Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):

Mr. Speaker, before the business of the House is proceeded with, I wish to rise to a point of order, which I may formulate as follows:

This House is not in order when it does now sit at this hour of the day, but can only be in order when it sits this afternoon at 3 p.m., such hour being based upon the standard time which was in effect when the House adjourned last Friday night.

If I am in order, I shall now proceed to demonstrate that it is now, not three o'clock, but two o'clock.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member would be at liberty to discuss the point of order, if it is a point of order, but he would not be at liberty to raise a discussion or to present arguments as to whether it is now two o'clock or three o'clock. In the first place, I am not altogether clear in my own mind that the hon. gentleman has risen at the right stage. Although it is competent for a point of order to be raised at any stage of the proceedings, it has been the practice that no point of order may be raised until the proceedings of the House have begun. However, that question can be left open.

It would have been somewhat easier for 'the Chair if notice of this proposed point of order had been given. As I view it, the hon. member has not a point of order. A point of order, as I understand it, has reference to a violation of the rules of the House. It raises the question whether an

[The Deputy Speaker.]

hon. member may or may not be in contravention of those rules.

The rules of the House say that the House Shall meet at three o'clock. The time now may or may not be three o'clock within the meaning of the rule, but it does not seem to me that that is arguable as a point of order. It is a question of fact for the decision of the House. I have not the advantage of having been in the Chamber when the House rose on Friday night, but from a perusal of Hansard report of the proceedings, while it is not altogether clear, there certainly is at least prima facie evidence of the circumstance that the House by its decision upon that occasion determined that it would adjourn until three o'clock to-day, local time. It is true that the motion as entered in the Votes and Proceedings appears simply as an adjournment motion. The motion as put by the Acting Minister of Justice (Mr. Meighen) was:

That this House do stand adjourned until Monday at three o'clock, local time.

That of itself is to my mind sufficient evidence thalt the House is properly convened at this hour, and for this reason also: upon all other occasions the motion would simply have been "That the House do now adjourn," and ipso facto, under our rules, the House would stand adjourned until the nexlt day at three o'clock.

I therefore rule that the point of order is not well taken, at the same time observing that the House is the sole arbiter as to the day and the hour it shall sit. It is open for the House, at the proper time, and within the rules, to make any alteration it may choose as to the hour. But for the time being I rule that the point of order is not well taken, and that the House is properly convened at this hour.

Mr. DENIS:

If I correctly understand your decision, Sir, it bars any comment upon my part, and my only recourse is to appeal from your ruling to the House.

Mr. SPEAKER:

The hon. member is quite right.

Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette) appealed from the ruling of Mr. Speaker, and the same was confirmed without division.

Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Acting Minister of Justice):

moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 71, to extend the operation of the orders and regulations passed by the Governor in Council under The War Measures Act, 1914. iMr. D. D. McKENZIE: Explain.

Mr. (MEIGHEN: The purpose of the Bill is to extend the operation of Orders in

Council passed under the War Measures^ Act, until the prorogation of this Parliament. The W'ar Measures Act itself provides that it shall remain in effect until the cessation of hostilities, and that the cessation of hostilities may be determined by one of two methods-by the proclamation of His Majesty, or by the proclamation of the Governor in Council. In view of the possibility of an early declaration of peace, and of a proclamation thereof by His Majesty within a reasonable time and before the expiration of this session, we are asking that the Orders in Council passed under the War Measures Act which, upon the ceasing of the Act itself to have effect, may possibly themselves cease to have effect, be extended until the prorogation of Parliament. In the meantime, the Government will consider what may be necessary to be done with relation to some of those Orders in Council, having in view the general public interest. The Bill also provides that though the Orders in Council be extended in effect until the prorogation of Parliament, subject, of course, to any legislation in the meantime, the Governor in Council shall have power to repeal or rescind any of them in whole or in part.

Sir SAM HUGHES:

Is it the intention of the minister, before the measure goes through Committee, to give a list of Orders in Council that are not to be continued?

Mr. MEIGHEN:

There is no such list. This simply extends the effect of the Orders in Council until the prorogation of Parliament even though His Majesty or the Governor in Council may declare that peace now reigns. After that, Orders in Council may be rescinded. Some have already been rescinded, many of them in part, and that process may continue until the end of Parliament. There are none at the present time, as far as I know, which it is the intention specifically to rescind.

Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):

Before the Orders of the Day are called I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps to ensure that the railways of Canada shall run in accordance with the time of Canada and not of the United States.

Sir THOMAS WHITE (Acting Prime Minister):

I have given the matter some consideration, and it is not clear,-apart from the condition of war and for a war purpose,-that the Dominion Government has general jurisdiction-upon the subject of time in the Dominion. On the contrary, it would appear to me that for many, if not all, purposes, this jurisdiction is provincial. However, I do not pas finally upon that; it is a legal question. My hon. friend, I think, suggests by his question, the advisability of the Dominion Government enforcing certain time or certain time-tables upon the railway companies ol Canada. In connection with the recent decision of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, certain points have been cleared up. In the first place it does not appear that the railway companies of Canada, in the time they have adopted, are violating any law which has been enacted by the Parliament of Canada. It seems to be made clear by the decision of the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners, that the railways are within their right in what they have done. The Chief Commissioner, Sir Henry Drayton, points out in his decision that local time has never been observed by railways operating in Canada nor has it been observed by railways operating in the United States. He says:

The different points in the United States where time now changes under American law were fixed by the exigencies of railway operation.

I find that in England the practice of the railways, before the English Act of 1880 was passed, which standardized the mean time of the Greenwich standard meridian for England and Scotland, was to run on Greenwioh time and pay no attention to local time, and that in some cases clocks, as a result, had two sets of hands, the one showing Greenwich time and the other the time of the locality.

Then the vice-chairman of the Board observes as follows:

I do not think we have power to intervene in the matter. The railway companies are at liberty to adopt whatever time they choose, in accordance with the Railway Act.

In connection with the advisability of such action as is suggested on the part of the Dominion Parliament, I would call attention to the following observation of Sir Henry Drayton:

Having regard to the convenience of the travelling public at large no order cancelling the new time schedules can well he justified.

It is but fair to point out that it takes some time to rearrange time-tables. The lines, in some instances, are particularly busy. Changes in the running time of a large number of trains

that would be affected have to be carefully worked out. The mere printing and rearrangement of the time-tables of itself takes time, and if the time is set hack and new time-tables printed, a period of at least three weeks should be allowed for the purpose.

The companies also insisted that in the interests of public safety it is practically impossible to do anything else.

Then the vice-chairman of the Railway

Commission makes the following statement:

. 111 view of the evidence given at the hearing in the matter. I, for one, would he willing tb report favourably, as I think in advancing their time they have acted for the benefit of the public in general.

Having regard to all the considerations which I have mentioned, namely, the doubt which exists as to the constitutional powers of the Dominion to legislate respecting the matter of time now that the war is over, and also the views put forward by the chairman and vice-chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners as to the inconvenience and danger of the travelling public, it does not appear to me, speaking for myself, that the introduction of legislation would be expedient.