December 10, 1909

LIB

Louis-Philippe Brodeur (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. BRODEUR.

I understand that my hon. friend brought before Mr. Speaker the point that a member of this House had no right to sit for two seats-that he had to make a declaration within a certain period, according to the rule that was in existence in the House of Commons of England in 1867.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Does my hon. friend think that was a point of order within the meaning of the rule?

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-Philippe Brodeur (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. BRODEUR.

My hon. friend called the Speaker's attention to that, and the Speaker decided that that rule was not in force; and I say that when the Speaker puts an interpretation upon a rule of this House and there is no appeal to the House from his decision, that becomes the judgment of the House. In this case my hon. friend is asking us to make a most important declaration, embodying in our rules all the sessional orders of the parliament of the United Kingdom that were in force on the first of July, 1867.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

It is not even that. It is only those which deal with matters not expresssly provided for in our own rules.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-Philippe Brodeur (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. BRODEUR.

Of course our rules are not very extensive, they are not nearly as extensive as those existing in England. At all events, my hon. friend is asking us to declare that all the rules and sessional orders passed by the parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1867 should form part of our rules of procedure. This is a most important declaration; we do not know where it would land us: and before

deciding such a question, I think it should be referred to a committee of the House to investigate how far it would take us.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

Will the minister say whether standing orders are within the meaning of the rule?

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-Philippe Brodeur (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. BRODEUR.

Yes, I think so.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

Does not his argument apply equally to those, and would not a committee of this House be equally necessary to decide what a standing order would lead to?

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-Philippe Brodeur (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. BRODEUR.

I must say to my hon. friend that I have not given that question very much consideration. I do not claim to know everything about that. While I have given some study to the rules of the House, I must admit that I do not know them all and am liable to make mistakes. At the same time I would not be prepared to declare offhand whether a sessional order did or did not form part of the rules of this House. I should make considerable distinction between standing orders and sessional orders. My own opinion is that although the standing rules of the British House of Commons form part of our rules, their sessional orders must not be applied in the same way. Possibly after studying the matter more carefully, I may come to a different conclusion; but for the time being I am strongly of the opinion that the sessional orders of the British House of Commons in force on the 1st of July, 1867, do not form a part of our standing orders.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

Has the hon. minister any authority which says that a sessional order is not a rule?

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
LIB

Louis-Philippe Brodeur (Minister of Marine and Fisheries)

Liberal

Mr. BRODEUR.

I say that the sessional orders of the British House of Commons should not be considered as part of our rule No. 1, because what is there contemplated is, not the rules which were in existence in England one, two or three sessions, but the standing rules which had been in existence for years and which were considered almost as important as the privileges themselves. That is the construction I would put upon rule No. 1. When my hon. friend asks us to declare that all the sessional orders of the British House of Commons form part of our rules, he is embarking on very dangerous ground and may find himself, after giving the matter more consideration, entirely _ mistaken. He may find that such a decision would incorporate in our procedure, rules which parliament never intended to form part of our standing rules. That is my view and I am sure the hon. gentleman will be well advised, under the circumstances, not to press his motion.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS.

If I understand rightly the argument of the hon. gentlemen op-

Mr. BRODEUR

posite, they contend that there is no law, order or precedents in this country requiring a man who has been elected for more than one constituency to resign one of these seats at any time during the parliament for which he was elected, 'that in itself would strike the people, it seems to me, as a very startling proposition. It simply amounts to this, that a man might be returned for two or three or ten constituencies and sit for them all during a whole parliament, and that there is no law, constitution, order or rule requiring him to resign all but the one seat. I have here Bourinot's parliamentary procedure, a work which is accepted generally as indisputable authority in matters of this kind. Just listen for one moment to what he says on page 245:

In case a member is returned for two constituencies, lie must make his election for which of the places he will serve by formally resigning his seat when the House is in session. This election may be made by a member from his place in the House or in the usual legal communication to the Speaker.

If that authority be good (and as such it is quoted by you, Mr. Speaker, almost daily), the contention of hon. gentlemen opposite is erroneous, and by inference the sessional order of the British House of Commons, in force on the 1st of July, 1867, are included in the words 'rules, usages and forms of procedure' mentioned in rule 1. Otherwise there is no ground for Bourinot's statement that a member elected for several constituencies must select one and resign the others. If the sessional orders of the .British House of Commons, as they existed on the 1st of July, 1867, do not govern this case and are not included in our rule No. 1, then Bourinot had no ground for making the statement I have just read.

Further in section 1 of chapter 41 of the Statutes of Canada, 1907, it is provided that the House of Commons shall consist of 221 members. But if one member may represent two seats, then the House does not consist of 221 members but only of 220, and the right hon. gentleman who should be the last man to violate the constitution, has been representing two seats in this House in defiance of section 1 of chapter 41 Statutes of Canada, 1907.

There is a provision that where a member's seat is contested, he cannot resign until the suit is disposed of. But the protest against the right hon. gentleman for one of the seats in Ottawa was disposed of in June last. It is perfectly clear what the duty of the right hon. gentleman then was. Can there be any doubt about it? Is there any layman or lawyer who would not say that it was the duty of the right hon. gentleman, when that case was

disposed of, to elect whether he should sit for one of the seats in Ottawa or for Quebec East, for both of which he had been elected. So that since the month of June last the right hon. the Prime Minister has been violating the constitution of this country. This House should by law con-' sist of 221 members, but we are short of that number because the right hon. gentleman is occupying two seats, and all this trouble has arisen simply because he has failed to do his duty, in fact we seem to have reached the stage when no right of the people in this country is too sacred to be sacrificed to the necessities of political exigencies by the party now in power.

I submit that there is no getting away from the statement I started out with, if Bourinot is right in saying that a man elected for more than one seat must select one and resign from the other, then the sessional orders in force in England on the 1st of July, 1867, must be applicable here.

House divided on amendment (Mr. Meighen).

YEAS:

Messieurs

Armstrong, Lortie,

Arthurs, Maddin,

Barker, Magrath,

Barnard, Marshall,

Blain, Meighen,

Blondin, Middlebro,

Borden (Halifax), Nantel,

Boyce, Northrop,

Bristol, Paquet,

Burrell, Perley,

Campbell, Price,

Chisholm (Huron), Roche,

Cowan, Schaffner,

Crosby, Sexsmith,

Crocket, Sharpe (Lisgar),

Crothers, Sharpe (Ontario),

Currie (Simcoe), Sproule,

Daniel, Stanfield,

Donnelly, Staples,

Edwards, Stewart,

Elson, Taylor (Leeds),

Goodeve, Taylor (New

Haggart (Lanark), Westminster),

Haggart (Wiiinipeg), Thornton,

Henderson, Wallace,

Herron, White (Renfrew),

Hughes, Wilcox (Essex),

Kidd, Wil9on (Lennox &

Lake, Addington),

Lalor, Worthington,

Lancaster, Wright.-61.

Lennox,

NAYS:

Messieurs

Allen, McIntyre,

Aylesworth, McKenzie,

Beauparlant, McLean (Huron),

Boland, Major,

Black, Marcile (Bagot),

Borden (Sir F.), Martin (Montreal,

Boyer, Ste. Mary's),

Brodeur, Martin (Regina),

Brown, Martin (Wellington)

Bureau, Mayrand,

Cash, Michaud,

Champagne, Miller,

Chew, Molloy,

Chisholm Murphy,

(Antigonish), Neely,

Chisholm (Inverness), . Oliver,

Clark (Red Deer), Papineau,

Currie Parent,

(Prince Edward), Paterson,

Delisle, Pickup,

Demers, Proulx,

Devlin, Prowse,

Dubeau, Rankin,

Ecrement, Reid (Restigouche),

Fortier, Richards,

Fowke, Robb,

Gauvreau, Ross (Middlesex),

Geoffrion, Ross (Rimouski),

Girard, Roy (Dorchester),

Graham, Roy (Montmagny),

Hodgins, Schell,

Hunt, Sealey,

King, Smith (Middlesex),

Knowles, Smith (Nanaimo),

Kyte, Smith (Stormont),

Lachance, ^ Talbot,

Lafortune, Templeman,

Laurier Todd,

(Sir Wilfrid), Tolmie,

Lavergne, Turcotte (Nicolet),'

Law, Turcotte

LeBlanc, (Quebec County),

Loggie, Turgeon,

Macdonald, Turriff,

MacNutt, Warburton,

McAllister, White

McCoig, (Victoria, Alta.),

McGiverin, Wilson (Laval).-90.

PAIRS:

Ministerial, Opposition.

Fielding, Foster,

Fisher, Osier,

Pugsley, Porter,

Lemieux, Forget,

Low, Smyth,

Stratton, Gordon (Nipissing),

Sinclair, Clare,

McColl, Macdonell,

Rutan, Monk,

Douglas, McCarthy,

Ethier, Broder,

Harris, Beattie,

Lovell, Russell,

McMillan, Doherty,

Sifton, Reid (Grenville),

Bickerdike, Ames,

Guthrie, Owen,

Nesbitt, Lewis,

Pardee, Thoburn,

Clarke (Essex), McCall,

Carvell, Rhodes,

Gervais, Bradbury,

Gordon (Kent), Jamieson,

Harty, Fraser,

Conmee, Maclean (York),

Amendment negatived.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.



Excise-salaries of officers and inspectors of excise, &c., to provide for increases depending on the results of excise examinations, $439,000.


LIB

William Templeman (Minister of Mines; Minister of Inland Revenue)

Liberal

Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Inland Revenue).

The total increase in the excise branch of the department is $4,599.95, due to increases in the salaries of officers and inspectors, with probably some slight additions to the staff, and to the increase of the amount for extra duty at distilleries. The increases total $14,599.95. As against these, there are decreases of $10,000, making a nett increase, as stated, of $4,599.95.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

How many new officers?

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
LIB

William Templeman (Minister of Mines; Minister of Inland Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

I do not think we have the list of the new officers, but as the country develops, and the work of the department increases, additions to the staff are necessary. The number of officials in the outside service is steadily increasing with the increase of business and of the revenue.

for extra duty at large distilleries and other factories, $12,000.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

John Allister Currie

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.

How many men are employed under this vote?

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
LIB

William Templeman (Minister of Mines; Minister of Inland Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. TEMPLEMAN.

There is an increase of $2,000 in this vote, required in connection with new distilleries which, the department believes, are likely to be established during the coming year. This is for overtime for our officers at the distilleries.

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink
CON

Arthur Cyril Boyce

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BOYCE.

Where are the new distilleries to be established?

Topic:   SUPPLY-FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION OF QUEBEC EAST AND OTTAWA.
Permalink

December 10, 1909