March 7, 1916

PRIVILEGE. .

FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.


On the Orders of the Day:


LIB

Frank Broadstreet Carvell

Liberal

Mr. CARVELL:

I find in the Orders of the day a question standing in my name, No. 15, as follows:

1. What are the names, salaries and nationalities of those persons appointed since October 10, 1911, in the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, and the nature of the work assigned to each?

2. How many promotions have been made among those in the inside service of the said department since October 10, 1911, and what are the names of the persons so promoted?

In the Orders of the Day of yesterday the same question appeared, and three others, relating to the Printing Bureau: No. 43, in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise); No. 44, in the name of the hon. member for Prescott (Mr. Proulx); and No. 46, in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Cash). On inquiry, I find that the hon. member for Mackenzie was not in the city when the notice standing in his name was placed

[Mr. Hughes.!

upon the Order Paper. The other two gentlemen state that they knew nothing about the questions standing in their names. For my part, I never heard of this question, never was consulted about it, and never knew of it until I read it in the Order Paper yesterday. I cannot understand it, although I have looked into the matter. I am satisfied that a gross fraud has been practised on members on this side of the House by the placing of these questions on the Order Paper in our names. I have been informed by the Clerk of Records that the questions were simply typewritten, with our names in typewritten characters. I wish to repeat emphatically that I know nothing about this question and never was consulted about it. As I have said, some person is imposing on the privileges of this House. I wish that this question be" stricken from the Orders of the Day, and I think, Sir, it is your duty to investigate this matter and to serve out to the guilty party the punishment which he so richly deserves.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Permalink
CON

Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry (Speaker of the Senate)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SPEAKER:

I will certainly inquire into the matter.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Permalink

Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved the second reading of Bill No. 48, to amend an Act to incorporate The Canadian Red Cross Society. He said: As this Bill is essentially a Bill of a private nature, although introduced as a Government measure at the request of the Council of the Canadian Red Cross Society, it is desirable that it should be referred to some committee of the House. My right hon. friend has suggested that it be referred to the Committee on Standing Orders; but I would suggest that it be referred instead to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. I do not know that there is any need to send it to the Committee on Standing Orders, because that committee could only report that the ordinary formal' procedure had not been carried out. It was introduced as a Government measure in order that there might not be expense, delay and inconvenience in publishing it. If any person connected with the Society, or any other person, desires to make any representations with regard to the Bill, he will have opportunity of doing so if it is referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. I move that the Bill be referred to that committea.


LIB

Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Liberal

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I have not read the Bill; can my right hon. friend give an explanation of its object?

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY.
Permalink
CON

Robert Laird Borden (Prime Minister; Secretary of State for External Affairs; President of the Privy Council)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:

I did give an explanation upon the first reading. It simply provides for an addition to the membership of the council, and to enable the western provinces to be more effectively represented. It is really of very minor importance, and it does not affect any interest whatever.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY.
Permalink

Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.



Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Minister of Labour) moved the second reading of Bill No. 37, to amend the White Phosphorus Matches Act.


LIB

George Perry Graham

Liberal

Mr. GRAHAM:

The object of this Bill, which the hon. Minister of Labour explained some days ago, is, I understand, to extend the time of getting rid of white phosphorus matches already manufactured, and also those on hand for sale.

Motion agreed to; Bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blain in the Chair.

On section 1-extension of time within which matches may he used:

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

This section seems to be worded in rather an extraordinary way. It is declared in the first place by section 13 that the Act shall come into force on 1st of January, 1915. Then, by the second section, it is declared that the provisions of the Act "shall be held to have come into force on, from, and after the 1st day of January, 1916." It would take a Philadelphia lawyer to understand that.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers (Minister of Labour)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS:

Section 13 of the Act as it now stands provides that as to the manufacture of matches made of white phosphorus, the Act shall come into force on the first day of January, 1915.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

The Bill does not say anything as to manufacturing.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers (Minister of Labour)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS:

Section 13 of the Act does.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

But that is repealed.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers (Minister of Labour)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS:

I am showing why we want to amend that Act. It provides, as to the manufacture of matches, that the Act shall come into force on 1st January, 1915; then section 2 is as to the sale and use, and it says the Act shall come into

force on 1st January, 1916, giving the manufacturers a year from the time they have ceased to manufacture the matches to sell the matches already manufactured. They ceased manufacturing on the last day of [DOT] Deceiflber, 1914$ but during 1915 they did not sell what they had manufactured. This Bill is to enable them to do so for six months longer, and those who buy the matches to use them up to 1st January, 1917. The main object of the original Act, as the committee will remember, was the protection of the employees engaged in the making of white phosphorus matches, and that has been effected by the cessation of manufacture on the 1st January, 1915. As the law now stands, those who have sold any such matches since 1st January, 1916, would be liable to prosecution, and those having the matches in their possession for use would be liable. This Bill is simply for the purpose of giving the manufacturers six months longer to sell, and the people who are using them twelve months longer to use them.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

Charles Marcil

Liberal

Mr. MARCIL:

Is there any danger in the use of those matches, or is it merely in the manufacture?

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
CON

Thomas Wilson Crothers (Minister of Labour)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CROTHERS:

The danger is chiefly but not entirely in the manufacture. The object of the original Act was to protect those engaged in the manufacture of white phosphorus matches. Some few employees had become diseased by inhaling the fumes caused by the use of white phosphorus in the matches. There have been cases in which the injurious effects of these matches have occurred. There was a prominent case in Prince Edward Inland wheTe a woman poisoned her three children by using the ends of these matches. Children playing with matches of this kind about the house are very likely to put them in their mouths. It is because* of instances of this character that the Act provided that white phosphorus matches should not be used. This proposition is simply to allow for the sale of the stocks which are on hand, and those who have purchased them are given until the first of next January to use them.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY:

A company manufacturing matches at Hampton, N.B., protested very strongly against the proposed legislation, saying that no injury had ever been known to have resulted from the use of white phosphorus in their factory. Have they withdrawn their objection? I understand that they were heard by the minister.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE. .
Subtopic:   FRAUDULENT QUESTIONS.
Sub-subtopic:   WHITE PHOSPHORUS MATCHES ACT AMENDMENT.
Permalink

March 7, 1916