Sir HENRY DRAYTON moved:

That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills the additional fee levied and paid under Rule 89, subsections 3 (c) and 8, on Bill No. 216 for the relief of Edna Fox, be refunded.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Acting Minister of Finance):

Once more before the end of the session I shall have to direct the attention of the House to this continual practice of the remission of fees. We meet here, give these applicants legislation and legal advice, take up the t:me of the House, and end up by remitting the fees. 1 think some day we will have to determine how soon it is going to stop.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):

The sooner divorce proceedings are taken away from this House the better for Canada. It is a scandal and a reflection on the House that the time of the parliament of Canada should be taken up with divorce cases, at a great expense to the country, when that business Should be transferred to another place and be handled in a better way than before parliament.

Right Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways): Nobody's time ought to be taken up with it.

Motion agreed to on division.

Refunding of Additional Charges

Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto) moved:

That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills the additional fees levied and paid under Rule 89, subsections 3 (c) -and 8, on Bills Nos. 212, and 228 be refunded.

Mr. ROBB:

The same objection. I direct your attention to the fact that the recommendations of the committee involve over a thousand dollars.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

If the government objects, why does it not give effect to its policy?

Mr. ROBB:

My hon. friend is quite right. I believe he would support me in this matter, but we must determine on some occasion at the beginning of the session and make it even for everybody.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

Why not start when we make the objection?

Mr. SPEAKER:

Perhaps when the rules are revised this will not happen.

Mr. JEAN J. DENIS (Joliette): I will oppose the motion unless reason is given why the money should be refunded. This has been done more than once and I have never opposed it, but when an hon. member rises and asks that fees in certain cases be remitted, without any reason whatever, I think I should oppose it.

Mr. SPEAKER:

I might remind the hon. gentleman that the motion states that it is on the recommendation of the committee.

Mr. W. G. RAYMOND (Brantford):

The matter came before the committee with reference to these bills and the committee recommended that fees should be refunded. It has been the custom and I think has been carried out without exception, to refund these fees. Without explaining the matter in detail, I think it is pretty generally understood that it is not owing to any fault of the parties that this procedure has been rendered necessary, but rather ' owing to the peculiar method of procedure that sometimes causes these fines to be exacted, that they have to put up money in order to get their case before parliament before prorogation. Certain dates are fixed for the presentation of such bills, and the expiry of the time rendered this motion necessary. I think petitions have to be presented by the 19th of March. I understand there has never been any exception made to the rule in regard to remitting fees, and therefore the committee made the recommendation to the House.

Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary):

These two reasons offered by the hon. member are very good reasons why we should not allow this practice to continue. He saj's the committee has recommended it and also states that it has been customary in the past. Both are very poor reasons. If they are reasons at all they are reasons for putting a stop to this money being expended.

Motion agreed to on division.

Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston) moved:

That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the eleventh report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the additional charge levied and paid under rule 89 subsections 3 (c) and 8, on Bill No. 231 for the relief of Grace Wilhelniina Harrison, be refunded.

He said: I know the facts in connection with this case. These are overcharges for which she was not responsible and she wishes them to be refunded. She is a woman without any money whatever.

Mr. ROBB:

Overcharges?

Mr. ROSS (Kingston):

Yes, extra charges. The ordinary fees have been paid.

Motion agreed to on division.

Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds) moved:

That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the twelfth report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the additional charges levied and paid under rule 89 subsections 3 (c) and 8, on Bill No. 235, for the relief of James Deverell, and Bill No. 226 for the relief of Mary Ann Tattersall, be both refunded.