Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth) moved:
That the first report of standing committee on standing orders, presented on May 14, be now concurred in.
He said: Yesterday the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) raised some question in regard to this report. This was his first statement:
The committee has not given the house adequate reasons why these funds, which are paid legally under the rules of the house, should be refunded to the company.
The committee on standing orders dealt with this point, and we did. find sufficient reason for making the refund. Last year the committee on standing orders dealt with the bill on July 1, 1942. The bill received second reading on July 22, was considered in the committee on banking and commerce on July 28, and on the same day was reported back to the house without amendment. It was standing on the order paper for consideration by committee of the whole when adjournment took place in January, 1943.
Perhaps I should at this point read the reference in Votes and Proceedings of Friday, May 14:
Your committee has considered an order of the house dated April 2, 1943, viz:
That the said committee be instructed to consider the advisability of exempting the
petitioners for the introduction of Bill No. 54 (letter C of the Senate), "An act to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company", from the capital stock charge and other charges levied during the last session of parliament, required by the rules of the house, said charges having been paid last session on Bill No. 116 (letter A-4 of the Senate), "An act to incorporate Canadian Alliance Insurance Company" that had received second reading and that stood for consideration by the committee of the whole when prorogation took place in January, 1943".
Your committee has ascertained that $700 was paid last session to the House of Commons by the petitioners, viz., $400 as a charge on the proposed capital stock, and $300 as penalty charges consequent upon the late presentation of the petition in the House of Commons.
Through circumstances beyond their control, the petitioners did not succeed last session in obtaining the act they desired, with the result that they were obliged to renew their application at the present session.
In view of these facts, your committee recommends that the petitioner be exempt from payment of the $700 levied last session, and that that amount be apportioned as follows:
Four hundred dollars to be applied to cover the capital stock charge required on the bill introduced at the present session, viz. Bill No. 54 (letter C of the Senate).
Three hundred dollars to be refunded to Mr. Jean Genest, K.C., of Ottawa, parliamentary agent for the petitioners.
The hon. member also said:
The strange part of it is they suggest in this report that the penalty of $300 should be repaid not to the company but to a private individual.
Subtopic: MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE' IN FIRST REPORT