2483 [COMMONS] 2484
NORTH-WEST TERRITORIES ACT.
Mr. McCARTHY. I beg to move that Bill (No.
27) further to amend the Act respectin gthe North-
West Territories Act be set down for second reading
on Monday next. I desire to explain, after the
vote taken last night, why I make the motion. I
had intended, at some stage of teh debate, to speak
on the question, and I understood, in fact I was informed by many hon. gentlement,
that other hon.
members also desired to speak on it as well. My
principal object in moving this motion, however, is
to direct attention to the practice which prevails in
this House, without in the slightest degree intending to cast any imputation on you,
Mr. Speaker, as
to the manner in which the question was put on
this occasion, and indeed on other occasions. One
side of the House cried "carried" and the other
side "lost," and you, Mr. Speaker, announced from
your place, without putting the question, and calling
for the yeas and nays, that the nays had it. That,
of course, properly speaking, put an end to all opportunity for debate. That being
done, in order
that the yeas and nays might be recorded, I called
for the yeas and nays. I think the proper practice, and it is the English practice,
that the
question being put by you, Mr. Speaker, from the
Chair, you should call for the yeas and then call
for the nays, and then declare whether the years or
the nays had it, and it is on appeal from that decision
that the yeas and nays are called for. The House
would then have the fullest opportunity of knowing
when the question was being put, and not, as last
night, be taken by surprise.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. For one, I am not able
to concur in the adoption of this motion, to-day. I
think the House fully understood, when the question was put last night, tha the principle
of the
Bill was being voted on, and in relation to a public
measure, as this is, it is a very unusual course to
adopt such a motion. As regards what took place
last night, I feel bound to say that, to my mind,
the Chair showed unusual deliberation in putting
the question. It struck me when the question
was called for, and when both sides of the House
called either "carried" or "lost," that you, Mr.
Speaker, must have been under the imrpession that
a discussion would take place, otherwise you would
not have deliberated so long as you did in announcing what you thought was the result
of the division.
I, therefore, feel bound to say that I think the
Chair cannot rest under any charge of undue expedition.
Mr. DENISON. I intended to have said a few
words last night, but, as many hon. members will
recollect, there is one hour allowed for private
Bills, and as the question was called not more than
15 or 20 minutes after eight o'clock, I and many
other hon. members were taken by surprise.
Mr. McMULLEN. Since the hon. member for
North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) placed the Bill on
the Order Paper it has been called in this House
not less than three or four time. It was called
when he was present, it was allowed to stand, I
presume at his request, from time to time, and
eventualy, at the eleventh hour last night, the
Bill was called. We are now reachign the last
stages of the session. It ws a question that will
cause considerable discussion, and for my part I
am not disposed to vote to reinstate it this session.
Mr. McCARTHY. My particular object, as I
stated, was to have an understanding, and I think
it is well we should have it as to how questions are
to be put from the Chair. As it seems to be against
the general feeling of the House, I do not desire to
press this motion. I quite realize now, that it
would be the occasion of very great inconvenience
to have a discussion upon this question this session,
but I thought it only due to my friends who desire
to speak on eitherside, and also to myself, to draw
attention to the fact that we were taken by surprise. I do not desire at all to impute
any want
of courtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, or to say that you
did not give us time. There was plenty of opportunity, that is quite certain, for
any gentleman
here who desired to speak. At the same time I
think I am quite within the mark when I say, as
I do say, that I for one was taken by surprise
when you declared that the "nays" had it, and I
think other gentlemen were in the same position.
Sir JOHN THOMPSON. Just allow me to
mention one circumstance which took place when
the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy
was not in the House ; as completely meeting, I
think, the hon. gentleman's impression that the
advocates of the Bill were taken by surprise. The
Bill was called at a quarter to six, before recess,
and the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. O'Brien)
rose to discuss it ; but at his request we all agreed
to call it six o'clock, in order that any gentleman
wishing to speak in favour of the Bill might get a
full hearing, and might know that the Bill was
to come up at eight o'clock.
Mr. LAURIER. I woudl remind teh hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) that on this
occasion it was exactly as it was two years ago,
when he introduced his Bill with regard to the
French language. At that time, he expounded his
Bill on the first reading, and on the second reading he moved it without speech, exactly
as he did
yesterday. Mr. Speaker gave ample opportunity
last night to any one who desired to speak on the
Bill.
Mr. LAURIER. I think two or three minutes
elapsed at least before the Speaker said : "Call in
the members."
Mr. BECHARD. Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy)
was wrong in saying that he was taken by surprise.
I was in my seat when the Bill ws called, and
when the motion for the second reading was put
everybody was looking for the hon. member to
rise and make a speech, but he was one of the first
to call "yeas" and "nays." It was after that,
that hon. gentlement said "call in the members," and
you, Mr. Speaker, gave the order to call in the
members after a few minutes had elapsed.
Mr. MILLS (Bothwell). I understand the rule
to be that where a Bill is voted down, and not
postponed to any future date, that it can be put
on the Order Paper again by the hon. gentleman
who has charge of it if he sees proper and it is
not a question of order at all. If the hon. gentleman wishes to put his Bill on the
Order Paper, I
suppose there is nothing in the rule to prevent
him. There is no doubt whatever, it seems to me,
that there was ample opportunity given for hon.
gentlemen who wished to speak. Mr. Speaker
2485 [MAY 12, 1892.] 2486
took the chair at the ordinary hour for meeting.
and I know that I came into the House somewhat
after the usual hour and I was here in time to vote
upon the subject. The calling of the "yeas " and
" nays " does not prevent any member from speaking. It is only after the members are
called in that
hon. gentlemen are precluded from entering upon
a discussion.
Mr. ARMSTRONG. I do not share the opinion
of my hon. friend from North Wellington (Mr.
McMullen), and I think that in a matter of the
importance of this Bill, time might be given for a
fair consideration of it. I for one, Mr. Speaker,
was taken by surprise last night. I could not
accept the Bill in its shape as introduced by the
hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy),
but I had intended to move an amendment to it
and to substitute something else in the place of it.
I had just begun to write the amendment, thinking that the hon. gentleman would give
a reason
for the faith that was in him, a reason why he
moved the second reading of the Bill, and that I
would have had time to write the resolution
amending it. However, the debate was shut off,
after ample opportunity was given to the hon.
gentleman to speak. no doubt, and it simply remained to me to vote for or against
the Bill. I hope
the House will allow the Bill to be reintroduced.
Mr. McGREGOR. I was present when the
motion for the second reading was called last
evening, and I saw the hon. member for North
Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) sitting in his place, and I
heard the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Mc
Carthy) saying "yeas" and "nays," after you,
Mr. Speaker, had given ample time for discussion.
We expected that the hon. member would speak
on the motion, but he did not, and I feel satisfied
that ample time was given for discussion. We
have had enough fooling with this question already,
and if the hon. gentleman is in earnest let him be
in earnest and come forward with his Bill properly.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Speaker, I trust you
will allow me the indulgence of the House to say
this : The reason I did not speak in moving the
second reading of the Bill was just as the hon. the
leader of the Opposition has said. I made my
statement when I introduced the Bill. That is the
proper time, when introducing a Bill in the hands
of a private member, to explain it, and having only
one opportunity of speaking I exercised my right
to reserve what I had to say until I heard the statement against the measure. That
is the course I
took two years ago, and that is the course I intended to take on this occasion.
Mr. SPEAKER. I am very sorry indeed that that
hon. member should have thought that I allowed
him to be taken by surprise when the motion was
put to the House last night. I do not understand
that the rule requires that a motion should be put
a second time before calling the " yeas " and the
" nays." The motion was put from the Chair for
the second reading of the Bill, and I waited a considerable time, as every member
will bear testimony, to ascertain whether anybody desired to
speak, but the cries of "lost" and "carried"
came from both sides of the House. In my opinion
the " nays " had it, and I so expressed it, but even
then I would have been willing to have allowed the
discussion to go on if any member had chosen to
rise after I had so expressed my opinion. After
the members are called in, however, as every hon.
member knows, no discussion can be permitted. In
future, if the House thinks it desirable that the
question should be put twice from the Chair, I have
no objection.
Mr. SPEAKER. I may say in regard to this
present motion, that it is in order. If the hon.
gentleman desires to withdraw it, it may be withdrawn if the House consents to it.
Mr. SPEAKER. Is it the pleasure of the House
that the hon. gentleman shall have permission to
withdraw ?
Mr. WALLACE. I do not think the motion
should be withdrawn, because, from whatever cause
it is, a number of hon. gentlemen in this House who
have been anxious to speak on this question were
prevented from so doing. I think the blame rests
with the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Mc
Carthy) in the first place, in not allowing it to be
known when such an important measure as this is
coming up, that he intends to bring it before the
attention of the House at a particular time, and
that he does not intend to speak upon it. I know,
for my own part, that I came into the House just
as Mr. Speaker was saying " call in the members."
If I had knownthe Bill would have come up so
early I would have been here to offer a few remarks
on it, as I intended to do ; but, I was prevented from
having the opportunity, I think, therefore, permission should be given to reintroduce
the Bill.
Mr. DAVIES (P.E.I.) I submit that this is not
a question which should be decided specially with
reference to the present metion of the hon. member
for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy), because it
involves a parliamentary precedent and a parliamentary right. If, when the motion
was made
that the Bill be now read a second time, an amendment had been moved that the Bill
should not be
read then, but should be read this day three
months or six months ; then the question would
have been disposed of entirely. The only question
before the House last night was . " that the Bill
should be now read a second time," and that was
the only question disposed of entirely. It is open to the
hon. gentleman, and it is his right, to put his Bill
on the Order Paper without any motion in this
House, because the only question which the House
has passed on is, " Shall the Bill be now read a
second time ?" As no amendment was then moved
that the Bill should not be read, it is still before
Parliament, and still within the hon. gentleman's
power to put it on the Paper. I deprecate the
introduction of a new rule in this matter, at
variance with const it at ional practice and precedents.
Mr. SPEAKER. The rule as laid down by Dr.
Bourinot in the last edition of his book is as
follows :—
" If a resolution adverse to 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, but it may
be revived at any subsequent time, as the House has only
decided that it should not then be read a second time,
and the order previously made for the second reading remains good. When a Bill disappeals
in this way from
2487
[COMMONS]
the Order Paper, it is competent for a member to move at
any time:
" ' That it be read a- second time on — next.'
" On this motion being agreed to, the Bill takes its
place on the orders. The same practice obtains with
'respect to the Bill at any previous or succeeding stage."
My opinion is that a motion must he made to reinstate a Bill on the Order Paper, before
it can
reappear there.Â
MR. SCRIVER. I think that the comparative smallness of the vote of last night shows
one of two things, either that a number of members like myself, supposing that the
discussion on the Bill would continue to a comparatively late hour, did not hurry
themselves to be present, and were therefore absent, or that a number were conveniently
absent. I beg to say that I was in the former category: and without giving any intimation
of what I might or might not have done, I may say it was my intention to vote on the
question and to preface my vote with some remarks explanatory of my reasons for doing
what I proposed to do. Having been, unfortunately, absent when the vote was taken,
through a reason which I do not care now to state, I was taken by surprise.
Mr. SCRIVER. And I would be glad of an opportunity to vote upon the question. Therefore I should
be very much pleased, indeed, to see the motion of my hon. friend from North Simcoe
prevail and the Order restored to the Order Paper.
Mr. IVES. It may be, Mr. Speaker, as you have
said, that the Billy may be restored to the Order Paper: but what purpose would be
served by restoring it? I fancy that the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House
showed the object which hon. gentleman would gain if the motion were restored to the
Order Paper, namely, to rise in their places and in a very few words explain to their
constituents why they did not vote. I fancy it would answer all purposes if we gave
a few moments to these hon. gentlemen to explain to their constituents why they were
not here, or why they were here and voted but did not speak. But it certainly would
not serve any good purpose to take up the time of the House during one or two or,
perhaps, three sittings to repeat speeches which we have already heard on two or three
occasions; and certainly, at this late stage of the session, the interests of the
large majority of the House, who are against the second reading of the Bill, ought
to be considered rather than the interests of the score and a half who are in favour
of it, and who are not satisfied because they have not had an opportunity of explaining
to their constituents what they think of this matter when their constituents already
know what their views are.
Mr . SPEAKER. Shall the hon. gentleman have
leave to withdraw the motion? Â
Mr. SPEAKER. If there is a single dissenting voice the motion cannot be withdrawn.
Mr. OUIMET. If the motion is withdrawn the question will not be settled, but the motion will
be presented again, and we will have another discussion. So, for my part, I object
to the motion being withdrawn.
Motion negatived on a divisions.
This individual participated in:
