Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West) moved:

That in accordance with the recommendations contained in the first report of the select standing committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills, the time for receiving petitions for private bills be renewed until Wednesday April 14 next, and that that portion of rule 89 which limits the time for filing private bills be suspended for the present session.

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

Mr. Speaker, when this motion was before the House yesterday I asked that it might stand until I had had time to ascertain exactly what it involved. The Internal Economy Commission has reported on the question, and I purpose to place its report on Hansard so that the House with this report before it may share responsibility with the Private Bills committee if this motion is agreed to. This is the commission's report:

The Commission of Internal Economy of the House of Commons held a meeting this morning and took up the question of remitting fines to such applicants for private bills as did not present their petitions within the delays fixed by the niles.

The Private Bills committee report, read in the House yesterday, recommended that the time for receiving petitions which expired on February 18 last 14011-119i [DOT]

be extended until Wednesday, April 14, next, and that rule 89 be suspended in relation thereto. A motion for concurrence in this report is to be made this afternoon. The Clerk of the House has pointed out that under this rule a fine of $200 is levied on all bills introduced after the twelfth week of the session. There are at the present time a large number of divorce bills and several incorporation bills for which the delays have expired. As we have 175 divorce bills so far, most of which have come too late, and several companies' solicitors have informed us that they intend to apply for legislation, I may safely say, after consultation with the officers of the House, that the aggregate amount of fees and fines thus remitted would be approximately $20,000.

In the case of companies, the promoters avoid paying a large fee by introducing their bills in the Senate, where they are only called upon to pay $300 whether they are late or not. When the bill comes before the Commons a net fine of $200 is charged because a petition has not been duly filed. In this way the country makes $500 on that particular bill.

The Commission of Internal Economy went into the matter very thoroughly, and heard Mr. Walter Todd, GiB0i oi tue rrivaie .dims oianch, who represented that such a report as the one presented yesterday by the chairman of the committee had not been- made to the House for the past fifteen years. It has been the custom to consider each case on its own merits.

Moreover, it is no fault of parliament if the applicants for private legislation are late in presenting their petitions. Sufficient notice of the opening of the session was given to the general public; shortly after the general election it was officially announced that parliament would be called for December 10-the proclamation calling the session for January 7 was published in the Canada Gazette on December 1.

There does not seem to be any valuable reason why petitioners should not have 'been ready in time. It is certainly not the fault of the House of Commons if they are late, and the commissioners were of the opinion that parliament should not be penaflized under the circumstances.

I direct what follows to the particular attention of my hon. friend (Mr. Parent):

The principle that whoever is responsible for the delays should pay the costs was accepted as the best solution in the matter.

Heretofore parliament has considered each case on its merits, and I submit to my hon. friend that he might very well point out to the Private Bills committee the practice which is usually followed in such cases. It seems to me that the Private Bills committee, fairly representative of both sides of the House, has not carefully considered how this wholesale proposal will affect the public revenues.

Mr. PARENT:

Mr. Speaker, I fail to see

that the Commission of Internal Economy has anything to do with the purpose of this motion. If the commission has any representations to make it should appear before the Private Bills committee so that the committee may give them proper consideration. In view of the committee having unanimously made a certain recommendation, I resent the action of the commission in objecting to its adoption. However, if the House considers that the Private Bills committee should take

Questions

notice of these representations I suppose I may have to ask that the motion be referred back to the committee, but contend that the motion should carry.

Mr. W. A. BOYS (North Simcoe):

Mr. Speaker, although I am a member of the Private Bills committee I was not present at the meeting which made the recommendation incorporated in the motion. But it seems to me that we are here to do the people's business, and for my part I cannot see why applications for bills should not be received at a later date so long as the bills can be put through this House while we are in session. We should accommodate the people as far as possible. Speaking for myself, I heartily support the report of the committee.

Mr. ROBB:

After that statement by the

chief whip of the opposition, I will not further object to the resolution. I wish to put upon the House responsibility for its adoption.

Mr. BOYS:

I spoke absolutely for myself, not as the chief whip of the official opposition at all.

Mr. MEIGHEN:

May I ask who is speaking for the other side?

Mr. PARENT:

My motion is before the

House, Mr. Speaker.

1. Is Mr. D. E. Brown a member of the staff of the Canadian National Railways? If so, is his salary as reported, namely $20,000 per year?

2. Is Mr. George Gaston a member of the staff of the Canadian National Railways? If so, is his salary as reported, namely $36,000 per year?

3. If members of the staff, what are the duties of each of the above named, and do they receive their expenses in addition to salary?

4. What amount of expenses, if any, has been paid to each to date?

Hon. Mr. DUNNING:

Mr. D. E. Brown is a member of the staff of the Canadian National Railways and Mr. George Gaston has been engaged for some time on special work. The railway management assert that it is not in the public interest to give the information requested as to salaries and expenses.

1. What amount of bacon has been purchased by the Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia, during (a) the year 1925; (b) 1926, up to March 15?

2. From what firms, if any, has bacon been purchased?

3. What brands of bacon have been purchased?

4. Has any bacon been sold by officials of Camp Hill hospital, Halifax, Nova Scotia, during the period above mentioned, and if so, to whom sold and at what price?

1. (a) 1,947 pounds,

(b) to February 28th, 1926-354 pounds.

2. Since the 1st of January, 1925, all purchases have been made from the Maritime Market Limited, which, having successively submitted the lowest tender in open competition, has been given the contract from time to time since that date.

3. Brands not stated; purchase specifications are as follows,-best quality, smoked, thin rind, white fat, lean, firm and well cured, 8 to 10 pounds to piece, medium thickness.

4. No.