Mr. SPEAKER:

Yesterday a question came up with regard to the report on a certain petition, and Objection was taken to the drafting of the report signed by Mr. Todd, who is the Examiner of Petitions. His report appears in the Votes and Proceedings of yesterday.

It was stated by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen) that the examiner should not, so to speak, dictate to the House what course it should follow. I have read very carefully the report of Mr. Todd, who, by the way, has been almost fifty years in the service of parliament, and who is one of the most distinguished officials of this House. His report was not inspired by me, I need not say, and in my opinion Mr. Todd in presenting this report has followed what has been the practice of this House ever since my memory serves me.

Hon. members will see that Mr. Todd in his conclusions states:

The forai of this petition and its contents so far as the first part of the prayer is concerned are within the requirements of the 75th rule, and refer only to such matters as are within the right and competency of the House to deal with, should the House desire to do so; should, however, the course suggested in the second part of the prayer be taken by 'the House it would apparently have the effect of authorizing other persons to exercise a power which the House has already delegated by statute to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts.

Apparently the first part of the prayer of this petition is only of a preliminary nature leading up to the main request as contained in the second part, consequently, the prayer, (considered as a whole, brings this petition within the rulling of Mr. Speaker Lemieux given on the 6th May last, in a somewhat similar case, which ruling was subsequently sustained by the House on appeal, viz., that a petition which prays for any action to be taken by the House that might involve in any respect an interference with the provisions of the Controverted Elections Act, chapter 7, R.S.C., 1906, cannot be received.

Under these circumstances I have therefore the honour to report that this petition should not be received.

Mr. Todd does not order the House, he does not even direct the House, not to receive the petition. He simply states that in his opinion, as an officer of fifty years' experience, and having always reported in that way to the House, the petition should not be received. But the House, of course, is at liberty to receive it or not, as it sees fit. .

I should like to point out this, and I am not now dealing with the merits of this case at all: Last year on two occasions, on the 17th of June and again on the 27th of June the Clerk of Petitions reported on two different petitions with this postscript: "Irregular. Would involve the expenditure of public money." And in the House, on the 17th of June, and again on the 27th of June, Mr. Speaker decided, following the immemorial usage:

That as the granting of the prayer of this petition wouild involve the expenditure of public money, it cannot be received.

The same wording is used this year as last year; therefore there has been no departure in this case from the procedure followed in former days. It is taken as a matter of course that when this official makes his report, provided it is not in excess of his authority and that he keeps within the meaning of his prescribed duties, the House always accepts it. As I said a moment ago, I am not now speaking on the merits of this case. I notice there is a motion to reject the report and to proceed further with this petition.

As the action of this official was called in question yesterday, let me read from the Classification of the Civil Service of Canada, which defines his duties:

Olerk of Petitions

Definition of Class:

Under direction, to receive and handle petitions presented by members of the House of Commons; to read and revise petitions in accordance with the rules; to bring to the attention of the Speaker such petitions as do not comply with the rules and to point out their defects.

I respectfully submit that Mr. Todd only pointed out in his report to the House and to the Speaker the defects contained in this petition.

The standard authority in this House is Bourinot, who for half a century almost was our guide at the Clerk's table. He left before he died to the officials of this House his directions regarding the powers and privileges of the Houses of Parliament as respects their officers, clerks and servants, in which he says:

The Houses cannot part with any of these privileges, immunities and powers, necessary for the conduct of *business, their existence and their dignity, except by statute expressly conveying and delegating their powera, immunities and privileges to others. For instance, in the trial of controverted elections, the Commons parted with their jurisdiction previously exercised by committees of their own, and handed it over to judges in express terms.

I quote this simply to remind the House that Mr. Todd, who for a long period was associated with his immediate chief, Sir John Bourinot, could not ignore the principles and precedents laid down by the late Clerk. Some

Red Lake Railway Company

of those principles are to be found in a concrete form in section 91 of the Controverted Elections Act. But as I said a moment ago,

I am not passing on the merits of the case at all. This is a.temple of free speech and of free thought (in matters affecting parliamentary procedure. There is a motion to reject that report and it is within the right of the House to accept or reject it. I simply wish to present these considerations in justice to Mr. Todd and to point out that he did his duty, and only his duty, by reporting respectfully to the House his candid and honest opinion in regard to the petition.

Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):

Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that the petition is not before the House, or at least has not been received by it and will not be until a motion is made to that effect?

Mr. SPEAKER:

The petition is not received. The petition is laid on the table. The report was tabled yesterday and is printed to-day. It is now open to the House to take action with respect to it. I understand the Clerk received a motion last night to the effect that the report of the examiner on the petition should be rejected. I do not pretend to cite exactly the contents of that motion.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

I think the motion is that the petition be received notwithstanding the report.

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

I rise only because of a reference in your judgment, Mr. Speaker, to the probability of my moving to-day the motion of which I gave notice yesterday. That was not my purpose. Indeed, I have no right to do so seeing that forty-eight hours' notice is necessary.

Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:

I desire to lay on the table of the House a return moved for by Sir George Perley containing all the documents concerning the Pacific Cable Board.

Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a motion dealing with a private railway bill. May I just explain before I make the motion to refer this bill back to the select standing committee on Railways and Canals, that it is Bill No. 95, to incorporate the Red Lake and

Northwestern Railway Company. It came before the House some time ago and was sent to the Railway committee. When it came before that committee I was present so that if there appears to be-although there is not meant to be-any criticism in my words of the Railway committee, the criticism is as much of myself as of any other member of the committee. The bill has reference to a railway in northwestern Ontario, the section from which I come. I had never heard of the measure until it came before the committee and-I say this without disrespect to the committee in any way-we dealt with it rather briefly. I should like now, if the House will permit me, to make a motion referring the bill back to the committee. I have taken the matter up with some of the officers of the House and I am told that I am in order in doing so. The only thing I ask is that the bill be sent back to the committee. What becomes of it then is a matter for the committee to deal with; I am in no way concerned except in so far as it deals with a section of the country in which I am naturally interested, I therefore move, second by Mr. Lapierre, the hon. member for Nipissing:

That Bill No. 95, an act to incorporate the Red Lake and Northwestern Railway Company, :be referred back to the select standing committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines for reconsideration.

Speaking for a moment to the resolution, I wish to say that all I ask is that the committee have power to deal with the question again, because I am informed by those who are promoting the measure that they have information to give the committee at the present time which they did not give, or rather were not permitted to give, when the bill was last before the committee. I ask the House to allow the bill to go back to the Railway committee for them to deal with as they see fit. The section to be traversed by this projected line is a newly discovered mining district. It will probably mean great development for northwestern Ontario, and if the promoters of the enterprise can prove to the committee that this is a bona fide application for a charter with the intention of going on with the railway, and that they have the necessary financial support for the purpose of building this railway where no railway exists, it seems to me that the committee might well reconsider it. I am informed that the National Railways have no objection in any shape or form to this charter being given, but that is for the committee finally to deal with. I hope the House will permit this bill to go back to the committee for reconsideration.

Questions

Mjr. SPEAKER:

The hon. gentleman is

within the rules in presenting his motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

No.

Carried.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Shall I say carried?

Carried.

Mr. LAPOINTE:

On division.