April 3, 1902 (9th Parliament, 2nd Session)

LIB

Charles Smith Hyman

Liberal

Mr. C. S. HYMAN (London).

Sir. Speaker, as chairman of the committee which had the consideration of this Bill, I have, only to say that I think it was a very fair representation of the committee that was present when this Bill was taken up and that it was fully discussed. There were over sixty members of the committee present and the vote on the Bill was something like 41 to 17. Mr. Buchan who was promoting the Bill had every opportunity of addressing the committee. The committee extended to him the courtesy of allowing him to address it and he did so most fully. It is quite true that just before one o'clock there was some question as to Mr. Buchan's again addressing the committee. I did not refuse Mr. Buchan permission but the committee had the matter fully before it and by a vote it was decided not to hear Mr. Buchan further. There was still an other reason for the action of the committee. There was a member of the committee present who addressed the committee against the Bill and who, I understand, is the owner of 1,700 shares out of something like 2,500 shares in the undertaking. He spoke very strongly against the Bill, and I think in a case of that kind a gentleman holding such an interest in the company as that ought to have very good reasons for not desiring the Bill to be further considered. It does seem to me that there should be a fair rule laid down in regard to a matter of this kind. If an lion, member makes a motion of this kind and has nothing new to lay before the House, a Bill should not be sent back to a committee for reconsideration. The Bill has been most fully considered. I am not speaking against the Bill ; I am merely stating what occurred. I think it would be a fair rule for the House to carry out that unless there is something new to be laid before the House, a Bill should not be sent back to a committee simply on the request of a member. I trust the hon. members of the House will take into consideration the fact that the committee fully discussed the Bill before arriving at the decision at which it did arrive.

Topic:   THE MONTREAL BRIDGE COMPANY.
Full View