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

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the house I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver):

Whereas the Central Finance Corporation applied for change of its name and increase of capitalization at the last session of parliament, and paid a fee of $1,400, which is chargeable on the increase in capital, and also paid in addition thereto all other parliamentary fees;

And whereas on account of the shortness of the session of parliament, 1937, the bill was not presented to the House of Commons for third reading;

And whereas the said corporation is applying at the present session of parliament for the same increase in capital;

And whereas the said corporation is required this year to pay again all parliamentary fees in connection with its present application, and should be relieved only of payment of fees chargeable on increase of capital:

Therefore be it resolved that the Central l1 inance Corporation be not required to pay the fees chargeable on increase of capital, on its application now before parliament for increase of capital, notwithstanding standing order 93, paragraphs (3) and (4) of the standing orders of the House of Commons.

Mr. BENNETT:

Should this not have gone to the committee?

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

Mr. Speaker, this resolution came up before the banking and commerce committee and a discussion of the subject took place a day or two ago. My understanding was that the whole matter should stand until the committee had completed its work and was prepared to make a report which would affect the whole subject. I must respectfully protest against the resolution passing to-day. In any case there should be notice and, in the second place, I suggest it should not be considered until the committee has completed its work or completed consideration of the matter affecting this resolution.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): I was not present before the banking and commerce committee when the matter was discussed, but I am advised there was a general consensus of view that while the company should be called upon to pay its full parliamentary fees this session for the bill, it should not again be charged the SI,400 which it paid last year with respect to the application of last year for an increase in capital, which it did not secure.

Central Finance Corporation

I have no objection in principle to what is here proposed, but I am advised by the clerk of the house that this motion should be referred for consideration to the committee on standing orders, and that it is not appropriate that it be dealt with in the manner now proposed. I think I would be in order in moving that the matter be referred to the committee on standing orders.

Mr. STEVENS:

That does not alter the

position which I have taken. A definite understanding was arrived at in the banking and commerce committee that this matter would not be proceeded with until there was further discussion of it; because I desired to discuss it in that committee before it was brought to the house at all. I suggest to the minister that the motion be allowed to stand until the banking and commerce committee have disposed of the matter and we have been given an opportunity to discuss it there. I have no doubt it will carry, but it should be allowed to stand in the meantime.

Mr. DUNNING:

On the point of order,

standing order 101 reads:

No motion for the suspension of the standing orders-

Just what this resolution is.

-or any rule respecting a petition for a private bill will be entertained, unless the same has been reported upon by the committee on standing orders, and the committee in its report shall state the grounds for recommending such suspension.

The only question in my mind with respect to following the course suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) is this: Can this corporation get its new application before parliament without again paying 81,400? Can it proceed at all? I think that is the question that must be decided, and the standing orders committee would be the appropriate body to go into that phase of the matter.

Mr. STEVENS:

I have no objection to that at all, but at the same time there has been no notice of motion, I suggest that it should stand until the proper forty-eight hours have elapsed.

Mr. DUNNING:

I have no objection to

its standing as a notice of motion, but my amendment for reference to the committee on standing orders should also stand as an amendment.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):

I suggest to the hon. member that he add to the motion as read by the Speaker these words, "such payment having

been made in 1937." Then you would have it upon the records of the house. The preamble is not part of the motion as read.

Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):

I shall

be glad to adopt that suggestion. When this matter came up in the committee it was suggested that the amount paid be repaid to the company. The motion which I have made does not suggest repayment; it merely suggests that the company be not required to pay again what they have paid already.

Motion as amended stands.

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

Before the orders of the day are called I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), but as he is not in his seat it might be even more appropriately directed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). The question I wish to ask is based upon questions thait were asked previously and in a sense answered. On May 6 I placed the following questions on the order paper:

1. Has the Minister of Transport recently concluded a special agreement with the Louis Dreyfus and Company or any of its allied or subdiary companies for the handling of grain through the government elevator at Quebec?

2. If so, what are the rates charged under this special agreement? Are the rates lower than those approved by the board of grain commissioners?

3. What are the storage rates to be charged, if any?

4. Do other elevators at Sorel and Three Rivers, privately or otherwise, participate in the said agreement ?

5. Were the terms of the said agreement submitted to and approved by the board of grain commissioners prior to its acceptance and completion?

Business of the House

6. Under the Canada Grain Act, what authority determines or approves of the schedule of rates or tariffs charged in elevators operating in Canada?

On May 11 those questions were passed as an order for return. On May 18 I received what purport to be answers, reading as follows:

1. No.

2, 3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.

6. The Board of Grain Commissioners for Canada, as to the fixing of maximum charges.

The question I wish to ask is this: Will the Minister of Transport lay on the table of the house a letter which was sent by a member of the national harbours board to Mr. Kaiser of the Dreyfus Company of New York in the month of April-I have not the exact date,-together with a memorandum attached thereto, setting forth certain reduced rates for handling grain from lake vessels to the elevator at Quebec and from elevator to ocean vessels and agreeing to free storage and confirming an understanding previously arrived at?

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):

I have no knowledge

myself as to whether or not any such correspondence exists. I shall in the first instance have to speak to the minister. He would have to say what it would be proper to table. I shall have pleasure in doing that.