May 2, 1939

CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

Not in the principle of granting certain sums; but it is being revised to conform with the demands made upon the government while the bill has been before the house. In connection with the bill of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), in all probability there will be definite changes in order to enable the government to reflect more accurately the desires of the country. My opinion is that the two bills ought to be withdrawn and reintroduced.

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Subtopic:   PERCENTAGE DEDUCTION FROM GRAINS MARKETED IN SPRING WHEAT AREA-MOTION FOR REPRINTING OF BILL
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

I understand that the motion with regard to the bill of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) was agreed to. I have in my hand the amendments which are to be proposed to the bill standing in my name. This bill is not being amended in principle at all, but we would have to go through the bill and change the references to amounts in the different sections. It is nothing more than that. In order to make it easier to discuss it when it comes down, the suggestion is that this information should be placed in the hands of hon. members of the house immediately instead of awaiting the committee stage and then changing the reference in each of the sections. We are simply asking for the privilege of putting all information in the hands of hon. members rather than waiting until we are in committee. The reprinted bill should be ready to-night or first thing in the morning.

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Subtopic:   PERCENTAGE DEDUCTION FROM GRAINS MARKETED IN SPRING WHEAT AREA-MOTION FOR REPRINTING OF BILL
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):

I had occasion to look into the practice of the house in connection with another bill and I found that the house may grant leave for the reprinting of a bill, after its introduction and before second reading, provided that the bill does not increase appropriations for expenditures by the treasury. If expenditures as authorized by the bill are increased, a further recommendation by the governor general has to be given. Do I make myself clear?

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Subtopic:   PERCENTAGE DEDUCTION FROM GRAINS MARKETED IN SPRING WHEAT AREA-MOTION FOR REPRINTING OF BILL
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

The amendments to the particular bill of which we are now speaking decrease rather than increase expenditures.

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Subtopic:   PERCENTAGE DEDUCTION FROM GRAINS MARKETED IN SPRING WHEAT AREA-MOTION FOR REPRINTING OF BILL
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. STEVENS:

What about the other one?

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Subtopic:   PERCENTAGE DEDUCTION FROM GRAINS MARKETED IN SPRING WHEAT AREA-MOTION FOR REPRINTING OF BILL
Permalink
LIB

James Garfield Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture)

Liberal

Mr. GARDINER:

The previous one was not mine.

Topic:   PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE
Subtopic:   PERCENTAGE DEDUCTION FROM GRAINS MARKETED IN SPRING WHEAT AREA-MOTION FOR REPRINTING OF BILL
Permalink

Motion agreed to. Central Finance Corporation


CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION

PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE

LIB

William Ross Macdonald

Liberal

Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Brantford City):

I desire to make a motion in respect to Bill No. 20, respecting Central Finance Corporation. The standing orders .provide that where a company increases its capital, certain fees must be paid. Last year this company applied for an increase in capital, but for reasons which I shall not review at this time the application could not be proceeded with. My suggestion now is that the question of payment this year be referred to the committee on standing orders. I therefore move:

Whereas the proposed increase in capital stock referred to in section 2 of Bill No. 20, "an act respecting Central Finance Corporation and to change its name to Household Finance Corporation of Canada," calls for a levy, under standing order 93 (3), of $1,400;

And whereas in 1937 the sum of $1,400, being a levy for a proposed increase of capital stock, in connection with a similar bill which did not pass the house, was paid,

That the matter be referred to the standing committee on standing orders with instructions that they have power to make recommendations in respect of such levy.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I think consideration should

be given to what we are doing in connection with a matter of this kind. A corporation comes to this parliament and pays its fees in accordance with the rule. That does not carry with it the presumption that the legislation for which they are asking will necessarily pass this house. This house has devoted a great deal of time and attention in the last three years to the matter of small loans, and personally I think we are embarking upon a very doubtful precedent when we say to any corporation that if they pay fees to this house and a bill which they are proposing does not become law, they will be entitled either to a remission of the fees or to the application of those fees to some future bill of a similar character. It is on the matter of principle that I am objecting.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
CON

Henry Herbert Stevens

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Kootenay East):

Another point in connection with the motion before the house is the fact that the motion refers the matter to the committee on standing orders "with instructions." The usual practice in matters of this kind is that after a bill has gone through the regular course, on certain occasions and for certain special reasons a motion has been entertained authorizing a rebate of fees which may have been

charged in excess of what parliament might consider to be fair. In my opinion this motion establishes a dangerous precedent, in that it asks that the committee on standing orders be instructed to do a certain thing or to give certain consideration to the matter. The same object could be attained by waiting until this bill has gone through its usual course and is before the committee on banking and commerce. Then a recommendation could be brought to the house and a motion made authorizing a rebate, if after due consideration it was felt that such rebate was justified. I am not now taking objection to a rebate, but I do say that this should be carefully considered before a precedent is established.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
CON

John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

This is not establishing a precedent. Probably the Minister of Finance and other hon. members of the house are under the impression that this company is asking for a rebate of all fees. I have not the exact amount before me, but the usual fees in connection with printing the bill, preparing the .petition and so forth, amounting to between $500 and $600, were paid last year. Under the rules, when a company increases its capitalization there is a certain fee payable over and above the usual fees for printing and so forth. It is not suggested that the fee for printing and so forth should be rebated. With regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) probably the wording of the motion is not all that it might be. It does not instruct the committee on standing orders to make recommendations, but simply asks that they be empowered to make recommendations. There are precedents for waiving payment of the fees of a company which has had a bill before the house to increase its capital when through no fault of the company the bill was not .proceeeded with. But that is not the question I propose to discuss to-day. All that the motion suggests is that it be left to the committee on standing orders to make whatever recommendations they see fit to make in the matter.

I might say further that this company applied for power to increase its capital last year but the bill did not come before the house, for reasons which it is not necessary for me now to review. The banking and commerce committee had been considering the question of bringing in a general bill. The company's application was not considered last year because of the lateness of the session. I am quite willing to change the motion to read that the committee on standing orders

Central Finance Corporation

"consider" whether it is proper to make recommendations with regard to the payment of fees.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
LIB

Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):

Is my hon. friend amending it to read "for the purpose of considering" instead of "with instructions to"?

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
CON

John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to amend the motion accordingly.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
LIB

Charles Avery Dunning (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. DUNNING:

I must point out that moneys once deposited in the consolidated revenue fund cannot be withdrawn by a motion such as this. There is only one way to get money out of the consolidated revenue fund, and that is by act of parliament duly passed and preceded by a message from his excellency. If the purpose is to remit the fees paid this year on account of something which happened in a previous year, that is a different question, but moneys could not be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund by means of a motion such as this, and therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the motion is out of order.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Dropped.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
CON

John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

I suggest-[DOT]

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Order.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
LIB

Walter Edward Foster (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. SPEAKER:

Order.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink
CON

John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

I rise to a point of order.

Topic:   CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION
Subtopic:   PROPOSED REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE ON STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING LEVY FOR CAPITAL STOCK INCREASE
Permalink

May 2, 1939