1. Has an agreement to give a lease of water power at the Grand Rapids of the Athabaska river, been granted to any person or company?

2. If so, to whom was it granted, and at what date?

1. Yes.

2. Herbert William Adcock, June 1, 1913.

1. Has the Shellfish Fishery Commission completed its labours?

2. What is the total cost of this commission to date?

3. Has the Government accepted any of the suggestions or recommendations of the report? If so, which?

Mr. HAZEN:

[DOT]

1. Yes.

2. $9,138.47.

3. They are now under consideration.

1. With reference to an ,ieni of $8,000 expended in purchasing two marine boilers from Canadian Import Company, Quebec, as found on page No. 135, volume 2, of the Auditor General's Report, what are the names of the newspapers in which the advertisements calling

for tenders for the construction of said boilers appeared?

2. What are the names ot me tenderers, the date and amount of each tender received?

Mr. HAZEN:

.

1. Tenders were not called for the boilers referred to. The department, having decided upon the construction of two new tugs for use on the river St. Lawrence Ship channel, learned that these boilers were readily available, and had an inspection and report on the same made by its technical officers. The inspection and report being favourable, and the price reported as fair and reasonable, the necessary authority was obtained for the purchase of the boilers. These boilers are installed in the two new tugs built at the department's yard at Sorel.

2. Answered by No. 1.

THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY SPEAKER. On the Orders of the Day being called:

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I beg to move that item No. 28 of the notices of motion be now called. It is as follows:

Sir Wilfrid Laurier.-Proposed resolution: That, in the opinion of this House, in the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Speaker towards this House, he is bound by and subject to the same rules as apply to Mr. Speaker, and that, therefore, he is debarred from taking part in electoral contests.

In the publication of this notice there is an error. It is not in accordance -with the notice I sent to the Clerk. The notice I gave was that I would move the resolution on such a day as a matter of privilege. In my opinion, the matter is one of privilege and therefore does not require notice, 'but I wished to give warning to the House of my intention, so that hon. members might not be taken by surprise. I move, therefore, that this item be now called.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Of course, in the case of a notice on the Order Paper it cannot be taken up except in regular course. But the motion the right hon. gentleman makes is in order.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

If my memory serves me right, and I think it does, the office was first established in Great Britain in 1855, and in Canada in 1891. I lay down the principlethat the same rules which apply

to Mr. Speaker ishould apply with equal force to the Deputy Speaker. I have not found, in any of the books 1 have consulted, any written authority upon this point except that Redlich, also in 1870 in the same volume, at page 171, has a very significant remark. After having stated that the deputy speakership was established in 1855, he goes on to say that later on, in 1902, an assistant Deputy Speaker was appointed, and he concludes his chapter with these words:

The appointment of a second deputy was not ordered till the 2nd of May, 1902, and was a part of the reform of the rules effected by the Balfour Cabinet. In the debate on the proposal, which took place on the 11th and 12tli of February, 1902, the necessity of the provision was recognized, the Chairman of Committees being already, in modern times, overburdened with business. It was, however, suggested from several quarters that the new presiding officer should receive a salary, so as to secure a material guarantee of the independence of the Chair. He does now receive payment for his services, though at first the Government did aot accede to the proposal.

When an assistant Deputy Speaker was appointed, or, to be more accurate, when the office of assistant was created in 1902, the necessity for such an appointment had become obvious from the fact that the business of the British House had become so overburdened that not only a deputy to Mr. Speaker, but an assistant to the deputy, was required. Then, when thg office was established-and it was established, so far as my information goes, unanimously-the suggestion was made from several quarters in the House that the assistant Deputy Speaker should, like the Deputy Speaker, receive a salary. The object was to secure a material guarantee of the independence of the Chair; that is to say, that the assistant deputy, like Mr. Speaker himself, and like the Deputy Speaker, should receive a salary so as to secure absolutely his independence. What do those words mean ? If they mean anything at all, they seem to mean that if the office of assistant Deputy Speaker carried with it a salary there was more guarantee of his independence in the Chair. If we are required to pay him a salary to secure a guarantee of his independence in the Chair, all the reasoning which applies to Mr. Speaker should apply also to the assistant Deputy Speaker; and therefore I conclude that the rule was recognized, and that this

was a further form of it, that the assistant Deputy, like the Speaker himself, should abstain from politics.

I must again refer to the fact thatin my consultation of authorities Ihave not found any discussion as to the possible breaking of that rule byDeputy Speaker. I have not found in

any of the books which I have consulted that at any moment the Chaiman of Committees departed from this rule and took part in any political discussion. Whether or not Mr. Speaker, or the Deputy Speaker or Chairman of Committees, is allowed to take part in any political discussion in Great Britain, I say again I have not been able to satisfy myself; but from the very fact that the books are silent upon this point, I conclude that the rule has been observed, and I believe I am correct in stating that, on the floor of the House itself, neither the Deputy the Deputy Speaker. I have not found in the assistant Chairman of Committees takes any part in the discussion. If I am wrong in this I would be glad to be corrected; but after what examination I have been able to give to the subject my conclusion is that the same rules Which apply to Mr. Speaker apply also to the Deputy Speaker and to the assistant .Chairman; and, quite apart from any precedents, discussing the question simply as a matter of reason, it seems to me that the conclusion is not only obvious but irresistible, that the Deputy Speaker should be bound by the same rules which bind Mr. Speaker; that, having to discharge practically the same duties he should be subject to the same regulations and the same exceptions. The Deputy Speaker presides over the Committee of the whole House, over the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means, and I need not tell hon. members that three-quarters of the business coming before this House is discharged in one of these committees. The experience of Parliament has forced the conclusion that the Speaker of the House should not be allowed to take part in politics, and that the same rule should bind also the member of the House who has to discharge the important duty of Chairman of Committees of the Whole", of Ways and Means and of Supply-that is to say, the presiding officer in that portion of the time of the House in which the House is occupied in discharging the major part of all its duties. As an abstract principle, therefore, I submit to the House that the Deputy Speaker

is bound by the same rales that apply to Mr. Speaker.

Now, I come to the other question, and the more practical one under the present circumstances: what has been the rule of this Parliament in this respect? Up to the present time we have had no rule on this point, and if I bring the matter at all to the attention of the House it is because, in my estimation, it is important that we should know exactly whether this rule ought to be observed or not. The Deputy Speakership was established in this House in the year 1881 or thereabouts. Mr. Bergeron, when Deputy Speaker, took part in political contests in 1892, in 1893, and all the time he was Deputy Speaker up to 1896. This was notorious; everybody knew it; but his action never was challenged on the floor of the House, no exception was taken to it, and therefore no blame can be attached to him for it. In 1897, the first year of the late Administration, there was a local election in the province of Quebec, and Mr. Brodeur, who was then Deputy Speaker of this House, took part in that local election in his own riding, Rouville. His action was challenged on the floor of this House. The matter came up for discussion. I looked at the discussion again before entering the Chamber this afternoon. The discussion was rather angry, still not too much so, and, on the whole, I think the sense of the House was rather that the Deputy Speaker should not take part in elections. I may say that I discussed the matter with Mr. Brodeur himself, and that he said that he had taken partin the local elections, but would

not take part in any federal election. I believe that from that day up to last year the Deputy Speaker has never taken pait in any federal election. If there has been any deviation from this rule I do not remember its being called to the attention of the House. I speak subject to correction, because one's memory may in such matters be defective. If there has been any deviation from the principle I would like tc know of it. So far as I am concerned, I think it would be a safe rule to adopt that the Deputy Speaker, like Mr. Speaker, should be debarred from taking part in any political contest. Last year the member for Champ'ain (Mr. Blondin) took part in a political contest.

Mr. BORDEN:

What election?

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Chateauguay. I do not want say anything in the 87

present instance which would cause any bitterness on this point. On the contrary, I want to discuss this matter simply to fix a principle which in my judgment should be recognized. The member for Champlain, finding no rule, may have thought that he was entitled to the privileges of a member on this point, but in my opinion he was debarred. As we have no election at the present time, we are free from the heat and passion which it occasions, and I therefore invite the attention of the two sides of the House to the matter, so that we may lay down a principle which shall guide us in the future whichever side may be in power, and that it may be recognized that in this matter the rule which applies to the Speaker shall apply also to the Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that it would be absolutely out of the question to suppose that the Deputy Speaker should have more privileges tha,n the Speaker. Like the Speaker he receives a salary and he has therefore to give the same attention to his duties as the Speaker does, and, I repeat, without any party bitterness, but simply approaching this subject as it has been approached in former times-in 1902 in Great Britain, for instance-I ask my hon. friends to agree to the proposition involved in the resolution which I have placed in your hands, Mr. Speaker.

Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) :

I appreciate very much the tone in which my right hon. friend has made the proposal which he has submitted for consideration, and I am sure the House will be obliged to him for the review that he has given of the practice of Parliaments both in Great Britain and in Canada with regard to the matters upon which he has spoken. It is perfectly obvious that the position of Speaker in Great Britain and the position of Speaker in Canada are not upon precisely the same footing for the reason which my right hon. fjiend has mentioned. I do not recall that my right hon. friend mentioned another aspect in which the two positions are different. In Great Britain it is not the custom to contest the election of the Speaker in his constituency. That arises out of the first consideration to which he has alluded. It being understood there that the Speaker will be continued in office although the party which selected him may not be returned to power, it has not been the practice in Great Britain to contest his election. In Great Britain, I think, there has been no such con-

test for a very great number of years except in the case of Sir William Court Gully. I happened to be in England in 1895, and I very well remember that there was a contest, and that after his election Sir William Court Gully alluded to the fact that a departure had been made from established custom in his instance, and he expressed keen regret that that had been done. There was also a rather fierce controversy in the press of Great Britain, especially in the Conservative press, as to whether or not the old custom ought to be observed in his case, but in view of the very satisfactory results which had obtained up to that time, notwithstanding isome strong expressions of opinion in the Conservative press, Sir William Court Gully was re-elected as Speaker and continued as Speaker, until he resigned the office. In these two respects, then, the status of the Speakership in this country is to be differentiated from that of Great Britain, namely that the practice does not obtain here of continuing the Speaker, even if the same party is returned to power, and that nere his election is contested. At the moment I do not recall any instance-I speak subject to correction-where the Speaker in this House has retained the office beyond the parliamentary term even though his 'own party is returned to power. As a result of that, the election of the gentleman who has been Speaker has, I think, been contested in the same way as any other election. Under those circumstances-this is not exactly relevant to the question but I mention it in passing-the Speaker in this country is placed in a somewhat peculiar position and possibly sometimes a position of disadvantage, because he is not expected to pay any attention to his own riding from the political party standpoint, and at the same time he knows he will be confronted with a contest in the ease of a general election.

My right hon. friend has referred to Red-lich. On page 135 of the 2nd volume from which he has quoted I find these very significant words:

The complete aloofness from politics imposed upon the Speaker received its full extension during the nineteenth century, when it came to he considered that he must keep himself free from all political action outside as well as inside the House, even in his own constituency. He is thus the only member of the House of Commons who is not allowed, either in speech or in writing, to advocate the interests of nis constituents. The position in which his constituency is placed is accurately described in England as one of practical disfranchisement.

The latest historian of the House gives a capital description of the situation in the following terms: The Speaker's constituents not only do not go to the poll; they cannot, according to present-day usages, call on their represent tnve to vote either for or against any measure which may he before Parliament. As the Speaker never meets his constituents to discuss politics, one of the chief means of present-day political education is lost to them. PolitiiiCal organization is suspended in a Speaker's constituency; for a present-day Speaker has no need of any local party organization to secure his return, even if the deemed it proper to contribute to party funds. The newspapers in the constituency have necessarily to refrain from criticism or comment on the parliamentary conduct of its representative: and in nearly all the essentials which go to make representation the constituency is unrepresented. In the constituency represented by the Speaker of to-day, political life is dormant; for ail its outward activities, as they concern both political education and local poll tical organization, are suspended.

But no constituency complains or frets under its temporary and peculiar political disabilities. It is honoured in the honour done by the House of Commons and the country to - its representative.

In this country the practice in that regard has not been followed because it has been felt-and I might give illustrations of that even in recent years-that the Speaker still does represent his constituency and is entitled to press upon the Government the claims of liis constituents and even to set forth to his constituency the advantages which they have been able to enjoy by reason of his being their representative in Parliament.

My right hon. friend, in the course of his speech, has not alluded to one aspect in which the position of the Deputy Speaker is distinguished from the position of the Speaker, both in Great Britain and in this country. It has been the practice for the Deputy Speaker to vote on all questions upon which he desires to vote, even if they are questions of direct party difference. That has been the practice of all Deputy Speakers under the late Administration within my experience, and it has also been the practice of the Deputy Speaker under the present Administration. As far as I know, the same rule prevails in Great Britain, although I have not absolutely verified that by anything that I have found in the authorities upon the subject. It seems to me that the Deputy Speaker in Great Britain, as here, is not hedged about by quite all the considerations which have governed the conduct of the Speaker in Great Britain, and I quite agree in the observation of my right hon. friend that the status of the Speaker in Great Britain

has become an accomplished fact, not through any formal, definite written rules, but through custom and tradition. The status of the Speaker in Great Britain has been established in that way, and exists in that way at the present time.

The same observation, I think, might be made with equal truth respecting the status which the Speakership has acquired in this country. My right hon. friend has alluded to the debate that took place in this House in 1897. The discussion, and the difference of opinion, arose, not upon the action of the Deputy Speaker in taking part in an election, but by reason of the fact that it was charged that for several weeks during the session, while enjoying the salary paid to him for the performance of a particular duty, he had been absent from his post here and had neglected the duty which he owed to the House. Several members who took part in the debate on the Conservative side of the House at that time, notably, I remember, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, and the hon. gentleman who at present occupies the Chair in this House, stated distinctly that they saw no reason why the Deputy Speaker, if the House was not in session, should not, if he so desired, take part in a political campaign in his own constituency or outside of his constituency.

My right hon. friend on that occasion alluded to the practice which 4 p.m. had prevailed in the past, and drew some distinction between the action of the Deputy Speaker in taking part in a federal election and in taking part in a provincial election. Perhaps I had better give his words exactly. After alluding to the status of the Speaker in the House and the traditions which enforced his abstinence from political activities while he occupied the high position of Speaker, he went on with these words:

But if that has been the rule applied to the Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as I do that while they were in office no such rule was ever laid down for the guidance of the Deputy Speaker. While I have no desire to enter into a discussion of the manner in which the Deputy Speakers who formerly held that office have discharged their duties on the floor of this House, hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as I do that, outside of this House, the Deputy Speaker was as much a partisan as any of us.

Then, further on, my right hon. friend continued in this way:

If it be a crime for an hon. gentleman occupying that position to take part in an election, and if it is to be the rule that he should not do so, for my own part, I am. quite willing to apply that rule in the future, if that be the sense of the House.

However, no action was taken by the adoption of any formal rule, and, if my information is correct, the rule which had been pursued before that time by the Deputy Speakers under the Conservative Administration h*s been pursued since. I am not sure that I can give any instance in which Mr. McIntyre, who occupied the position of Deputy Speaker in the last Rarfiament, interfered in any election, and I speak with reserve >as to him, but I think it can be very clearly shown that Dr. Macdonald who, although a very strong partisan, discharged in a very commendable way the duties of Deputy Speaker of this House from 1900 to 1904, did not restrain his political activities in the same way. In fact, I have noticed extended references to his proposed activities in certain election campaigns which were going on in the province of Ontario while he occupied the post of Deputy Speaker. My hon. friend the member for Bonaventure (Mr, Marcil), while occupying the position of Deputy Speaker in 1908, I think it was, entered upon a political campaign in my own province.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

After dissolution.

Mr. BORDEN:

No, before dissolution. I was very careful to verify that. Dissolution took place on the 17th day of September, 1908, and the hon. member to whom I have alluded spoke at Stellarton on the 8th day of September, 1908, at Liverpool on the 9th, at Truro on the 10th, at Amherst on the 11th, and at Springhill on the 14th.

I am quite as desirous as my right hon. friend of not dealing with this matter in a partisan way, and therefore I shall send over to him some extracts which I have culled from those speeches of that hon. gentleman. I invite his particular attention to one passage which I have marked, and which I shall not place upon the pages of ' Hansard.' I think my right hon. friend will find, upon looking at that particular passage, that it bears fairly well the stamp of pretty 'Strong political attack. My attention was called to these utterances at the time, and it was suggested that I should make some reference to them when the Speakership came in question in 1909, because it was well known at that time, and it had been definitely announced in the Liberal press, that the hon. gentleman in question was to be nominated for the

Speakership. But I thought that under the custom which lias prevailed in this country it was not worth while, or at all events not desirable, that I should raise any question of that kind and, as far as I recollect, I did not make any allusion to it. So, I think that my right hon. friend will see that the practice has not been quite along the line of what he suggests now, even during his own administration.

I do not at all minimize the importance of having the Deputy Speaker of this House placed outside the pale of party politics, so far as that can reasonably be carried out; but there are certain considerations in that connection, which would seem to be a corollary of what my right hon. friend suggested, viz., that the Deputy Speaker should be considered equally immune from attack. If he is to be regarded as outside the pale of party politics, then in respect of political attack on one side or the other it would seem to me that a certain .amount of eonsideraition .should be given to the fact that he is not to open hits .mouth upon party questions or to take .part in .electoral contests. I merely make that observation in passing, leaving hon. members to make any application of my suggestions that may occur to them in view of what sometimes takes place in this House.

The best course it .seems to m.e is to surround the Deputy Speakership, so far as it can be surrounded, with the same tradition of custom and of us.age that is [DOT]applied to the Speakership in this country.

My right hon. friend has alluded to the status of the Speakership, in Great Britain *and in this country, but he will look in vain to the rules of the British House or tQ the rules of this House to find therein the foundation of the status of which he has spoken, and spoken, as I admit, quite appropriately. It does not seem to me, in view of the course of affairs during the past twenty or twenty-two years in which we have had the office of Deputy Speaker in this Parliament, that we have had any such difficulties or inconveniences in respect to the matters to which my right hon. friend has called attention,, as to necessitate our making formal rules in that regard. If we are to make formal rules and to embody them in a resolution of this House, why is there more necessity for doing it in respect to the Deputy Speaker than in respect to the Speaker? We have not attempted to do it in the case of the Speaker and nevertheless the

status of the Speaker is acknowledged in this House, and my fignt hon. friend himself has borne testimony to the fapt that the duties of the Speaker under all Administrations have been satisfactorily and worthily discharged by the men who have been selected for that important position. If we attempt to define the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Speaker in these respects by the promulgation of formal rules, it seems to me that it would be desirable to inquire why these rules are more necessary in the one case than in the other. If such rules are promulgated they should be very carefully considered, indeed. For this reason, it does not occur to me at the moment, even in view of the incident of which my right hon. friend has spoken, that there is any occasion at the present time for the House to make a pronouncement upon this question by resolution. If it is thought proper, when next the rules of the House are under consideration, that we should embody in those rules some pronouncement defining the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Speaker in this respect, or of the Speaker himself, I would be prepared to consider that proposal, although at the moment I would not be prepared to say that I would think it desirable. I invite the attention of my hon. friend to one sentence to Redlieh which most truly declares that the status of the Speaker to Great Britain is founded in tradition and custom. It would seem best to found the status, not only of the .Speaker but of the Deputy Speaker, on custom and tradition. Under these circumstances, after this discussion and the frank interchange of views on this subject-.and I am bound to say that in the abstract the views of my right hon. friend do not differ materially from my own except in the respect that I have mentioned-I shall be glad if he will not press his motion and if he will let the matter .stand until we have had an opportunity to consider it more fully in committee when the rules are being revised.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Of course, I would gladly accede to the wish expressed-

Mr. SPEAKER:

As this is practically a substantive motion, it is my duty to inform the House, if there are any other members who desire to speak on this subject, that they must do so before the member who has moved the resolution commences his reply.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

Of course, I would defer at once to the wish expressed by my right hon. friend-especially since he has left the door open for further consideration-not to press my motion at the present time. I will tell him, however, why, in my judgment we should have a standing order upon this point. My right hon. friend has asked me: If we have no standing order in regard to the Speaker, why should we have one in regard to the Deputy Speaker? My right hon. friend has very properly stated that there are no Tules to define the duties of the Speaker, and that they are all to be found in tradition and precedents; but if at the present time I think it advisable that we should have a standing order upon this point, my reason is the difference in the interpretation which has been given of the duties of the Deputy Speaker. The Speaker never takes the liberty of taking part in an electoral contest. The Deputy Speaker has thought it within his privilege and power to do so. If it be admitted that the same rule should apply to the one as to the other, the fact that there has been a 'difference of interpretation with regard to the duties of the Speaker and of the Deputy Speaker would be a reason why there should be a rule to determine precisely the duties of the Deputy Speaker. With regard to the manner in which these restrictions have been observed by Deputy Speakers, I am not aware that Dr. Macdonald ever took part in an electoral contest, except after dissolution. But I am not sure as to that. As to my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), I still persist that while, technically, he may have spoken before a dissolution, in effect Parliament was dissolved and the electoral contest was on. His speech in Nova Scotia was made on the 9th of September, when the compaign had really commenced-a very lively and vigorous campaign, as all will agree-and the House was dissolved on the 17th of that month. So he was no longer Deputy Speaker, except in a technical sense.