In consequence of the House having failed to maintain a quorum on Friday evening, it becomes [DOT] necessary for me to move, seconded by hon. Mr. Cochrane:

That the order of the day for "resuming the adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Sir Robert Borden for the second reading of Bill No. 75, an Act respecting Military Service, the amendment of Sir Wilfrid Laurier thereto, and the amendment to the amendment by Mr. Barrette," having laDsed by reason of the House being declared adjourned for want of a quorum on the 29th ultimo, when the said order was under consideration be revived and placed on the Order Paper for consideration this day.

Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (St. John): No notice of this motion has been made by

word of mouth, nor does it appear upon the Order Paper that this motion would be moved. I would submit, therefore, that it cannot be passed except by the unanimous consent of the House. I feel myself personally constrained to raise an objection to the motion and tc urge that the rules of the House should be adhered to. On Friday last, when the Bill was under consideration, there was not a quorum in the House; there were only some eighteen members present. Perhaps it is not out of place to call attention to the fact that during the last week there was scarcely a day when, if any hon. member on this side of the House had taken the point of order that there was not a quorum, the House would have been counted out. On Friday evening, however, the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Bou-lay), an hon. member ordinarily supporting the Government, raised the objection that there was not a quorum. At that time there were only four members-

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Is the hon. member speaking to a point of order or on the motion?

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I am stating my objections to the motion.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The motion of itself does not permit of debate, but I would have no objection to a very limited discussion on the point of order. I hope the hon. member for St. John will confine his remarks strictly to the point of order.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I will confine my remarks to the point of order, but I thought it would not be out of place to state the reason which induced me to insist upon the point of order being ruled upon by Your Honour. The undoubted result of the House being counted out on Friday is that the second reading of the Bill is a dropped order. I call Your Honour's attention to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 323:

A "count out" will always supersede any question that is 'before the House; and if an order of the day for Supply, or for the reading or committal of a Bill, be under consideration at the time, and there is no quorum present, the House must be asked at a subsequent sitting to revive the question that may have lapsed in this way.

There are a number of authorities cited in the notes:

131 English Com. J. 391, 329 ; Forfeiture Relief Bill, ordered to be considered on a future day. 235 English Hansard, (3), 203 ; 131 English Com. J. 282-3, Committee of Supply. 137 Xb. 18, 297, 306, 483.

I would also call Your Honour's attention to May's Parliamentary Practice, page 263. I need not direct Your Honour's attention to the fact that wherever the Canadian rules do not specially provide, the English procedure, prior to Confederation, is made to apply. On page 263, May says:

When an order of the day has been read, the proceedings thereon may be cut short by the adjournment of the House whilst those proceedings are in course of transaction. Ail order of the day, in such a case, or if, when the order is read, no day is appointed for its future consideration, drops off the notice paper, as the House has made no order thereon ; and in committee the same result may be produced, either by a failure of a quorum of the House, or by resolution direct the Chairman to leave the Chair. To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement, or -after the close, of public business, to appoint the order for a subsequent day.

It was quite open for a member of tbe Government on Friday evening to place upon the Order Paper a notice of motion fixing to-day for the revival of the discussion of this Bill. In that case, it would have appeared properly upon the Order Paper to-day, and hon. members intending to take part in the debate, seeing the notice on the Order Paper, would naturally be present to discharge their duty. As a matter of fact, I believe the hon. member who was speaking at the time the House was counted out, is not present because it was assumed that the discussion would not be resumed to-day by reason of the Bill having been dropped. May says:

To replace a dropped order of the day upon the notice paper, a motion is made before the commencement, or after the close, of public . business, to appoint the order for a subsequent day; and these motions are made without notice.

A member of the Government might on Friday night have placed upon the Order Paper a motion for consideration to-day. May goes on:

If on such order of the day procedure had been commenced and interrupted, the proceeding thus revived is set down for resumption at the position indicated by the last decision of the House entered upon the Votes and Proceedings. If, however, it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting, to obtain that object a notice of motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a minister of the Crown, upon the notice paper for the next sitting, at the commencement of public business, and the dropped order is placed, printed in italics, at the head of the list of the orders of the day.

Then there is another authority which is referred to in Bourinot as authority for the statement that such a motion may be made

without notice, but a reference to the authority will show that it is simply a confirmation of the practice as laid down in May's Parliamentary Practice. The authority referred to is Blackmore's Speakers' Decisions, page 69:

"Count out. Effect of." If the House is counted out in any stage of a Bill the Bill becomes a dropped order. Blind and Deaf-Mute Children (Education) Bill. Observations. Vol. 249, pages 987-8. August 14, 1879.

Then further under the heading of "dropped order, revival of consideration," Blackmore says:

In the event of a Bill becoming a dropped order it is competent on a subsequent day, without notice, to move to fix a day for its being again considered.

So that my right hon. friend would be quite in order in moving to-day without notice to fix a subsequent day, sucii as tomorrow or the day after, as he might desire, for the Bill being again considered. Under these authorities, I believe, this motion cannot pass except by unanimous consent of the House; and I deem it my duty to raise the objection I do.

Sir KOBERT BORDEN:

So far as our

practice is concerned, it is laid down in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, page 538:

If a Bill becomes a dropped order by the counting out of the House it is competent for a member to revive it on a subsequent day without notice.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

From which edition is

the Prime Minister quoting?

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

The last edition, I think.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

No, I think not.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

Page 538 is the page given me by the Clerk of the House. As a matter of fact it has been the universal practice of our House when an Order of the Day lapses, to revive it at once. On many occasions, I myself have seen this. When Mr. Fielding was Minister of Finance, I have seen an amendment to the motion that the Speaker do now leave the Chair accepted by the Government of the day.. The passing of such an amendment means that the order is superseded and becomes virtually a dropped order. The practice was to move immediately that the House do now resolve itself into Committee of Supply, without notice, and supply was taken up on the same day. A notable instance of the same character is found in the proceedings of the House of Commons of the United

Kingdom of 22nd and 25th June, 1877. There was a motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply. An hon. member proposed an amendment. At twenty minutes past nine on Friday the House was counted out, and on the following Monday the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the House do immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply. After some debate as to the regularity of the motion, the Speaker declared it in order *and it was .accepted. The motion followed:

" That the Speaker do now leave the Chair." On that motion being proposed, .an hon. member moved an amendment. After considerable debate, the amendment was carried, and for the second time on the same day, the order that the House .should resolve itself into Committee of Supply became a lapsed order. Whereupon the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, for the second time on the same day, " That the House do immediately resolve itself into Committee of Supply." The motion was carried. It was then moved, " That the Speaker do now leave the Chair. A further amendment was proposed, and a debate took place. The amendment was defeated, and the House resolved itself into Committee of Supply.

I venture to think that the authority of Bourinot and the illustrations I have given from our own practice and from the British parliamentary practice are amply sufficient to sustain the regularity of the motion I have made.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

My reply to my right

hon. friend (Sir Robert Borden) shall be very brief. He referred to the practice in England, having reference to the House being counted out, in the evening. There is I believe a special rule 'that between eight and nine it is not necessary that a quorum should be present. Was the case to which the right hon. gentleman refers between eight and nine?

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

It was at

twenty minutes after nine.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

In that ease any remark based upon the rule to which I have referred would not be applicable. It seems to me that where my right hon. friend is in error is in relying upon the text of Bourinot without having regard to the case cited by him. The authority upon which Bourinot relies is Blackmore's Speakers' Decisions, page 69, to which I have called attention already, the question that arose on the di*

cussion of the Sale 6f Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday (Ireland) Bill. The decision in that case was that:

In the event of a Bill becoming a dropped order it is competent on a subsequent day, without notice, to move to fix a day for its being again considered.

That must be a day subsequent.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

It does not say so.

Mr. PUGSLEY:

I think it is undoubtedly so. The alternative method is given by May, as follows:

If, however, it is essential that proceedings on an order of the day, cut short by an unexpected adjournment, should be resumed at the next sitting, to obtain that object a notice of motion is placed for that purpose, in the name of a minister of the Crown, upon the notice paper for the next sitting, at the commencement of public business; and the dropped order is placed, printed in italics, at the head of the list of the orders of the day.

I think it is very clear under these authorities that my right hon. friend has no right to move that the Bill be again placed on the Order Paper without having given notice, which, under the old rule, would be oral notice, but now means notice printed in the Order Paper. This ought to have been done, and the proposed departure from the established practice can only be taken by unanimous concent.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Bourinot, 4th Edition, at page 538, says:

If a Bill becomes a dropped order by the counting out of the House, it is competent for a member to revive it on a subsequent day without notice.

"Subsequent day" is a day after the day on which the order lapses, which lapse is caused by reason of a quorum not being present. That, I think, is the weight to be given to the word "subsequent," the word "subsequent" not having reference to a notice of motion. Also, I direct the attention of the House to May, 12th Edition, page 219:

Certain formal motions which are necessary for the due transaction of business are also made without notice, before the commencement, or after the close of public business, such as motions for the first readings of bills received from the House of Lords ; for the consideration of Lord's amendments forthwith, or upon a future day; for the postponement, the discharge, or the revival of an order of the day.

The question is arguable as to whether it is competent to proceed with this motion. But I point out to the House that we are in this respect breaking new ground, as the question has not before arisen in this

[Mr. Pugsley.j

House. That being so, the consideration that guides me is that there is no prejudice to the public business or to the public interest by reason of this motion being dealt with. On the other hand, if a motion of this character should require even a day's notice, it might so happen that the public interest would be prejudiced. Having anticipated that this discussion might arise, I have considered the question, and I am very clear in my opinion that the motion of the Prime Minister is in order, and that it is competent for the House to proceed with the order if the motion should carry.