Obrázky stránek

acquired. It is of interest to note that no company may invest in its own shares or in the shares of any other life insurance company. Of course some of the companies have on hand securities which can no longer be legally held, but a reasonable length of time is allowed for their disposal.

There are many other features of the new law, as it affects life insurance, which it would be necessary to consider if one were attempting to analyze it in detail. This is impossible, however, within the scope of a single paper. Yet enough has been said, perhaps, to impress the leading features of the statute, and to demonstrate the method of Federal supervision of insurance, in general, and of life insurance, in particular, in progressive Canada. It will be interesting to observe the workings of the new law, especially those parts which have introduced entirely new features into the business. On the whole the Act of 1910 is to be regarded as reasonable and sane. This is due, in part at least, to the careful consideration that was given to the representations of the insurance companies, of the agents and policyholders, and of the insuring public when the bill was before parliament. It should be a matter of considerable pride to Canadians that there was little or no lobbying in connection with the bill, nor was it made the football of politicians; both parties seemed to be willing to pull together in order to reach the desired goal of framing the best law possible.12 In insurance circles, the new statute seems to be looked upon with considerable favor. The late Honorable George F. Seward, president of the Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, in reporting as chairman of the executive committee of the Board of Casualty and Surety Underwriters, stated that “the insurance interests seem to be a unit in declaring the law to be reasonably satisfactory.” The president of one of the leading Canadian life insurance companies regards some features as far more paternal than is necessary, yet, in saying that "it may be safely assumed that it will remain for many years in its present form without amendment,” he surely bears testimony to its general excellence. The editors of the leading Canadian insurance and

12 See The Chronicle, Banking, Insurance and Finance, May 11th, 1910.

financial journal (The Chronicle, Montreal), which is a wellrecognized authority in matters of insurance, have pronounced the act to be "a reasonable and acceptable piece of legislation.” Such words of commendation and others that could be given, coming from men of high standing in the insurance world, are sufficient to show that the insurance interests are reasonably satisfied with the new law which, from the standpoint also of the policyholders and the public in general, is a marked improvement over its predecessor.



University of Wisconsin

The Parliament Act of 1911 received the royal assent on August 181. By the terms of its important preamble further legislation is promised, which will define both the composition and powers of a new second chamber" constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis;" although "such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation,” the positive provisions of the measure restrict the "existing powers of the House of Lords." This law, therefore, is intentionally temporary, the first probably of several enactments embodying further constitutional changes.

In the mean time and briefly what does this law now provide? (1) A public bill passed by the House of Commons and certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons to be a "money bill" within the terms of the act shall, "unless the Commons direct to the contrary," "become an Act of Parliament on the Royal assent being signified, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill," within one month after it has been “sent up to that House.' (2) Any other public bills

19 H. L. Deb. 58. c. 1155

2 Section 1, subsections 1 and 2. The exact definition of a "money bill" in subsection 2 reads as follows: "A Money Bill means a Public Bill which in the opinion of the Speaker of the House of Commons contains only provisions dealing with all or any of the following subjects, namely, the imposition, repeal, remission, alteration or regulation of taxation; the imposition for the payment of debt or other financial purposes of charges on the Consolidated Fund, or on money provided by Parliament, or the variation or repeal of any such charges; supply; the appropriation, receipt, custody, issue or audit of accounts of public money; the raising or guarantee of any loan or the repayment thereof; or subordinate matters incidental to those subjects or any of them. In this subsection the expressions 'taxation,' 'public money,' and 'loan' respectively do not include any taxation, money, or loan raised by local authorities or bodies for local purposes."

[ocr errors]

(except one to confirm a provisional orders or one "to extend the maximum duration of Parliament beyond five years”) which "'is passed by the House of Commons in three successive sessions (whether of the same Parliament or not)" and which, "having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before the end of the session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of those sessions” shall, "unless the House of Commons direct to the contrary,” become an Act of Parliament on the Royal assent being signified thereto, notwithstanding tnat the House of Lords have not consented to the Bill.”'4 (3) At least “two years must have elapsed between the date of the second reading” of such a bill (that is its first real introduction) "in the first of those sessions” in the House of Commons and the date of the final passage of the bill "in the third of those sessions” in the House of Commons; all of these facts being further certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons. (4) A bill is "rejected'' by the House of Lords if it is not passed or if amendments are made to which the House of Commons does not agree or which the House of Commons does not "suggest” to the House of Lords on the second or third passage of the bill through the House of Commons; if these "suggestions” by the lower house are made part of the bill by the House of Lords the bill shall still be regarded as the "same bill” with amendments agreed to by the House of Commons; but a bill, in order to secure such special terms as the Parliament Act provides for its enactment without the consent of the House of Lords, must be the “same bill” which was passed by the House of Commons in preceding sessions; and, on the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons, such an “identical" bill may be regarded as the "same bill” if it "contains only such alterations as are necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date” when it was passed in a former session of the House of Commons. 6

• Such a bill is for the purpose of confirming by statute the order of a government department acting under a statutory delegation of legislative powers.

• Section 2, subsection 1; and section 5.
Section 2, subsections 1 and 2.
. Section 2, subsections 3 and 4.

(5) “Any certificate of the Speaker of the House of Commons given under this Act shall be conclusive for all purposes, and shall not be questioned in any court of law.”? (6) A formula of enacting words is given for bills which under the machinery of this act may be presented for the royal assent notwithstanding that the House of Lords have "rejected” them.: (7) “Nothing in this Act shall diminish or qualify the existing rights and privileges of the House of Commons."9 (8) No Parliament shall last longer than five years.10 Further examination of these and other explanatory provisions of the act will follow later. Our first concern is with regard to its immediate ancestry.

On June 24, 1907, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, after eighteen months of Liberal government, introduced in the House of Commons a resolution: "That, in order to give effect to the will of the people as expressed by elected representatives, it is necessary that the power of the other House to alter or reject bills passed by this House should be so restricted by law as to secure that within the limits of a single Parliament the final decision of the Commons shall prevail.”11 This passed after a short and rather perfunctory debate, the government declining then or at other times to give any pledge as to the date at which a bill might be introduced. Again, as in the period directly after the general election of January, 1906, opposition in the House of Lords prevented the passage into law of important measures supported by the government, which was still in command of a large majority in the House of Commons. Finally in November, 1909, came the refusal of the Lords to pass the Budget. Then followed the general election of January, 1910, which raised in acute fashion the question of the power of the House of Lords over money bills and in general

Section 3. & Section 4. • Section 6. 16 Section 7.

11 176 Hansard, 4s. c. 909. In the course of the ensuing debate a scheme was outlined for conferences between the two houses in case of disagreement.

« PředchozíPokračovat »