CAUGHNAWAGA RESERVE.
Mr. DOYON. (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, before
the Orders of the day are called, I desire to call the
attention of the Government to the fact that I
asked, at the beginning of this Session, for the
production of the report of the operations of Mr.
McLea Walbank as land surveyor of the Indian
Reserve of Caughnawaga. The hon. the Minister of the Interior answered me that he
had no
objection to produce that document. During last
Session I made the same request, and I received
the same answer; nevertheless, the report has not
yet been brought down. Am I to understand
that the Government, although having no objection
to lay that report before the House, has no intention of doing so? If, on the contrary,
it is disposed
to produce it, I would desire to know how soon, for
I might say that it is not without good reason that
I ask for it. I thought the matter had been forgotten, and that is why I have taken
this opportunity of recalling it to the Government.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I understand that the hon.
gentleman wants to know when the report and the
map of the survey of the Caughnawaga Reserve
will be brought down. The map is a very intricate
one, and it will take a long time to prepare it,
and, therefore, I cannot say when it will be brought
down.
Mr. DOYON. The hon. Minister will recollect
that, in a private conversation with him last
Session, I asked for that report, and he told me
that if he could not produce it during the Session,
he would file it during the recess.
Mr. DEWDNEY. I will bring it down at the
earliest possible moment.
PRIVILEGE—THE FRENCH LANGUAGE IN
THE NORTH-WEST.
Mr. AMYOT. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question
of privilege. It has been spread over the country
that by voting as we did the other evening against
the amendment of the hon. Minister of Justice, I
voted for the Bill of the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy). I did not take the necessary time last Friday to explain my
view of the
matter, because I desired to enable my colleagues
to take the train so as to go to their homes. I was
of opinion, first, that all the hon. members in
favor of Mr. McCarthy's Bill had to vote against
any amendment tending to prevent that Bill from
being read a second time; second, that all the hon.
members in favor of Mr. Davin's amendment had
to vote against any sub-amendment tending to
prevent that amendment from being affirmed by
the House; third, that all the hon. members
opposed to any change being made in the existing
law had to vote against the sub-amendment
offered by the hon. Minister of Justice, as the
would have to vote against Mr. Davin's amendment, and the Bill itself, had they reached
a vote.
The Bill presented by the hon. member for North
Simcoe was struck off the Order paper for the
second reading by the adoption of the sub-amendment, and no direct vote was practically
taken
upon the Bill itself. I have consulted very high
authorities on this point, and I may quote
Bourinot, our worthy Clerk, who has been so
justly honored by the Queen lately, who, at page
130, says:
"If a resolution opposed to the principle of the Bill be
resolved in the affirmative, or the motion that the Bill be
now read a second time be simply negatived on a division,
the measure will disappear from the Order Book."
So that we never had a vote on the Bill itself.
Mr. AMYOT. The meaning I gave to my vote
was that I was opposed to any change in the existing law, and I am authorised to make
the same
statement on behalf of the hon. members for Laprairie (Mr. Doyon), Napierville (Mr.
Ste. Marie),
L'Assomption (Mr. Gauthier), Joliette (Mr. Neveu),
Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion), St. John's, Quebec (Mr.
Bourassa), Chicoutimi (Mr. Couture), and I do not
doubt that if the hon. members for Berthier (Mr.
Beausoleil), and Chambly (Mr. Préfontaine), were
here, they would join in the declaration.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I desire to
call the attention of the Government to the fact
that, although the right hon. the First Minister
himself indicated some time ago that important
changes were likely to be made in the tariff, we
have not only not yet got the Budget but have no
intimation as to when the Budget is likely to come
down. It is important, both to the business of the
House and the interests of this country, that the
period of suspension should not be prolonged any
longer than possible, and the Government ought to
be in a position to tell us within a day or two when
they propose to bring down their financial statement.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. The hon. the
Minister of Finance is not here, and will not be
here the first part of the evening unless specially
sent for, and, therefore, I cannot speak specifically
in answer to the hon. gentleman. But the hon.
gentleman must have seen that ever since the Session began, all kinds of deputations
have visited
Ottawa for the purpose of pressing their various
interests on the attention of the Government with
respect to the re-adjustment of the tariff. There
is too much tendency on the part of the various
interests to postpone discussing subjects or calling
the attention of the Government to them until
Parliament has met, which is really the most inconvenient season for that purpose.
Still , they
come during that period, and, I think, until this
1071
[COMMONS] 1072
last week we have had deputations here representing most of the industries of this
country. Their
representations have been carefully considered by
the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs, and I have no reason to doubt
these hon.
gentlemen will be able very shortly to bring down
the results of their examination.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I will take
the opportunity, then, when the House adjourns, or
thereabouts, of asking for some information, and
the right hon. the First Minister, I understand,
will mention to the Minister of Finance what I
have said, in order that he may give the information desired. I am aware of the difficulty
which
the hon. gentleman speaks of, in the matter of
deputatious putting off important questions until the
last moment, and I do not think it is fair to the
Government or the country that deputations should
postpone coming here until within a few days of
the Budget. Speaking with some little experience,
I know it is utterly impossible for a Minister of
Finance, or the Minister of Customs, or the Government generally, to make the requisite
enquiries
in the course of a week or ten days, which is generally the amount of time allowed
by these deputations, but that is, to a certain extent, in the
Government's own hands, and the sooner they
bring down the Budget, the less likely they are to
be troubled with these deputations.
Mr. CHARLTON. I would ask the hon. gentleman whether the return asked for by the hon.
member for Muskoka has been brought down yet
—with reference to the opinion of the law officers
of the Crown on the constitutionality of the
Jesuits' Estates Bill?.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. It will shortly
be laid before the House. His Excellency was
bound to ask for permission to bring the papers
down, he has that permission, and we will bring
the papers down.
Mr. CHARLTON. I would like to make a
motion with reference to the printing of this when
brought down.
Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD. That is not in
order. It will be printed as soon as it comes down,
I can tell the hon. gentleman, without a motion.
THE ADULTERATION ACT.
House resolved itself into Committee on Bill
(No. 9) further to amend the Adulteration Act,
chapter 107 of the Revised Statutes.—(Mr. Costigan.)
(In the Committee.)
Mr. MULOCK. I understand that some persons
engaged in the trade of selling agricultural fertilisers have made representations
to the hon. gentleman with regard to some of the provisions of this
Bill.
Mr. COSTIGAN. They have, but that question
will be treated in the Act to amend the Fertilisers
Act, and has nothing to do with this Bill. The
question of amendments to the Fertilisers Act are
entirely distinct from this Act, and the Fertilisers
Act amendments will be taken up later in the
Session, after I have heard representations from all
the parties interested.
Mr. JONES (Halifax). I have received representations from parties interested in fertilisers,
but
as the hon. gentleman says they are not affected
by the Bill under consideration, but will be dealt
with in another Bill, I will wait until that Bill is
before the House.
On section 4,
Mr. WELDON (St. John). I object to the
general principle of amending Acts by simply declaring that certain words are altered
or struck
out. It makes it very difficult to understand what
the law is, and it would be far better to repeal the
whole section and re-enact it with the amendment.
Mr. COSTIGAN. The Bill is prepared by the
law officers and they, I suppose, take the course
which is generally pursued.
Mr. WELDON (St. John). I think it is a
vicious principle to adopt. If a new edition of
the Revised Statutes were issued to-morrow, it
would contain these amendments, and it is difficult
to follow them under the present system.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). Some years ago this
matter was discussed, and it was agreed that,
wherever it was proposed to amend a section, the
section should be reprinted in the amending Act
with the changes inserted in it, and should be
altogether repealed in the original Act. That is
certainly a much more convenient system to adopt,
and one which makes it nmch more easy to interpret the statute.
Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT. I remember
the discussion referred to by my hon. friend, and
there is no question whatever that very great inconvenience arises to laymen, at any
rate, if not to
lawyers, from the practice to which my hon. friend
has alluded. I forget who was the Minister of
Justice at that time, but I understood that the
Government then promised to set a good example
in Bills of their own, and to reprint the amended
clause in the Bill. It seems to me that reason and
common sense are wholly in favor of that course.
Mr. MULOCK. At present, if any one wants to
know what the law is, he has to buy half-a-dozen
copies of the Statutes in order to understand one
paragraph.
Mr. PATERSON (Brant). Are these reports
simply to be published at the option of the Minister, or will all the reports be published?
On section 8,
Mr. WILSON (Elgin). It strikes me that this
is a very undesirable clause. We find in this
proviso that any individual who, through no fault
of his own, may have purchased an article that is
ultimately found to be more or less adulterated, is
placed in a position that unless he can show that
he sold the article as he received it, and that he
has at the same time a warranty from the party
from whom he purchased this article, he is liable
to a heavy fine. But the clause does not even stop
there; for if he has a warranty, if he shows that
he purchased this article in good faith and understood that it was pure when he purchased
it, after
proving all this, he is still liable to a fine. Why
should a man be placed in that position unless It
can be shown that he was in some way responsible,
and knew he had an article in his possession that
was not pure, and sold it knowing that it was not
pure? In that case he should be held responsible;[...]
This individual participated in:
