Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):

It is now about a week

and a half since the termination of the budget debate, but the bills representing the government policy as respects important matters are still unintroduced. May I ask particularly with respect to the railway rates question-when may we expect a statement of the government's policy or a bill representing it?

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals): It is now under consideration. It is a very important bill. Mistakes have been made before, I am told, even in the drafting of legislation, and the government wants to be sure that no mistakes are made this time. The bill will be introduced in plenty of time this session to give hon. members opportunity for full discussion.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Mr. Chairman, this is

a most remarkable resolution to precede a bill. The purpose of a resolution which is to precede a bill is to embody the principles of the bill and virtually all the terms, or, if not all the terms of the bill, certainly all the important terms; otherwise the resolution does not serve its purpose at all: it is valueless; it is a waste of time. The rules of the House call for an introductory resolution, but you do not meet the rule by a simple resolution declaring that a certain act should be amended, which is all that this resolution does. It says, "Resolved that it is expedient to amend and consolidate The Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1912, and amending acts, and to make further provisions in respect to the handling and marketing of grain." Well, what provisions? I presume it is expedient to do it if the provisions are an improvement, but what is the sense of tJhe House resolving that it is in the public interest to make an amendment of the provisions as to the handling of grain when we do not know what the provisions are? I submit to you as a point of order, Mr. Chairman, that this resolution as not a compliance with the rules of the House.

The CHAIRMAN:

If the right hoe. gentleman will allow me to quote Bourinot, I find on page 496:

Canada Grain Act

Rule 50 of the House of Commons provides:

"No bill relating to trade or to the alteration of the laws concerning trade, is to be brought into the House, until the proposition shall have been first considered in a committee of the Whole House and agreed unto by the House"

It is quite allowable, however, to introduce bills relating to trade in the Senate, without previously considering the subject in a committee of the Whole.

Then follows the paragraph which I think is pertinent here:

The rule, as generally understood in the Canadian House-and English practice bears it out-simply requires the House to go into committee to consider a general proposition, setting forth the expediency of bringing in a measure on a particular question affecting trade. The object of the rule is to give another stage for consideration of a measure involving commercial interests.

The decisions of the Canadian Speakers are referred to at the bottom of page 496. With all due deference, therefore, to the right hon. gentleman's objection, it would seem to me at least that as long as the proposition is indicated in a general way, disclosing what the intention of the government is, without detailing particulars, that the resolution would fall within that provision.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

I quite agree-as long as the purpose is outlined in a general way disclosing what is intended to be done. But can any human being tell what is intended to be done by this resolution even in the most general possible way? You are proposing to amend the act in respect to the handling of grain. Well, amend it how? To provide for what cMnge? You do not need to give the exact terms of the proposed amendments, the details, but this does not tell how you are going to amend the act. It does not give the government's position at all; it may be 'backwards or forwards, right or left; it may be to strike the whole thing out. The House is given no inkling whatever as to what the nature of the proposed change is, and I submit it is only trifling with the rules of parliament to submit this premonitory resolution an-teceding the bill.

Mr. LOW:

I can only say in reply to my

hon. friend that I submitted the bill to the Law Clerk of the House, and asked him if he would prepare a resolution covering what would be required preceding the introduction of the bill.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Who is the law clerk

now?

Mr. LOW:

Mr. Troop. I am not an authority on these matters myself, and I must confess that I relied upon the Law Clerk of the House.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Will the minister look at Nos. 20 and 21 on the order paper? He will see there what is intended by such a resolution. Those are quite proper.

Mr. LOW:

In this case, Mr. Chairman, I

must stand by the resolution as drawn by the law clerk, unless the House decides otherwise. Mr. Chairman, perhaps there has been no legislation brought before this House this session that is of greater importance-

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Mr. Chairman, I must

ask for a ruling on the point, after argument.

I think it is a very serious matter. If this is to be taken as compliance with the rules -simply a resolution saying that it is advisable to amend a certain act,-it does away with all purpose of the rule entirely. It does not serve the object which you, Sir, read just now as an additional precaution before legislation. If we pass this, the House has not taken the slightest precaution by way of a premonitory step anteceding legislation, not the slightest, because we have not the remotest idea what the legislation is. It does not state its principle even in the most vague or general terms; it does not give the House the faintest intimation. The bill that is to follow could be anything on earth and still *be in compliance with this resolution if this ruling is to be sustained, and in future there will be no need whatever of having a resolution anteceding a bill, not the slightest; we may just as well abolish the rule, because your ruling, Mr. Chairman, abolishes it, when you rule this to he in order.

Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):

May I point out?-the present resolution does conform to the general principle that the preliminary resolution, which must always be submitted to the House before any money bill or any measure relating to trade and commerce is considered, should contain an intimation of the nature of the measure which is proposed. My right hon. friend contends that the wording of the resolution is altogether too general; but what is done here is to ask for a declaration:

That it is expedient to amend and consolidate the Canada Grain Act, chapter 27 of the statutes of 1912, and amending acts-

So the committee quite apprehends what the purpose of this bill will be when it is introduced. The language of the resolution although general is apt, and the committee could not expect that more definite language could be employed when dealing with the consolidation not only of one act but of a

Canada Grain Act

whole series of acts relating to an important matter. The resolution proceeds:

-and to make further provisions in respect to the handling and marketing of grain, or incident to the buying, selling and transportation of grain; the grading and weighing of grain; the handling of grain in and out by the country elevators and at country points and inspection of such elevators; the operation, management and control of terminal, public and private elevators; -

And so on. This resolution intimates that further provisions, in addition to those which now exist, are to be made in regard to ali these subjects. The object in drafting the preliminary resolution in a certain way is merely for the purpose of informing the House as to the purpose of the subject which it will be asked to consider later on when the bill itself is introduced, supplemented in this as in every case by the explanations of the minister who is responsible for the measure. It does seem to me therefore that the resolution comes within the ruling and the precedents cited by the chairman of the committee from Bourinot, and that the committee ought not to regard the objections of my right hon. friend as being substantial.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

It seems to me that this matter is capable of very simple determination, and the real manner in which it ought to be determined is as pointed out by you, Mr. Chairman. You have read, and rightly read, from the authority governing such cases, that in connection with matters having to do with trade and commerce and the like opportunity is to be given the House to understand what is proposed to be done. The idea, of course, is perfectly plain. When it is proposed to change the law, before we take the initial step the House is to be informed as to what the nature of the change will be. It is not necessary to submit then the exact sections that have been drafted, but it is necessary-if we are to try and apply the rule as quoted by you, Sir,-that we should at least know in what direction the changes tend. We should at least know, for example, whether grading is to be made easier or stiSer; whether one thing is to be stopped and another thing is to be allowed; we should know in which direction the government seek to go. As to what the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) has said, he is quite right in his statement in so far as the mere consolidation of statutes is concerned; but he is infinitely wrong in connection with the only part of his remark that has anything to do with the point at issue. He is correct in what he says about the consolidation of statutes, because it is a very easy thing to know by reference to the statutes

what we are doing when we are consolidating. The House, in that case, would have a right to understand that the consolidation to be undertaken was to be fair, just, and honest consolidation of existing provisions. But my hon. friend after making that point clear sought to deal with an entirely different subject in an absolutely different way.

Now, Mr. Chairman, let us see what you have to say as to the reason why we have the preliminary resolution. We have a resolution such as this in order that the House may get an idea as to the direction in which legislation is contemplated and so will have an opportunity of giving or withholding its assent. Now let us take the first thing which is proposed here. We have to make further provision in respect to the handling and marketing of grain. Well, we

all know something about the handling and marketing of grain, how that is done; but we do not know what is here proposed to be done in either of these directions. We do not know whether the handling or marketing of grain is to be made easier or more confined; whether new channels are to be sought or not in looking after this very important business. In the name of common sense is there anything in the resolution which tells the House what it is to be asked to do in that connection? We are next told that the buying, selling and transportation of grain is to be provided for. The same remarks apply in absolutely the same way to these questions. We know how .grain is transported, there is no question about that, but the government proposes that something shall be done to change that transportation, some further provision is to be made in that connection. What is the nature of the provision? Is it a provision which will throw a further burden-[DOT]

Mr. FORKE:

We will take it by aeroplane afterwards.

Sir HENRY DRAYTON:

Possibly-I

really would not be surprised at any suggestion the Minister of Trade and Commerce might make in that regard and therefore I say "possibly" but I do not think at the moment that I should say "probably." At any rate the matter of transportation of grain is to be dealt with and a change is to be made. What change is to be made? Who is to be helped? Are the railway companies to be helped by a diminution of their liability, for example, in connection with losses? Is there to be aid granted to the producer. Or is there to be a further warranty in grain transactions? Is there to be a change made in connection with the rates? What is to be done? Again I

Canada Grain Act

ask, in the name o*f common sense, what is there for the House to pass upon? Then we have this further question; "The grading and weighing of grain." Now, if there is anything in the world we would want to get advanced information on before we pass legislation concerning it, it is the grading and weighting of grain', because it is a most delicate and vexed question. The House and the country should know, in general terms, what is intended to be done, before any legislation is passed; it ought to get the fullest opportunity of knowing what the government's ideas are. That is the purpose of the rule as read by you, Mr. Chairman, and yet that opportunity has not been afforded us. I could go through the whole list of matters proposed to be dealt with, and we are left in absolutely the same position, without the slightest indication as to what is to be done. If the rule has any significance, if we are to have any regard for it, all right; blit if the rule js to be treated in the way proposed by the Minister of National Defence let us strike it out altogether because it means absolutely nothing.

Mr. FORKE:

I am almost afraid to venture into this discussion when I find so many lawyers who differ in their views. But I am going to use a little common sense in looking at this matter and see what I can make out of it.

Oh, oh.