a question to the Postmaster General, if he will be good enough to give me his attention.

(Translation). I find, in a Montreal paper, that the Canadian edition of the Newspaper La Menace is still being circulated through His Majesty's mail, in spite of the promise made to your predecessor, Mr. Pelletier, in the course of February, 1914. Yes, I find that this paper keeps on publishing against an important portion of our people, that is, against the Roman Catholics, such injurious and slanderous tilings, that I would hesitate even to read those nasty articles here, because I consider that this assembly is composed of gentlemen, and that such things should not be read in good company. I have the Na-tionaliste in my hand, and if the hon. Postmaster General will take the trouble to peruse those articles in this paper, he will see that I am not exaggerating in the least, and I am satisfied that there is but one thing to do-he will do it if he likes- it is to stop the paper in question from being circulated through His Majesty's mail, for that paper is a disgrace and a dishonour to journalism in this country.

Hon. T. C. CASGRAIN:

(Translation): I thank the hon. member for having drawn my attention to the fact that the newspaper La Menace is still being circulated through the mail. I thank him also for having pointed out to me the article which he refers to. I shall see to that matter, and he may rest assured that, should La Menace keep on publishing such articles as those which have appeared in the Canadian edition of that paper, its circulation through the mail shall be prohibited.

__ QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

On the Orders of the Day being called:

Mr. PROULX:

I wish to raise a question of privilege. The Ottawa Evening Journal of last Saturday, in an account of the debates of this House, said:

The Chamber was a deserted looking place last evening for a while. Hon. Charles Marcil and Mr. Proulx were in charge of the Opposition and at that they were half asleep on the job.

I wish to deny the imputation that I neglected my parliamentary duties. Instead [DOT] of being half asleep I was fully awake, and if you will consult the Hansard you will see that I was awake enough to interrupt the hon. member for L'Islet (Mr. Paquet) and my hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay). I think the correspondent of the Journal should be more truhtful in reporting the proceedings of this House. I can say for the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) that he also was fully awake and that during the speech of the hon. member for Rimouski he took notes. I was sitting beside him.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The question raised by

the hon. member is a correction of improper reporting by a newspaper, but not a question of privilege. Of course, the hon. gentleman has a perfect right to deny the incorrect report.