FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending 31st March, 1912, which on motion were referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Mr'. FOSTER. Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Prime Minister to what appears to be a more definite statement regarding a matter I brought up the other day. In the morning paper I read the following:
The 'Standard's' Berlin correspondent wires: An understanding has been arrived at between Canada and Germany that negotiations for a reciprocal commercial treaty shall take place after Canada's commercial relations with United States have been regulated by the treaty now in sight. When the tariff war between Canada and Germany was terminated last year both governments agreed it was desirable to bring about a reciprocal commercial pact in the near future. At that time the Canadian and German governments concurred in the view that negotiations for a German-Canadian commercial treaty could not ensue until reciprocity had been established between Canada and United States.
[Stage Direction]
Another portion of the dispatch says:
The truth is when the last tariff arrangement with the Dominion was effected in February, 1910, it was planned to renew the negotiations at no distant date for a definite treaty, but it was understood on both sides that such negotiations could only begin after Canada had regulated the tariff relations with the United States.
The assertion is also made that a definite understanding has been had between the two countries to that effect.
Mr. FIELDING, There is no understanding and there are no negotiations. I have no doubt the German government will be glad to open negotiations, but we have no such negotiations and no understanding as to when they will be taken up.

Mr. RHODES.: When may I expect a return with reference to the PaTrsboro post office which was ordered on the 16th of January last?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I think that was brought down some little time ago. I shall make inquiry.



THE NEW ONTARIO AND QUEBEC RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 170) to incorporate the New Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Gordon, Nipissing.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The question is on amendment to section 7.


Mr. LANCASTER.: That was an amendment which I submitted on Friday evening and which the Minister of Railways, whc is not present, promised to consider. The question was how far we should interfere with provincial rights, and the minister said he would consider that point before the Bill came up again. I see that the promoter of the Bill (Mr. Gordon) is not here either. I am prepared to submit my amendment, but do not want to take advantage of anybody's absence.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The Minister of Railways is confined to his room to-day, and the Bill, therefore, better stand.
Progress reported.



TORONTO HARBOUR.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 175) to amend and consolidate the Acts relating to the Harbour of Toronto.-Mr. Macdonell.
Mr. MACDONELL.: The Bill, with the exception of section 16, passed this committee. Section 16 was held over for the consideration of the Minister of Public Works. Some point arose in that connection which seemed to call for investigation; and possibly Mr. FOSTER
since the committee last sat, the Minister of Public Work's has seen the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and may be able to make a statement.


William Pugsley: When I made a few remarks on this Bill at the last meeting of the committee, I was not aware that all the powers of regulating and developing the harbour front could only be exercised by the Harbour Commissioners by by-law, which must be submitted to the approval of the Governor in Council. And considering that amendment, I have no further objection to offer to the section.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



GRAIN GROWERS' GRAIN COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
^House again in committee on Bill (No. 171) to incorporate a Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited.-Mr. Rutan.
Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The Bill has
been considered in committee and sections 1 to 12 inclusive have been carried.
On section 13,


Mr. FOSTER.: When this Bill was before the committee. on a previous occasion the sections up to the point you have named, Mr. Chairman went through without anybody, seemingly, paying atention to
i matter- Some questions that were asked found no answer. This is an important Bill, and somebody ought to take responsibility with reference to it. The powers asked for are very wide, and I am not sure whether the government has looked into the matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have looked into it. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has gone into the matter, and I think he satisfied himself that the powers given under this Bill, though certainly very wide, are not wider than the company could have obtained by simply applying to the Under Secretary of State for letters patent of incorporation. The Senate has looked carefully into it, and, though the powers are wide, yet, for the reason I having given or for some other reason, the Senate have not thought it right to refuse the powers. And, so far as I can see no interest can be prejudiced by the measure. Certainly no representations on'the subject having been made to me. The House, no doubt, will hear from the promoter.


Mr. RUTAN.: The Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Lauriex) has stated about all that is to be said on the matter, except perhaps on one point. The other evening, when the Bill was before the committee, some objection was raised to the powers respecting banking. But the Bill as it is

now in your hands, Mr. Chairman, includes a new section which reads as follows:
18. Nothing in this Act shall he deemed to authorize the company to issue any note payable to the bearer thereof or any promissory note intended to be circulated as money or as the note of a bank, or enter into the business of banking or insurance or railway construction or operation under the provisions of the Railway Act.


George Eulas Foster: The statements that the powers are not wider than those which may be got under the Companies' Act without recourse to parliament is not altogether a recommendation of this Bill. I do not know how much supervision the Finance Department exercises or wnat responsibility it takes with reference to the issuing of these charters, but certainly most extraordinary powers have been given to companies as I have noticed them going through the ' Canada Gazette.' I think it is an axiom that will be pretty well assented to that the title of a Bill ought to be an indication of the powers granted under it, so that one who reads the title may thereby understand generally what the Bill is intended to do. Now the title of this Bill is ' An Act to Incorporate the Grain Growers' Grain Company.' But when you look at the Bill you find that it goes away beyond grain, and by what connection or process of logic I do not know. Here is section 13:
The objects or purposes of the company shall be to produce, manufacture, import, export, buy, sell, deal in and deal with all cereals

Now, that is grain, and comes fairly within the limts of the title. It goes on:
-fruit, vegetable, animal, or other products of the farm

That does not go very tar away, for it all comes from the farm and there is a logical connection.
-all products or by-products thereof

That is logical also.
-and all machinery, implements, goods, wares and merchandise whioh may be used in the production and _ manufacture of products of the farm,

That also has a connection with the purposes of the Bill.
-and all articles, substances and things which may be utilized in the said production or in the maintenance, cultivation, improvement and development of farms.
That seems to me to go almost as wide as the horizon. It would enable them to become a plough manufacturing company or a harvester company, or a company for the production of anything that may be used on the farm. It will make them almost universally a manufacturing company. A man is not (in the Northwest) likely to go out to work without a shirt on his back, and it might be logically taken from these powers that if a shirt was necessary to a man working the company would have a perfect right to go into the manufacturing of shirts, to clothe farmers when they work, and the same with shoes caps and other articles of wear. It goes on:
And, without restricting the generality of the foregoing expressions

That is a pretty rich phrase. After taking in the universe, you say you do not want to be restricted because there may be other universes that you may wish to conquer. There may be abstruse problems relating to the farms of the future, such as the manufacture of sunlight, or the using of the vital forces


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Sunbeams from cucumbers.
' Mr. FOSTER. Oh, if they wanted to manufacture sunbeams they would annex the Premier (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and their factory would be complete.


Wilfrid Laurier: I wish you would appreciate that.


George Eulas Foster: I do.
And, without restricting the generality of the foregoing expressions, to carry on the business of a farmer in all its branches.
Now, section 14 goes on. And, really, has the Prime Minister looked into this at all?
For the objects and purposes set forth in section 13 of this Act, the company may:
(a.) Manufacture, buy, sell, deal in and deal with timber

It may become a timber company.
-lumber,

It may become a lumber company.
-hardware,


It may become a general hardware company.
-bricks, stone, tiles, wood products of all kinds, building materials of every description, and all kinds of merchandise and supplies.
It may become a haberdashery, anything, almost, in the wide world in the way of merchandise and supplies. It goes on:
(b.) Manufacture, develop, transmit, distribute and use pneumatic, hydraulic, electric or other power or force for any purpose for which the same may be used

Now there would be a logical connection if it were allowed to engage in the manufacture of these things as an agent or instrument of the farm; but it is only restricted by the phrase ' for the objects and purposes set forth in section 13.' In fact,

it does not only not restrict, but it carries away from it any possible restriction.

for any purpose for which the same may be used

They may become an electric lighting company to supply electric light for a town; they may become a hydraulic company, a pneumatic company, and may lay tubes for the transmission of merchandise all through the country, not for the sake of spouting grain or other products of the farm, but 'for any purpose whatsoever.'
-and manufacture, buy, sell and deal in all machinery, implements and material necessary for the manufacture, development, transmission and distribution of pneumatic, hydraulic, electric or other force: Provided, however, that any distribution or transmission of power or force beyond the lands of the company shall be subject to local and municipal regulations in that behalf.
(c.) Purchase, acquire, develop, operate, hold, dispose of or otherwise turn to account timber lands, timber licenses, coal lands, quarries, water-powers and other lands for the purposes of the company;
(d.) Subscribe for, purchase or otherwise acquire and hold, sell or otherwise dispose of the shares, bonds, debentures or other securities of any bank, or of any printing or publishing company, but in the case of a bank, to no greater extent than one-fourth of the capital stock of such bank.
That is a strange power to give to a grain company.
(e.) Purchase or otherwise acquire, build, operate and charter ships, barges, vessels or other means of transporting passengers and cargo by water.
That clause is not limited to the purposes of this company, it is widened until there is no restriction upon it at all. They may become a shipbuilding or ship running company for the transportation of passengers and freight other than those necessary for their own operation.
(f.) Enter into any arrangement with any authorities, municipal, local or otherwise, that may seem conducive to the company's objects, or any of them

May seem conducive to themselves.
-and obtain from any such authority any rights, privileges and concessions which the company may think it desirable to obtain and carry out, exercise and comply with any such arrangements, rights, privileges and concessions.
(g.) Acquire or undertake the whole or any part of the business, property and liabilities of any person or company carrying on any business which the company is authorized to carry on, or possessed of property suitable for the purposes of the company.
The company is authorized practically to carry on every business; they are not only authorized to carry on any business, but to enter into financial arrangements Mr. FOSTER
for the sake of the company, into buying, selling and the like of that."
(h.) Apply for, purchase or otherwise acquire, any patents, licenses, concessions and the like, conferring any exclusive or non-exclusive, or limited rights to use, or any secret or other information as to any invention which may seem capable of being used for any of the purposes of the company-*-
That is for any purpose whatsoever.
-or the acquisition of which may seem calculated directly or indirectly to benefit the company, and use, exercise, develop or grant licenses in respect of, or otherwise turn to account, the property, rights or information so acquired.
It seems to me that is wide enough to send them up to the Yukon and get gold concessions.
(i.) Construct, improve, maintain, work, manage, carry out or control any roads, ways, tramways, branches or sidings on lands owned or controlled by the company,

Not only gives them the right to own any kind of lands, any kind of concessions, but it gives them every particular privilege.
-bridges, reservoirs, water courses, wharfs, manufactures, warehouses, elevators, electric works, shops, stores, office buildings and other works and conveniences, and contribute to, subsidize or otherwise assist or take part in, the construction, improvement, maintenance, working, management, carrying out or control thereof.
Pretty wide power that is.


Mr. CLARKE (Essex).: That is the standard called for in the Ontario Act.


George Eulas Foster: What does my hon. friend think about the wideness of the powers? Can he imagine anything that they cannot do?
(j.) Lend money to customers and others having dealings with the company

That is, they may lend not simply to their own people, they are authorized to lend money generally, no restrictions to whom they may lend.


William Windfield Rutan: That clause has been amended in the committee.


George Eulas Foster: -and guarantee the performance of contracts by any such persons; notwithstanding the provisions of section 167 of the Company's Act.
(k) Draw, make, accept, endorse, discount, execute and issue promissory notes, bills of exchange, bills of lading, warrants and other negotiable or transferable instruments.
There is no limit to it.
(1.) Sell or dispose of the undertaking of the company, or any part thereof, for such consideration as the company may think fit, and in particular, for shares, debentures or

securities of any other company having objects altogether or in part similar to those of the company.
How large a part? A very infinitesmal part, I suppose.
(m.) To do all or any of the above things as principals, agents, contractors, trustees or otherwise, and either alone or in conjunction with others.
(n.) To do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the objects or purposes of the company.
It struck me as I read that over that, although such things may have passed this parliament, it is an exceedingly wide franchise to give to a grain growers' company or any other company. I suppose some good-hearted individuals will be ready to say that I oppose this Bill because it belongs to the grain growers, that they are 'introducing it. I give every privilege to any person to make that assertion who wishes. I am .used to that kind of thing, and it doesn't bother me a bit. I do not go as far as the Minister of Finance went the other day, when he intimated that almost he wouid let a poor thing go through rather than have somebody say that he didn't like to do a thing for a certain class of people. I think that legislation like this is extremely dangerous. Time was in this House when no legislation like that could possibly go through, and that not very long ago. But the government must take the responsibility. Mine is but a voice in the wilderness, but it will be raised for a moment to direct the attention of the treasury board, if they take any interest in these things, to the almighty powers that are being given to this company.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I quite agree with the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in his remarks as to the wideness of the powers granted by this charter. When the Bill was last before the committee I drew attention to the same feature, and was then assured by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) that the same powers would have been granted automatically if the company had applied under the Companies' Act. To that assurance there is now added a further assurance to the same effect by the Prime Minister. Consequently, while I cannot but sanction many of the remarks by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as to the danger of such almost indiscriminately wide powers passing this House, still I must again take the point that, under the assurance 'to which I have referred, this is not the stage at which to take the objection. If this company, merely by application under the Companies' Act, could secure all the powers granted in this Bill, surely I would not be justified in saying
to them:	If you come openly before parliament individually and make application we will shut you out of powers that you might have got automatically under the Act that we have ourselves passed. Surely such a position on the part of parliament would be inconsistent and unreasonable. If there are dangers in the general granting of such utterly limitless powers as this Bill provides, then the place to remedy that condition, and to curtail the powers is in the Companies' Act itself.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman think that if they have all these powers they should have them under the name of the Grain Growers' Grain Company?


Arthur Meighen: I was coming to that point. I have said nothing that can be urged as an argument in favour of the title of the Bill, in fact to my mind the gravest point of danger in all this legislation is in chartering a company with indiscriminately wide powers under a distinctive name. In that way the public is liable to be deceived. It may tax the ingenuity of the promoter of the Bill, it may even tax the still greater ingenuity of the fathers of the Bill, to provide a name that can be called distinctive and at the same time can be called a safe one for the proposed company to assume, but an attempt should be made to make such name better conform to the general character of the charter. It seems to me that the word * grain ' when it occurs the second time in the title of the company, might very well be omitted in favour of something more general; the grain feature of the purposes of the company is surely well enough to emphasize in the expression 'Grain Growers.' So if the difficulty as to name could be met it seems to me that parliament would not be justified in raising further objection to the Bill, on the general ground at least.
The applicants for this charter are just as much entitled to secure it as any other applicants; consequently if parliament- and I believe the assurances we have are correct, that a reference to the ' Canada Gazette ' will show that as wide powers are granted under the Companies' Act-if parliament by its Act confers ion individuals the right to go to our Department .of State and secure just as wide powers as these, then, we have no justification for stepping in and in an individual case refusing the powers asked. The only objection that I take is as to the title. Under that title I fear shares will be purchased with an assurance as to the purpose's of the company that really is a false one. The point is doubly important when we remember that heretofore in Manitoba a company under the very same name has been operating, and that company is much

more restricted in its powers than this company will be.


William Pugsley: Is my hon. friend sure of that? The promoter of the Bill tells me that the powers are wider than these.


Arthur Meighen: How can you make them wider?


William Pugsley: They could be made wider. In this Bill the powers given by section 14, must be exercised solely for the purpose of carrying out the objects and purposes set forth in section 13. There is a limitation. I have only the word of my hon. friend who is in charge of the Bill as to the powers granted by the Manitoba charter being wider, and he tells me they are wider. I have not seen the Manitoba charter.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Public Works says that one clause of the charter provides that the powers therein granted shall only be utilized in so far as they serve the general purpose of the company, and argues that that is a restriction. If the general purposes of the company are utterly unlimited, how is that a restriction?


William Pugsley: They are not unlimited under section 13.


Arthur Meighen: My reason for saying that the Manitoba powers are not as wide is that I have myself, as solicitor, applied to the Provincial Secretary's Department at Winnipeg, where the charter of the original company would be granted, and I know that if the application made anything like so large a demand on the generosity of that department, the powers asked would be very seriously curtailed before the charter was issued. I have not examined this particular charter, but I would be surprised if the powers under which they have been operating are as wide as those contained in this Bill. The company in Manitoba has done business for many years, and the scope of its business has been limited to such pursuits as should be contemplated under the old title. It is evidently the intention of the company to widen the scope of its operations, as I gather from other sources than the Bill. If that is the intention, the title of the Bill should be altered. I do not think that is raising an insuperable objection, and I have no intention of raising such an objection. My objection is one that could, within reason be overcome, and if it is overcome any opposition, if it may be called opposition, that I have raised to the Bill would be at once withdrawn.


Mr. MARTIN (Regina).: I cannot see the force of the objection raised; by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie, to this company being incorporated under the name of the Grain Growers Grain Company, Limited, Mr. MEIGHEN.
for the obvious reason he mentioned, that the company has been doing business in Manitoba, under a joint stock company charter, and I believe in Alberta, under a foreign company's license, for almost five years. I am not positive that they have been doing any business in Saskatchewan, but they have acquired certain assets in Alberta, and certain large assets in Manitoba. To my mind it would be manifestly unfair for parliament to change the name of the company after it has been doing business with that name for five years.


George Eulas Foster: A name exactly similar?


William Melville Martin: Yes. The statement made by the Minister of Public Works with respect to the powers granted to this company by the government of Manitoba being as wide as the powers contained in this Bill is, to my mind, perfectly correct.


George Eulas Foster: In what year was that charter granted?


William Melville Martin: I have here what purports to be a copy of the letters patent granted by the Provincial Secretary of Manitoba, and dated July 20, 1906, almost five years ago. It is a copy of the charter of the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited, which is the same name as we are asked to grant, under the proposed Act of incorporation. I beg to call attention to some of the powers granted in the charter of the Grain Growers' Grain Company, Limited-the same name exactly-and it will be seen that these powers are exactly the same as asked for in this Bill. They have power to buy, handle, and deal in all kinds of grain and seed, both as owners and agents; power to manufacture, buy, handle, and deal in agricultural implements and machinery, coal, coal oil, gasoline, and a large list of other commodities; power to acquire by purchase, lease or otherwise, with the consent of the owners, mines, mining lands, minerals, of all kinds; power to acquire by purchase, lease, or otherwise, witlj the consent of the owners, water-powers, water-power rights and privileges; and to develop for the purposes of the company or lease, or sell, electrical, steam, pneumatic gas, hot-air; and all descriptions of power. There is a clause here permitting them to manufacture bicycles and automobiles which one would not expect the farmers of Canada to deal in. The original letters patent contain everything contained in the purposed Bill, and why should parliament curtail the powers they have for five years enjoyed under a provincial charter? Although the powers asked for are wide, they are properly limited by section 18 prohibiting them from building railroads, which the hon. member for Prince Albert asks to add to the Bill. There is no reason why the Bill should not go through with that amendment.


Wilfrid Laurier: If this were purely an abstract question I would be disposed to agree very generally with my hon. friend from North Toronto. The wide powers asked for by this company have shocked his Conservative principles, and I tell him frankly that they shock my Liberal principles, or rather the principles I learned in the school I was brought up in. But my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) must observe that the ideas in which he and I have been brought up have been very much enlarged of late years. When first the creation of corporations became somewhat general, parliament was very chary in the granting of charters, and the powers given were severely scrutinized, and restricted practically to the special object for which incorporation was sought. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) knows that in his experience, as in mine, there has been an everincreasing tendency to widen these powers until now we give to companies, as he has said, a sort of omnibus charter to do any kind of business at all. When you look into the rationale of the thing, I do not think there can be any danger in granting these wide powers except the possible danger of deceiving the public.


George Eulas Foster: That is a very great danger.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is. But the public is educated to the change, and it is realized now that if you authorize a grain company the title would not at all deceive those who deal with that company into the belief that its powers would be restricted to operations in grain. There would be no deception of the public because it is now generally known that there are wider powers granted than the title would indicate. This company has been granted already powers by the legislature of Manitoba, and we are now asked to confirm these powers, but with certain restrictions added. I understand that in the western states you can file your application to build a railway at the Capitol and some officer corresponding to our Secretary of State looks into the matter, and the charter is granted as a matter of course.


George Eulas Foster: Without any guarantees?


Wilfrid Laurier: So I am told. I understand that some such powers were sought by this Bill, but that is further than I would go, and that, I think, parliament should go. The granting of such wide powers may be contrary to the views of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster), and, perhaps, contrary to my own views, but the western farmers and the western people generally, are disposed to seek corporate powers which we would never think of asking for in the east. It may be that we will have to advance to the same views as they have. Though this granting of wide powers in 270	m
charters has been going on for some time, it has not come to my notice that it has produced any ill results.


George Eulas Foster: I admit there is something in what my right hon. friend has said, although I do not admire his dialectics in this respect. He says that I am a Conservative and that he used to be.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no, I
never said that.


George Eulas Foster: Well, there is more than a modicum of truth in that, if history informs us correctly, but I think that even he is not quite liberal enough to swallow so extensive a programme with so modest a name. My chief objection is the possible danger of deception because of the wide divergence between the name of the company and what it may do. There are two forces in the world: one Liberal, and the other Conservative, and if you go through the world's history it is difficult to award the palm to either as being the most beneficial to the race.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is not difficult for me.	. ,


George Eulas Foster: It would be if my right hon. friend studied it a bit. The maddish projects of Liberalism have been nipped in the bud by the quantum of Conservatism which has always existed in the world, and which I hope always will. On the other hand, Conservatism advances from year to year, because changed conditions necessitate a widening process in the application of old principles of Conservatism. I hope the day will never come when there will not be these two forces in the world, the one tending to restrict mad, headlong haste, and the other tending to stretch out and broaden that which would otherwise be cribbed, Cabined and confined.


Wilfrid Laurier: And in the
interests of the people, progress and advancement must come.


George Eulas Foster: These, two forces have their cycles; one comes down and [DOT] the other goes up, and they keep their balance pretty well, and so my right hon. friend had better prepare for the balance which will swing the other way pretty soon. I sound the note * of warning that this Bill represents Liberalism gone too far. They cannot carry on all these projects without getting money, and they appeal for money under the distinctive guise of a grain company and under that distinctive badge ninety-nine men out of a hundred will subscribe to it because of its purpose in that respect. There is great danger that under a certain guise a company could carry on almost every kind of operation under the sun. To show my right hon. friend just what took place, I may say that in my



time, and it was not so very long ago, a company was restricted to the simple purpose indicated by its name, and even subsidiary operations were not allowed, because they were not considered a legitimate part of that purpose. That idea has completely passed away. Such has been the extension of work in the world that the next step was to allow not only the prime object of the company, but what might be subsidiary thereto, and what might be necessary for its operation. That was a legitimate and fair extension, and I am willing to go as far as that principle can extend. But I think it is dangerous to put a big company, which acts as a grain company, into the business of mining, stock-buying and all that sort of thing. I think that, goes beyond where we ought to go, and I take exception, mildly but still firmly, to the idea that because some other legislature has granted extraordinary rights and powers, therefore we should, do it. I am sorry the Finance Minister is not here, because I would like to inquire of him whether there is any supervision at all over these companies who are getting charters without coming to parliament, or any revision of the powers asked for by them. I am loth to take the statement of the Prime Minister, and of the Minister of Public Works that company charters have been granitoid equally wide with this. Some very wide opes, I know, have been granted, but I think it would trouble them to find one as wide as this is. I would like to know whether the government applies any supervising machinery at all to keep within bounds the companies that ask for charters without coming to this House. Does the Companies' Act require that a return should be made to the government of the operation of these companies?


William Pugsley: Only as to loan companies, I think.


George Eulas Foster: I think it is well worth consideration whether every one of these companies should not be required to make a return to the government.


Alfred Henry Clarke: There is a Bill before the House this session making provision for that. I do not think that under the Bill the companies are bound to supply the returns, but they may be called for.


George Eulas Foster: I am stating my general objection to the granting of these wide powers in this Bill. If it is allowed to pass, the government will have to take the responsibility, and it will not be in the power of the First Minister, or of the Minister of Finance, to say that I am equally responsible, because f did not object to the Bill when it. went through parliament.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has called attention to a difficulty that might Mr. FOSTER.	.
arise by reason of the name. I may say that that is the only objection I saw to the Bill; but, on considering the matter, I do not see that we could choose a name for the company if my hon. friend in charge of the Bill was not willing to have the name changed. I do not see why we should refuse these powers, which are substantially the same as were contained in the charter granted by the Manitoba legislature, and they are no wider than the powers that might, properly be given by letters patent issued by the Secretary of State.


George Eulas Foster: Does my hon. friend know that, or is that a general statement?


William Pugsley: I know that, because when I was Attorney General in the government of New Brunswick, I took objection for some time to the granting of wide powers, and my attention was called to the powers granted for years by the Dominion government, and also by other provinces. The government of Ontario is the chief sinner in this respect, if there is any sin about it.


George Eulas Foster: It used to be, I know.


William Pugsley: The province of Ontario first gave these bioad powers. My hon. friend made a very pleasant speech in regard to the Prime Minister and his own Conservatism. I presume that if my hon. friend saw that the present government of Ontario had recognized and granted a license to a company incorporated by the parliament of Great Britain conferring upon it practically the same powers as are contained in this Bill, he would say that was Conservatism enough.


George Eulas Foster: I do not take my Conservatism from anybody.


William Pugsley: Let me call attention to a license which has been granted by the government of Ontario, as late as the 15th of April of the present year, to the Alberta Land Company, to do business in the province of Ontario. It is incorporated, says the notice published in the ' Ontario Gazette,' by the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and it is given the power first, to acquire lands; secondly, to improve the lands; thirdly, to stock the same; to go into the buying of all kinds of stock, cattle, sheep and produce; to buy, manufacture, sell and deal in all kinds of goods, chattels, merchandise and effects; to carry on the business of farmers, graziers, meat and fruit preservers, planters, miners, metallurgists, quarry-owners, brick makers, builders, contractors for the construction of works, both public and private, merchants, importers and exporters, printers, publishers, ship-builders shipowners brokers and any other businesses which may seem calculated, directly or indirectly, to develop the company's property or business; to search or prospect,

excavate, quarry, dredge for ores, and to extract, reduce and treat the same by any process whatsoever; to pay for any property or business in shares "or debentures; to sell, lease, license, mortgage, turn to account or otherwise dispose of any of the property, concessions, rights or privileges of the company; to exercise within the province of Ontario all such powers under the laws of Ontario. There you find a company incorporated under the name of a land company, and yet given the power to engage in mining, quarrying, buying and selling merchandise of all kinds, owning ships and doing a large business, which could in no way be associated by the investor with the business of carrying on a land company.


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman will not say that it is at all as wide as this Bill.


William Pugsley: Substantially so, because if you take this Bill you will find that after all section 13 is the one which sets out the objects of the company. These are limited to manufacturing and dealing in ceTeals, fruit, vegetable, animal or other products of the farm, all products or by-products thereof, and all machinery, implements, goods, wares and merchandise which may be used in the production and manufacture ' of products of the farm, and all articles, substances and things which may be utilized in the said production or in the maintenance, cultivation, improvement and development of farms. All these are pTetty closely connected with the foregoing business of farming. Then, ' without restricting the generality of the expressions, to carry-on the business of farming in all its branches.' When we come to 'section 14, you will see a limitation. It may not be very perfect, but still it is a limitation.
' For the objects and purposes set forth in section 13 of the Act, the company may do certain things.' It seems to me that in the bona fide carrying out of the powers contained in section 14, the directors must always have in mind the purposes and objects set forth in section 13. They may build electric railways through their properties, develop electricity to supply their farms with motive power, buy steamers for the purpose of carrying grain produced by their operations, to the different markets of the world, and do all these things connected with the carrying out of the object mentioned in section 13.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is the hon. gentleman taking hi's politics from the province of Ontario now?


William Pugsley: I did not know there were any politics in this. I am surprised at the suggestion of my hon. friend.


Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: It 'seems to me that one of the objections is that this is 270i	-
a very small name for a large company. I give this suggestion to the promoter. Call it the almighty powers of the grain growers.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear. There is something in that.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest that there ought to be one extension of the powers to be given this company. It ought to have the power to manufacture M. P.s of the Liberal persuasion.


Mr. STAPLES.: What is the reason this company has made application to this House for a charter? Why did it not apply for letters patent?


William Windfield Rutan: The only reason is that they were taking over a growing concern, the Grain Growers' Company, and assuming all its liabilities, and took this method of getting a charter.


Mr. BARKER.: The only reason why the company did not ask for a charter from the Secretary of State is because, when a charter is granted by the Secretary of State, the company is bound to make returns to the provincial government. The right hon. gentleman is probably aware that there is a Bill before a special committee for weeks, and a great deal of care has been taken to secure such returns as will give to the shareholders in these companies the fullest information; but by getting the charter asked for here they will not be under the obligation of disclosing their proceedings.
On section 14,


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The section (b) has been amended to read as follows:
(b) manufacture, develop, transmit, distribute and use pneumatic, hydraulic, electric or other power or force for any purpose for which the same may be used, and manufacture, buy, sell and deal in all machinery, implements and material necessary for the manufacture, development, transmission and distribution of pneumatic, hydraulic, electric or other power or force: Provided, however, that any distribution or transmission of power or force beyond the lands of the company shall be subject to section 247 of the Railway Act and so far as applicable to the ^Electricity Inspection Act of 1907, and the 'local and municipal regulations in that behalf.


Mr. NESBITT.: In all of these companies we put in a clause that they cannot do anything of that kind without the consent of the municipality by Iby-law. But the words here ' shall be subject to local and municipal regulations ' are not as strong as permission expressed by by-law.


Angus Claude Macdonell: In the Railway Committee, Bills for the incorporation of railway companies are always safeguarded with provisions to the effect mentioned by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).


Alfred Henry Clarke: The clerk of the 'committee says that this is the standard clause taken from the other Bills.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There is power here not only to manufacture, but also to distribute electrical energy. That distribution would involve the right to distribute in the usual way by wires and poles. Yet there is no provision as to the assent of the municipality for entering or crossing highways or public places. These safeguards have been put in Bills in the Railway Committee. And, unless section 247 of the Railway Act covers the regulation of rates to be charged for power, there is no provision to limit through the Board of Railway Commissioners the rates to be charged by the company, for electrical energy. And the same in regard to telegraph and telephones -there is no regulation either of rates nor is there any safeguard of the rights of municipalities.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: These precautions are provided in other charters. There was one the other day that the Finance Minister sent back to get this clause put in. And this one should be treated the same as the others.


Alfred Henry Clarke: So it is. The committee has that in.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not so understand it. Section 247 of the Railway Act does not cover it-certainly does not cover the question of charges.


Alfred Henry Clarke: It was the clerk of the committee who had this prepared, and he said it was a standard clause put in the other Bills.


George Eulas Foster: I think the objection is well taken by my hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell). There does not seem to be any control over this company as to entering the bounds of municipalities, nor is there any safeguard as to the rates to be charged. There is no reason why the safeguards put in other Bills should not be put in this.


William Melville Martin: Does not the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) think that the clause subject to" local and municipal regulations in that behalf would prevent the company from distributing power within any municipality unless it got the authority of a by-law?


George Eulas Foster: I have been in the Railway Committee and have seen the committee jump like a panther on a clause in a Bill which did not provide in the most explicit way for the guarding of municipal rights. That safeguarding of municipal rights, so far as my _ experience goes, has been expressed in this way. Then, again, it does not say anything as to rates. Here Mr. MACDONELL.
is a company which is going to carry on telephones and telegraphs and the transmission of intelligence, and there is absolutely no control over its rates. We must be consistent. No matter for whom the Bill is we must have these safeguards put in.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the purpose of the amendment is to bring in the whole of section 247 of the Railway Act, then, both hon. gentlemen are partly right. I have the section before me, and it proposes that the consent of the municipality must first be obtained. But, unfortunately for the powers of municipalities this section provides that, if the consent is not given, the Board of Railway Commissioners may override a municipality and grant the power desired. Personally, I do not think that a municipality ought to be shorn of its power over its highways. I think they are the best judges in this _ matter. The section is a very long one, with many subsections, but I will read the parts that apply :
When any company is empowered by special Act of the parliament of Canada to construct, operate and maintain, lines of telegraph, or telephone or for the conveyance of light, heat, power or electricity, the company may, with the consent of the municipal council or other authority having jurisdiction over any highway, square or other public place, enter thereon for the purpose of exercising the said powers, and, as often as the company thinks proper, may break up and open any highway, square or other public place, subject, however, in the following provisions:
It then proceeds to lay down a lot of rules with regard to wires, and poles, supervision by an officer of a municipal council, and so on, until we come to subsection (g) **
Whenever any city, town or incorporated village is desirous of having lines of telegraph, or telephone, or lines for the conveyance of light, heat, power or electricity, placed under ground, the board may,

That is the Board of Railway Commissioners :	.
-may, on the application of such city, town or incorporated village, and on such terms and conditions as the board may prescribe, require the company to thus place its lines or wires under ground, and abrogate the right given by this section, or by the special Act, to carry lines on poles, in such city, town or incorporated village.
That is a section for the benefit of municipalities. Where the company does not serve the municipality they can apply to the board. Then the converse is provided:
If the company cannot obtain such consent from such municipal council or other authority, the company may apply to the board for leave to exercise such powers, and upon such

application shall submit to the board a plan of such highway, square, or other publio place, showing the proposed location of such lines, wires and poles.
Then it goes on that the board may, notwithstanding the refusal to consent of the municipality, allow the matter to be so done:


George Eulas Foster: How about the regulation of rates?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is under another section. Then, at the end of the section it is provided:
Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to authorize the company to exercise the powers therein mentioned for the purpose of selling or distributing light, heat, power or electricity in cities, towns or villages, without the company having first obtained consent therefore by a by-law of the municipality.
There is another quasi-protection so far as cities, towns and villages are concerned, but not to all municipalities. There are many other municipalities whose roads are valuable to them, municipalities in an embryo state, but growing. I think that all municipalities ought to be protected, whether in their infancy or in an advanced state of growth. But, because of the want of satisfactory provisions, or to meet some complication, we do sometimes insert a general clause providing that these things are only to be done by consent of the municipality expressed by by-law. We also make a distinct provision that rates and charges are to be subject to the control of the Railway Commission. I think we ought to put that clearly in this Bill. I do not offer an amendment at this stage, but I would suggest that the amendment before the Chair be so worded that the consent of the municipalities be obtained, and that the rates be subject to the control of some authority.


William Pugsley: How would it do to put in a clause like this:
Provided, however, that in no case shall the company place any poles in or upon any highway, or stretch any wires along such highway or over any public square or park without the consent of the municipal council in which the same is situated.
That would still send it to the board for regulation.


George Eulas Foster: But it does not meet the question of rates.


William Pugsley: But it makes it subject to the local municipal regulations. They would make a condition of having reasonable rates before they would give consent.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I agree with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) that the two standard clauses usually put in Bills should be put in this Bill.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There are two regular clauses spoken of as the standard clauses. One is in regard to the consent of the municipality to the company stringing its wires, or erecting poles upon, or across any highway, or public place; then there is another clause with regard to rates. I think these clauses should be put in, and for that purpose I would suggest that this subsection (b) be allowed to stand.


William Pugsley: Let us report progress, and have these two standard clauses drawn up.


George Eulas Foster: I think that is wise. If anybody ought to be tender about the rights of municipalities and reasonable rates it is the grain growers. I do not see why there should be any objection to inserting these two standard clauses.


William Windfield Rutan: I see no objection to letting the section stand over for the purpose of Inserting these clauses. But we can go on with the rest of the Bill,
On subsection (d),
, Mr. FOSTER. What is the purpose of this clause:
Subscribe for, purchase or otherwise acquire, and hold, sell or otherwise dispose of, the shares, bonds, debentures, or other securities of any bank, or of any printing or publishing company.
What does the Grain Company propose in that?


William Windfield Rutan: This company owns a publication called the 'Grain Growers' Guide,' that is a part of their business.
, Mr. FOSTER. But that is their own paper. Here they have authority to take over other papers, it gives them authority to buy up every newspaper in the northwest.
, Mr. RUTAN. They have the same right as other people with regard to that.


George Eulas Foster: It is funny that a Grain .Company is becoming a great publishing company.


Angus Claude Macdonell: It seems to me an improper thing to give an ostensible grain company power to embark in the banking business by allowing them to purchase shares, or stocks in a bank to the extent of one-fourth of their capital. They can use the bank for the purpose of exploiting funds, for the purpose of dealing in grain; and they have an additional power of being able to build up a press and publish papers which could be used for the purpose of advancing or depressing prices. This company are also dealers in, and buyers of grain. It seems to me a most unusual thing to give a company power to do all these things under one corporation. They

,can exploit the funds of a bank, and deal in grain, and by their press they can exploit public opinion for the purpose of raising or depressing markets.
On subsection (e),


Angus Claude Macdonell: There should be the same clause with regard to the regulation of rates that I spoke of in regard to subsection (c).


William Pugsley: You do not regulate rates on vessels. No other vessels have their rates regulated.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think where railway companies are given charters, as they are in the Railway Committee from day to day, and where these companies have also navigation powers, the Railway Board has the power to regulate the rates.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is in error as to that. Where a subsidy is granted the government may make some provision, not otherwise.


George Eulas Foster: Does the Minister of Public Works say that the present Railway Commission has not a right to regulate rates for a railway which does business by land and by water?


William Pugsley: I understand we have no power to regulate rates on the steamers. When subsidies are granted the government make certain provisions, but I do not think the Railway Commission has any power to regulate steamship rates.


George Eulas Foster: That is a rather important point because the purpose of the Railway Commission to regulate the rates might be entirely set at nought, provided you had a railway company which also ran ships, if there was no power to regulate the water passage.


William Pugsley: That would not apply to this company because they do not build railways.


George Eulas Foster: They are getting powers here to carry passengers.


William Pugsley: There is a clause that nothing herein contained shall give them power to build railways. They are expressly barred from building railways.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Section 333 of the Railway Act is important in view of what has been said toy the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). In this section the word 'company' of course means a railway company. The section reads:
Subsection 3. If the company owns, charters, uses, maintains or works, or is a party to any arrangement for using, maintaining or working vessels for carrying traffic, by sea or inland water, between any places or ports in Canada, and if any such vessel carries Mr. MACDONELL.
traffic between a port in Canada reached by such company and a port in Canada reached by the railway of another company, the vessel and the railway of either company shall be deemed to constitute a continuous route in Canada within the meaning of this section.
Thus the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is right, and the minute you allow this company to do business in water carriage you should put them under the control of the Railway Commission.
Subsection (e) allowed to stand.
On subsection (g), power to acquire other companies,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is a very wide section. Is not the minister afraid of a combination? This might lead to a huge monopoly.


William Pugsley: That is the usual clause.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If that is the general Act it ought to be amended. The danger is the very simplicity and wide nature of the language. We are authorizing this company to do everything except practise medicine and law, and now we are saying that in all these lines of business they may touy up everybody in opposition to them.


William Pugsley: That Is what is always done in letters patent; the company being incorporated may acquire the business and undertaking of any company authorized to carry on a similar business. I venture to say that the same powers will be found in the charter of incorporation of the Canada Cement Company. It is the usual clause in commercial or industrial companies.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think we should pass the section without further consideration. I douJbt if the Grain Growers' Company wish to be made into a huge monopoly like that.


William Pugsley: If they wanted to buy out a flour mill would it be any more harm than for them to build a new mill?


George Eulas Foster: Yes. Suppose you have only two companies operating in a certain way and have competition between them, then the minister's question answers itself; you allow one company to buy out the other, and you immediately lose all competition and have a monopoly.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is not necessary to buy them out in order to have no competition, so far as price is concerned.


George Eulas Foster: My point is that if a person is a strong opponent to monopolies, he should oppose this section because it has a decidedly monopolistic tendency. If they have capital enough they can buy out every single business, and you would have

most certainly a most complete monopoly. It would not be possible to frame a more monopolistic clause. I leave it to my hon. friend for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) if that is not so.	.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think the clause is too wide, and that all similar clauses in all these Bills are too wide, but I think we should commence the reform by revising the Companies Act. Take all these mergers that have been formed in the last few years, and they just last until some one else has time to build a factory. I do not believe there is any particular danger in this clause, but I do think, generally speaking, that all such clauses are wrong from a legislative standpoint.


William Pugsley: When, earlier in the session, I called attention to a similar clause in the McClary Manufacturing Company's Bill, promoted by my hon. friend (Mr. Beattie), my remarks got no sympathy from either side of the House.


George Eulas Foster: Were I here you would have mine.


William Pugsley: The McClary Bill authorized the company to purchase the stock of any other company which manufactures any goods similar to those manufactured, by the McClary Company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is a vast distinction between that provision, and the provisions of this Bill. That company was engaged in manufacturing stoves, and it was authorized to acquire any company similarly engaged.


William Pugsley: A monopoly in stoves would be hurtful.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This Bill authorizes the grain growers to do everything except build railways or practise law or medicine. You allow this company to buy up everything that is in its road, and you create an evil tenfold greater than that which the Minister of Public Works says existed in the McClary case.


William Pugsley: The House did not think there was anything wrong in the McClary case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Is the minister so modest that he will recede from his opinion, and now say that what is tenfold worse than the McClary case, is right?


William Windfield Rutan: The very day this Bill passed the Private Bills Committee, the McClary Company was given the right to purchase an interest in every retail business throughout the country, and no objection was raised. That is much more dangerous than any provision of this Bill. The McClary Company are doing business with retail merchants throughout the whole
country, and if they get into the debt of the McClary Manufacturing Company they, the company, can say: 'We must protect ourselves, and we will insist on you giving us an interest in your business,' a power which tends to enable them to monopolize the retail business throughout the country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And under this Bill the grain growers can buy up a retailer, or a wholesaler, or any one else that comes in their road.


William Windfield Rutan: This is not an opportune time to say that the farmers, who are the Grain Growers Company, should not be given the same privilege as is given _ to others. I do not see why a manufacturing company should be allowed this power, and why it should be refused to farmers.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This Bill says that they are going to do everything else except farming. They are going to deal in real estate, and have a printing house, and run banks. I am as good a friend^of the farmer as is the hon. gentleman, or anybody else, but when a farmer ceases to be a farmer, and is not satisfied with growing grain and dealing in grain, but wants to do everything else except farming, then he has no right to come here and plead for sympathy because he is a farmer. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Rutan), comes here and pleads, that under the name of a. farmers association they can rope people in just as in the case of the Farmers' Bank. When farmers are acting as farmers they deserve our sympathy, and encouragement, and support, but when they cease to be farmers they should go on the same plane as other people.


George Eulas Foster: The clause in the McClary Bill makes provision as to the conditions under which the company may do these thing3, such as authorization by by-law, and a meeting of directors, and so on. These appear to be salutary conditions.


William Pugsley: The McClary Bill allows the directors to do it, and in this case the shareholders have to do it.


Alfred Henry Clarke: If the provisions of the Bill are not satisfactory in that respect, they can he made so.


George Eulas Foster: I wish the hon. member for Essex would keep that in mind as we go through the clauses of the Bill.


Alfred Henry Clarke: It is all very well to talk about creating a monopoly, but there is another view which may be taken. The apparent object of this Bill is that the farmers desire to cut out -the middlemen. For instance, instead of getting their lumber from a sawmill they may manufacture it themselves, and in like manner they take power to manufacture agricul-

tural implements, and such necessaries which, under the present conditions, they have to purchase from other concerns. No doubt if this association is a success every farmer will become a member of it, and if they find a sawmill in a small town in the west where there is only room for one sawmill, they can buy that mill out by agreement with the owner rather than start another mill which would be ruinous to both. If it is a necessity for one to sell, and the other to purchase there can be no harm in giving this company power to purchase.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: Does not the hon. gentleman see that the legitimate inference to be drawn from his argument is pure socialism? Is that the object of the hon. gentleman, or diversity of trade and occupation in the country?


Mr. TURRIFF.: The farmers in the west not only grow grain, but afterwards have to dispose of it. The experience of the western farmers for a good many years has been that in disposing of their crop, more especially their wheat, to the ordinary purchasers of grain, they were not able to get the full value of the grain when it left their hands owing to combinations among the purchasers or middlemen. The farmers organized themselves into this Grain Growers' Grain Company, and for twro or three years past they have been handling the grain to a large extent through this company, with the result that they have been able, owing to the fact that this association has about 30,000 members in the three prairie provinces, to get nearer to the full value of their crops than they ever did before. The company was in a position to handle a large enough proportion of the crop to prevent other buyers organizing and putting down the price as formerly. The farmers have learned, by their experience in organizing and co-operating among themselves, that they can get better prices for the goods they have to sell than they could without the organization; and they now come to this parliament to get authority to go a little further in co-operation, in order to cut out the middleman on some of the articles that they use in connection with the operation of their farms. It has been pointed out that they may not succeed if they go into too many lines of business, and that the shareholders may lose in the end. While that is true, why should we sit in judgment and say that 30,000 farmers shall not be allowed to do that if they want to do it? In the final result they have to depend on the honour and honesty and ability of their own men whom they put in charge to carry on this work, just as any other corporation has to do. You cannot take the responsibility away from tbe shareholders. They elect their directors, Mr. CLARKE (Essex).
and they have to abide by the consequences. I have no reason to douibt that this Grain Growers' Grain Association Company will be able to handle the purchasing of the various articles needed by the farmers, and do it as well as they have handled the selling of wheat in the past. They come here and ask for certain powers which are not greater than have been given in dozens of other cases, and I do not think we would be justified in refusing to grant their request. At the same time I think all the restrictions that we impose on other companies should be imposed on this company.
On section 14, subsection (j),


George Eulas Foster: What is section 167 of the Companies' Act?


Alfred Henry Clarke: That provides that the company cannot lend money to its directors.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should this company be allowed to do that when other companies cannot?


Alfred Henry Clarke: Their idea, as stated in the committee, was that they might make advances on grain before the crop was ready for the market. The committee has amended the clause so as to limit the amount that they can lend.


George Eulas Foster: There must be a principle involved in 167, I would like to know what it is?


William Pugsley: The clause is ' No company shall loan any of its funds to any shareholder.' That is the whole section.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That is very necessary to prevent a great evil-to prevent what we know means fraud. This company has no more right to do that than any other.


Alfred Henry Clarke: The people they are dealing with are almost all members of this company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That would apply to any company. If a company manufactures or does a banking business or anything else, its own shareholders are its best customers.


William Pugsley: Banks can lend money to their own shareholders.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is a reason for that which does not exist in this case. This company has the power to do everything under the sun, which is all the more reason why there should be some restriction put on it. It may guarantee the performance of contracts by other persons, although we have guarantee companies specially chartered for that purpose.


William Pugsley: I think that the clause allowing the company to guarantee the per-

formance of contracts should be struck out.
I would suggest that this clause be allowed to stand over also for consideration. I do not see much objection to authorizing the company to lend money to its shareholders. It might be most desirable for the farmers that they should be able to obtain loans from this company on their warehouse receipts for grain.


Richard Blain: Why not restrict the advances to the shipping of grain alone?


William Pugsley: That can be considered when we deal with the clause again.
On subsection (1),
Sell or dispose of the undertaking of the company, or any part thereof, for such consideration as the company may think fit, and in particular for shares, debentures or securities of any other company having objects altogether or in part similar to those of the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why emphasize that section by these words 'in particular?'


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is a standard clause in the Act.
On subsection (n),
Do all such other things as are incidental or conducive to the attainments of the objects or purposes of the company.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Can any one tell us what are the objects and purposes of this company?


William Pugsley: That is -a standard clause.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Section 14 is carried with exception of subsections (b), (e) and (f).
On section 15, subsection 2,
Nothing in this section contained shall limit or restrict the borrowing of money by the company on hills of exchange or promissory notes made, drawn, accepted or endorsed by or on behalf of the company.


William Pugsley: I am sorry I shall have to oppose this subsection. It makes the borrowing power unlimited. Under the Companies' Act there is a limitation, and the borrowing and issuing of debentures is limited to a certain proportion of the paid up capital stock. I think that under the Companies' Act there is a limitation of the power to issue debentures to a certain portion of the capital stock. If there is not there ought to be. I know there is in the Provincial Joint Stock Companies' Acts. Under the provision now before us, the company might issue debentures for many times the capital stock. The limitation ought not to exceed two-thirds the paid-up capital stock of the company.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I think the lenders will control that.


William Pugsley: I would like to have that clause stand to have it amended.


Angus Claude Macdonell: This clause is exactly in the words of the Joint Stock Companies' Act.


William Pugsley: I have in mind the New Brunswick Act, which is taken from the Ontario Act. It may have been amended


Alfred Henry Clarke: Yes, formerly it was limited.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Section 15 stands for further consideration.
On section 17:	Superannuation, pension
funds, &c.,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This section is peculiarly worded.
The company may, on resolution adopted by a vote of shareholders present or represented by proxy at any general meeting ol the company

-and so on. On these conditions they may establish these pension funds. It should provide at least for a two-thirds majority. As it stands it means nothing but a majority of those present.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), is it usual to give companies powers of this kind? I confess I do not know. It looks to me like affording an opportunity for seme people to vote money into their own pockets under the name of superannuation or pension fund.


William Pugsley: It is certainly unusual. I understand the railway companies do it, and the banks.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Why should an omnibus company like this have such powers? That is one of the difficulties in granting these wide and varied powers, it makes every concession granted to the company all the more dangerous.


George Eulas Foster: This seems to be an innovation.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Something new every day.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: They justified the general clauses of this Bill by appealing to the Companies' Act. And now, they ask something that is not in the Companies' Act at all.


William Pugsley: I think it had better stand.


Mr FOSTER.: See what it allows them to do. They need not have the vote of any | particular number of shareholders.


William Melville Martin: They must be notified.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, but anybody who has had experience in companies knows how easy it is for interested parties to get proxies and carry a vote. I do not think this power should be given at any rate until this company shall have some experience. When it gets into working order, if it wants to come back and get a superannuation system under proper conditions it should have an opportunity to do so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would like to see the clause stand until it can be redrafted,- make it conditional upon a vote of two-thirds of the shareholders or something like that:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not want, by silence, to seem to agree to that proposition. I do not think that such a power should be given to this company at all. It practically makes it an insurance association. Why should they not have safeguards that are required by other concerns of that kind? Why should there not be, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says, a certain experience of this company sufficiently long for us to know that there is need of this system? I want to find out what this company is really doing before adding this clause.


George Eulas Foster: When you come down to the fact of the matter, what are you doing? By this clause you are making an insurance company without any of the safeguards.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Stand.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall I report progress, on this Bill? I think, perhaps, I should mention to the committee that any proposed amendments to this Bill should be given notice of lest they should infringe the rule.
Progress reported.



CANADA WEST LOAN CORPORATION.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 169) to incorporate the Canada West Loan Corporation.
On section 7,
George Eulas Foster: I would like to call the attention of the hon. gentleman who has this Bill in charge, that this section brings up the same thing we have discussed in reference to the Bank Act. As this is a loan company, and is no less important than a bank in many respects, it would seem as if this required more notice:
And no certificate shall be given until the board of directors has been elected as required by this Act, nor until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the Minister of Mr. FOSTER
Finance that at least $500,000 of the capital stock of the company have been subscribed.
The amounts outlined by the Finance Minister for the Bank Act have put in the word ' bona fide ' before the word 'subscribed.' I think these words should be added after the 'capital stock of the company' :
Have been bona fide subscribed, and at least $100,000 thereof have been paid.
That is, of the sum bona fide subscribed. What you want to make sure of is that there should not be a fake subscription, and that the amendment which goes in as a certificate of deposit, should be of actual moneys bona fide subscribed and paid in, and not borrowed on notes and securities, as in the case of the Farmers' Bank.


Mr. McCRANEY.: I do not see any need of it, but I have no objection to the hon. gentleman's suggested amendment. The clause is the usual one which has been inserted in the other company Bills.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps it does not make any difference provided everything is honestly carried out. But it was thought to be of so much importance that the Finance Minister has outlined that as one of the necessary amendments to the Bank Act; and one can see where it might be made use of if there was a suspicion that things were not properly carried out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 30,
Mr. LENNOX.: Why is this company exempted from the requirement to use the word ' limited ' after the name of the company?


George Ewan McCraney: It is not usual with loan companies.


William Pugsley: I am inclined to think that the word ' limited ' ought to be used to convey to the public thp knowledge that there is not an unlimited liability of the shareholders. Of course, the use of the word ' corporation ' signifies to the public that the company is incorporated, but does not signify that it is limited as to its liability.


Mr. MILLER.: The word ' limited ' is not used in connection with financial corporations, such as trust companies and loan companies.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps the minister would let this Bill stand, as I have received one or two representations with reference to it which I have not yet had an opportunity of looking at. I do not want to put anything in the way of its passing.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
MAY 8, 19tl
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Ewan McCraney: My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) asked if I could obtain any information as to why the word ' limited ' has not been used as a rule in Acts passed by this House for the incorporation of loan and trusts companies. I inquired from the Superintendent of Insurance, through whose hands this legislation passes, and he told me that he knows no special reason, but that the custom has been to omit the word ' limited ' in the title. I can only suggest to my hon. friend that as corporations of this character are not trading companies, but loan and trust companies, the public is put on its guard as to the character of the business carried on. I would point out further that if a loan company were receiving money, the argument for the use of the word ' limited ' might be strong, but the money it receives, apart from what it may get on deposit-concerning which safeguards are put in such a Bill-is from bond and debenture holders who are well-to-do people, and usually very well advised. I shall give my hon. friend the names of a number of loan companies which have been incorporated by this parliament within Tecent years, and none of which have the word ' limited ' in the title. I have not come across any name which does include the word in the list of trust companies. There were incorporated in the year 1890 the Colonial Investment and Loan Company; 1903, the Acadia Loan Company, and the Eastern Canada Loan and Saving Company; in 1898, the Central Canada Loan and Saving Company ; in 1899, the Canada Permanent and Western Canada Mortgage Corporation; in 1906 the Huron and Erie Loan and Savings Company; in 1910, the Pioneers Loan Company, and the Northern Loan Company; and this session, the Hudson Bay Mortgage Corporation. Then the following trust companies:	In 1893 the Eastern Trust Company ; in 1894, the Toronto General Trust Corporation; in 1905, the Title and Trust Company; in 1907, the Western Trust Company; in 1908, the Prairie Provinces Trust Company, and the Prudential Trust Company. In the titles of none of these is the word ' limited


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend has gone to a good deal of trouble and has shown what the general practice is, whether it be a good practice or not, and I shall not make any further objection on that score.


George Eulas Foster: A number of the Ontario companies that I know have the word * limited '	i


George Ewan McCraney: If mv hon. friend will look through the recent statutes of Ontario, he will not find that any loan companies have been incorporated by the Ontario legislature at all. I have looked through the last five years, and have not found any. I presume that the companies prefer getting their charters in this House.


George Eulas Foster: I asked that this Bill stand over, but I find that the representations I had were with regard to another company.
Bill reported; read the third time, and passed.



CASUALTY COMPANY OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 174) to incorporate the Casualty Company of Canada.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Angus Claude Macdonell: I regret that the Minister of Finance is not here. He was not in the Banking and Commerce Committee when this Bill was before it. I would suggest that this Bill stand until he is here, as the name of this company is of considerable importance, and I should like to have his opinion concerning it.


William Melville Martin: I do not see why this Bill should be allowed to stand. There was a representative of the Finance Department in the Banking and Commerce Committee, and that committee adopted this Bill.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think my hon. friend will make more headway with hi3 Bill if he will allow it to stand until the Minister of Finance is here.


Mr. OLIVER.: In view of the statement made by my hon. friend in whose name the Bill stands, I do not see why we should insist on the presence of the Minister of Finance. If it is absolutely necessary that he should be here, we can send for him rather than have the Bill lose its place on the Order Paper.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think that, in the interests of the promoters of the Bill, and the public, the Minister of Finance should be here.


William Pugsley: I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should make any objections he has to the Bill, and then the committee will consider whether it should stand over. The Bill, as I understand it, passed the committee of which the Minister of Finance is a member. I think we should learn that there is some objection to the Bill before we allow it to stand over.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The objection made in the committee was to the fact that this company is seeking incorporation under a name which, if not 3im-

ilar to that of another company, would be apt to tie confused with it, and in the interest of the older company, which has been established in a similar business for several years, and in the interest of the public who are interested in avoiding the confusion of names, my purpose in making the motion was that the Minister of Finance might be aware of this similarity of names.


William Pugsley: What is the name of the other company?


Angus Claude Macdonell: The Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company, known commonly as ' The Canadian Casualty Company.' The present company seeks incorporation under the name of ' The Casualty Company of Canada.' I think the Bill should stand until the opinion of the Minister of Finance is had on the subject.


William Melville Martin: I know that the opinion of the Finance Department was available at three or four meetings of the Senate Committee, and at least one or two of the Banking and Commerce Committees of this House. I submit that we should be in no better position to judge concerning the name if we had the Minister of Finance here. It is a matter of opinion. The facts are that this company advertised in the 'Canada Gazette'

Mr. MACDOJSIEJLJL, (South Toronto). Bet the motion be put and disposed of, and then we can go on.


William Melville Martin: I do not see why we should not consider the merits on this motion. This company advertised in the ' Canada Gazette ' its intention to apply for incorporation under the name * The Lloyds' Casualty Company of Canada.' Before the Senate Committee an Ottawa solicitor, representing the Lloyds' Plate Glass Company, of New York, opposed the granting of the name ' Lloyd's.' The Senate Committee held three successive meetings, and finally gave this company the name. ' The Casualty Company of Canada.' The Bill was reported to this House and referred to our Committee on Banking and Commerce. That committee discussed the name and finally decided that the company was entitled to the name ' The Casualty Company of Canada.' The hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonell, Toronto) says there is a similarity between the names ' The Casualty Company of Canada ' and ' The Canadian Casualty and Steam Boiler Insurance Company.'


Angus Claude Macdonell: There is no word steam in the company's name.


William Melville Martin: My instructions are that there is in it the word ' steam,' but if I urn mistaken it does not make any difference. My hon. friend (Mr. Mac-Mr. MACDONELL.
donell, Toronto) says that the company opposing our name is generally known as ' The Canadian Casualty Company.' That is not our fault. As the solicitor for this corporation said before the Banking and Commerce Committee, that company is really travelling under an alias, and has no status, under that alias, to oppose the name of this company. In any case, the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company, I understand, has been bought and is run as a side-show by a Scottish company, known as the General Accident Insurance Corporation. These being the facts, and it being merely a matter of opinion whether the names are similar or not, I think the Bill should be proceeded with.


George Eulas Foster: It has been usual, where there has been a dispute about a name, to get the opinion of the Minister of Finance. I do not see that there would be anything to find fault with if we were to take up all the sections of this Bill except the first, which deals with the name, but to leave that until the Bill could be taken up again with the Minister of Finance here. There is no disposition to prevent the passing of the Bill.


William Pugsley: I have made inquiry of the Superintendent of Insurance, who is in attendance, and he tells me that the matter was thoroughly threshed out before the Banking and Commerce Committee, and that it was decided to leave the name exactly as it is. He tells me also that the Minister of Finance has left no information with him that he desires to express any opinion with regard to the recommendation of the committee. I do not see why we might not dispose of the Bill this evening. It seems to me. there is no similarity in the names of these companies, and no likelihood of confusion. What weighs with me is that the committee, after discussion and careful consideration, decided to recommend the Bill with this name.


Richard Blain: I was present when this matter was discussed in the Banking and Commerce Committee. The Minister of Finance was not in his place. True, the Finance Department was represented. As my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has pointed out, it is usual, when a similarity of names arises, that the Minister of Finance is questioned in the House with regard to the matter. Surely the hon. member who has charge of the Bills will not press it. If it is not put through tonight that will not interfere with its passage, and it is only fair to the committee to have a statement from the Minister of Finance on the question. Surely, if the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) had looked closely at these names he would not have said that there is no similarity. One company is known as ' The Canadian

Casualty Company,' and the other 'The Casualty Company of Canada.' Surely it will not be said that there is not great similarity between these names. It is usual, as I have said, in cases of this kind, to have a statement from the Minister of Finance.


Mr LENNOX.: I certainly think the suggestion of the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) should be accepted. The Minister of Finance usually has strong feeling on the question of names of companies. He has on many occasions, both in committee and in the House, expressed himself very clearly and strongly on such matters. And we are all of the opinion that it is unfortunate if the name given to a new company leads to confusion with some existing company. Now with great deference to the Minister of Public Works, I hardly think he is right. The words that catch the ear and arrest the attention are that this company, which we propose to incorporate, is a casualty company and a Canadian company, The Casualty Company of Canada; the other words in reference to boiler insurance are likely in ordinary language to Ibe left out. The company may preserve its identity, it may print all its gapers properly, and sign its letters with the full name of the company; and yet the public, speaking of the company, may abbreviate it and speak of this as The Canadian Casualty Company, although it is a Casualty Company , of Canada, so that after a little while one company will be confused with the other, to the great disadvantage of the companies themselves and of the public. The Minister of Finance has communicated to this company his objection to this incorporation, and we assume that he still maintains his objection. I do not think we should have this unseemly difference in the cabinet; I think the expressed opinion of the Minister of Finance ought to be concurred in.


William Pugsley: Do I understand my *hon. friend to say that the Minister of Finance has sent word to this committee of his objections to the Bill? I have not so understood it. If that werq the case, I would yield my view at once to the view of the Minister of Finance.


Haughton Lennox: No; I was saying that the Minister of Finance had expressed himself clearly through his representative in the committee, and we are bound to assume that he is still of the same opinion. That being the case, I think his colleagues in the cabinet ought to defer to his judgment in this matter, as it pertains more especially to his department. I understand that his representative was in the committee and expressed himself as opposed to the name.


William Melville Martin: That is not correct. In the Senate committee when this Bill was considered, the present name was given to this company, with the consent of the Superintendent of Insurance, the representative of the Finance Department. If I thought that the Minister of Finance was at all opposed to this name, I would not attempt to press the Bill. I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. member for North Toronto; but the only reason I have for asking that the committee proceed with this Bill is that I have to leave for the west in two or three days, and may not have another opportunity of bringing it forward.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have authority from the Department of Finance to say that the Senate committee examined this very question which is now_under discussion as to whether the name of this company was liable to be confounded with the name of another company, which I understand is the Boiler and Casualty Company; and that the contention that there was a conflict between the names was rejected, and the present name was accepted. I understand also that objection was taken in the committee of this House, and that the present name was accepted upon a division in the committee. I understand that the Superintendent of Insurance was present in the committee as representing the Department of Finance, and that he raised no objection to the present Bill. Therefore it is not exactly correct to say that the Minister of Finance does not concur in this legislation.


Haughton Lennox: Of course I accept the Prime Minister's version of the case as he understands it, but I do not understand him to say that he has had any direct communication with the Minister of Finance in the matter. I am informed by some' gentlemen around me that they understand that the Minister of Finance does not approve of the name.


William Pugsley: On what does my hon. friend base that statement?


Haughton Lennox: I am so informed.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend is misinformed.


Haughton Lennox: I gather it from members of the House in whom I have great confidence. I may say to my hon. friend who is promoting the Bill, that we do not wish tc prevent his Bill going through; I want him to get his Bill through. But I do not think that what is suggested by the member for North Toronto will have the effect of preventing this Bill going through. We will probably reach it again before he leaves.
85.71


Henry Horton Miller: I do not think any members of the House whom the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has spoken of as informing him that the Minister of Finance is opposed to the Bill, will get up in their places and say that they have heard him so express himself. The member for Simcoe argued a few minutes ago that there ought not to be any division in the cabinet on this matter, and that because the representative of the Minister of Finance is opposed to the name, therefore the other members of the cabinet ought also to be opposed to it.


Haughton Lennox: It is not as bad as that.


Henry Horton Miller: Now when he finds that the superintendent of insurance, representing the Minister of Finance, expressed himself favourably to the name, will he still think that there ought not to be a division in the cabinet, although the committee did agree with the opinion thus obtained?


Arthur Meighen: I think there is a valid objection to the name, no matter what the opinion of the Minister of Finance is, and also no matter what confusion may arise with the name of any other company. The name which is proposed for this company is simply the Casualty Company of Canada. Now the casualty business is one line of business, the banking business is another line, the trust business is another line, and so on all through the commercial life of the country. It seems to me it would be well to forbid any company using a name like this in any line of business. The Minister of Finance set a good example in connection with a bank which proposed to (monopolize the name The Bank of Canada. It would also be just as objectionable to incorporate a company calling itself The Trust Company of Canada, whether there was any other similar named' company in existence or not. It would seem to me also to afford an unfair advantage to any other company to be allowed to call itself The Loan Company of Canada, or to any set of incorporators to be called The Life Insurance Company of Canada. In all these cases I think so comprehensive a name gives them an undue advantage over other similar companies. So, even though there were no other companies, or no special circumstances, the better course for (this parliament to pursue would be to forbid to any company so unfair an advantage as would be given by allowing them to use this name. But in this case there is an additional objection. There is a company now in existence known as the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company. That is an additional objection, but in the very nature of things a similar objection would lie to almost any attempt to assume so comprehensive a name as this. For instance if a company asked to be known as the Life Mr. LENNOX.
Insurance Company of Canada, objection would at once be taken that there would be confusion with the Canada Life Assurance Company. It is argued by the hon. member for Eegina (Mr. Martin) that because the first company, the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company, has the additional ' Boiler Insurance Company5, it is distinguishable. No doubt to a lawyer and those familiar with the company it is very readily distinguishable, but as the hon. member knows, the general public do not like writing long names, and as a matter of fact, the company will be known by the first part of its name almost invariably. I have been furnished with a series of envelopes selected out of one mail of the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company. Seven of these are addressed to the Canadian Casualty Company, Toronto, and one of them is a letter ad-, dressed in typewriting from another large" company in Toronto, so it can easily be understood how the ordinary man would address them. The hon. member for Eegina (Mr. Martin) says that is not the fault of the applicants for this Bill. Certainly it is not, who would suggest it was? But it is similarly not the fault of this company. I am instructed that this company never signs itself or refers to itself as the 'Canadian Casualty Company, but ilJ ,is rooted in human nature that they should be so addressed. There will inevitably be confugion, and that confusion means a direct financial loss to the existing company. The Minister of Finance strongly opposed the use of a_ comprehensive title like this in the case of a bank, and he was upheld by the House. Surely there could be no objection to the name applied for by the incorporators of the bank now known as the Banque Nationale of Canada that will not apply to this one. If the Minister of Finance had a policy at that time, the same policy must apply in this case. We should not allow any company in any line of business to say that it was the company of that line of business of Canada, We should adopt that as a first principle in legislation of this kind. If there was some other adjective such as the Casualty and Guarantee Company of Canada the objection would be partly overcome, but a casualty business is one line of business, and no company should be allowed to say that it is the Casualty Company of Canada. To my mind that is the extreme limit of error.


Alexander Haggart: I differ from the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). I think the distinction is sufficiently clear, and if the present casualty company allowed themselves to be called by the two first words of their name, and they write letters or allow themselves to be so addressed without calling atten-

tion to the error, it is their fault. I think the House is going too far in the direction in which my hon. friend would lead it, it is too exacting already. Casualty is a general term, and in how many companies do we find such general terms, as British, Canadian, Western, Eastern, Northern, Dominion, National? I suppose casualty means no more than insurance, a casualty contract would be an indemnity contract, and when we see those two names written on sign boards, one the Casualty Company of Canada, and the other the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company, there is no confusion. I would favour giving this name. I think the applicants are entitled to it, and that those objecting have not shown a sufficient cause.


Angus Claude Macdonell: It would be well, perhaps, to ascertain how these people lit upon this name. In the first place, in their published advertisement of their intention to apply for this Bill they gave the name of Lloyd's Casualty Company. In that they were treading on the corns of Lloyd's Limited and Lloyd's Limited appeared before the Senate Committee and objected. This Bill was initiated in the Senate. In the Senate Committee the objection was taken, and it was quite apparent it was well taken, and the promoters of this Bill cast about to find some other name. In a moment, before the committee and without any published notice to anybody, without notice to the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company or anybody else, this name was settled upon and taken.
It is absurd-that is a strong word to use, but I think it is well applied-it is absurd to say that there is no similarity between these two names. This company seeks incorooration under the name of the Casualty Company of Canada, and the name of the old company is the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company, and as has been abundantly proven the Canadian Casualty and Boiler Insurance Company is known generally to the public as the Canadian Casualty Company and is very generally addressed that way through the mail. The hardship of passing the Bill in this shape is that you have this old insurance company engaged in the casualty business in the city of Toronto, and this new company, proposing to embark in an identically similar business, with its head office in the same city, takes a name that is bound to be confused with the other. There is no reason whatever why these people should want to be incorporated under this name unless it be that they desire to acquire the name for the purpose of sharing in the good will of the business of the existing company. I am not suggesting that, but it certainly looks as though such were
the case. This House may not have much to do with the confusion that may arise in the business of the two companies, but it certainly has to do with the protection of the public and in the public interest such a name should not be given the new company. There is, of course, the larger objection that this House would never incorporate a company under the name of the ' The Bailway Company of Canada ' or ' The Steamship Company of Canada,' and there is no reason why they should incorporate an insurance company under such a name. The Minister of Finance has years of experience in dealing with just such cases as this, and I am satisfied that if he were here he would share my opinion. I do not agree with the statement of the chairman of the committee that the Finance Department agreed to this name. The Bill was before the committee twice; on the first occasion the representative of the department was adverse, and on the last occasion when he was asked squarely what was his opinion he said he had no opinion to offer. There is no desire to force these people into any particular name, but I think they should make their reputation under their own name and not under the name of a company established in business.


Richard Blain: If the chairman of the . Banking and Commerce Committee will say that the Minister of Finance has been consulted and that he offered no objection to this name I will be 'satisfied.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am informed that the Minister of Finance was not consulted. I am informed by the Superinten dent of Insurance that the matter was discussed before the Senate Committee, and they rejected the objection. I am informed further that in the committee of this House the objection was overruled by a majority vote, and by the Senate Committee unanimously. I am also informed by the Superintendent of Insurance that whilst there may be some doubt he raises no objection.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Let me inform the right hon. the Prime Minister of the exact facts. * There was no objection made in the Senate Committee because there was no notice given, and no one knew until it was suggested by a senator present what name this company would get. The people whose business is now being invaded had no notice and could not take objection in the Senate Committee, but they brought their objection before the Commons Committee and the vote was almost a tis. It was felt by many that had the Finance Minister been present and given his Opinion the result would be otherwise.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that before the Senate Committee the Super-

intendent of Insurance suggested the name, and there was no objection.


Angus Claude Macdonell: There was no objection by the Casualty Company at that time because they did not know.


Wilfrid Laurier: The question is not new and no one can be taken by surprise. The question was discussed in the Senate Committee on the suggestion of the Superintendent of Insurance, and objection was taken before the House Committee upon the application of the other parties interested, so that it has been passed upon by the committees of both Houses. The rule is, unless there is a very grave error, to agree with the report of the committee.


Richard Blain: If the Bill passes now it will pass without the consent of the Minister of Finance, whose duty it is to look into matters of this kind, and who holds strong views on this very point. It is very important that before this Bill passes the opinion of the Minister of Finance should be obtained.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think all will agree that there is no parity whatever between this case and the case of the Bank of Canada mentioned by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. The name proposed in that Bill was ' The Bank of Canada,' and as the capital was largely taken from France it was thought that such a name would suggest to the people of Europe an idea which the character of the bank would not justify. It might be thought that La Banque du Canada was on a parity with La Banque de France or the Bank of England, that is to say, that it had some state connection. That was the objection taken by my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Finance. In this case there is nothing of the kind to be apprehended.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know whether the right hon. gentleman was here or not when I made the suggestion that, as the Minister of Finance was not here, and as there seemed to be some question about the matter, we might pass the other sections of the Bill and leave simply the section which has reference to the name until the Minister of Finance can be questioned about it.


Wilfrid Laurier: As the Bill will come up again to-morrow, I think my hon. friend from Regina might accept the suggestion of my hon. friend from North Toronto.
Section allowed to stand.
On section 7,


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest that before the word 'subscribed' there should be Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
put the words 'bona fide,' and after the words 'thirty-five thousand dollars' there should be put the word 'thereof' and the word 'thereon' should be omitted. These are in line with the emendation we made to-day in another Bill.


Henry Horton Miller: I would suggest that the words 'bona fide' should be inserted also in the other subsections of this section.


[Stage Direction]
Amendments agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: With reference to the use of the word 'limited,' I have the Ontario sessional papers which show that that word is very much more used in connection with the names of companies than the impression given to the House this afternoon would lead us to expect. I find, for instance: Brantford Trust Company (Limited), British Canadian Loan and Investment Company (Limited), Brockville Loan and Savings Company (Limited), Canada Landed and National Investment Company (Limited), Canadian Northern Prairie Lands Company (Limited), Guardian Trust Company (Limited), Imperial Loan and Investment Company of Canada (Limited), London and Canadian Loan and Agency Company (Limited), London and Western Trusts Company (Limited), Mercantile Trust Company of Canada (Limited), National Trusts Company (Limited), North British Canadian Investment Company (Limited), North of Scotland Canadian Mortgage Company (Limited), Real Estate Loan Company of Canada (Limited), Scottish American Investment Company (Limited), Scottish Ontario and Manitoba Land Company (Limited), Trusts and Guarantee Company (Limited), Union Trust Company (Limited), Walkerville Land and Building Company (Limited). I wish again we had the Minister of Finance here, so that he could explain to us when in his opinion the word 'limited' should be used with reference to these corporations. The Canadian Loan Company seems to be on a line with these companies in Ontario to whose names the word 'limited' is attached.


George Ewan McCraney: Was the hon. gentleman here when I quoted the names of loan and trust companies which had been incorporated by this parliament and as to which the word 'limited' was not made a part of the name?


Henry Horton Miller: Taking up the 'Monetary Times ' and going through the list of loan company advertisements, I find the Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation, the Huron and Erie Loan and Savings Company the Hamilton Provident and Loan Society, none of which has the word 'limited.' The next is the London and Canadian Loan and Agency Company, Limited. Then follow a number without the word ' limited'-the

Toronto Mortgage Company, the Standard Loan Company, the Reliance Loan and Savings Company of Ontario, the Agricultural Savings and Loan Company of London, Ontario, the Ontario Loan" and Debenture Company, the Dominion Savings and Investment Society. In all about a dozen without the word ' limited,' .and I do not think they ail have Dominion charters.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 164) for the relief of Walter Harvey Kirkland.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 180) for the relief of Mary Kathleen Crittenden.-Mr. Rhodes.
Bill (No. 181) for the relief of Pauline Wins'low Saunderson.-Mr. Carvell.
Bil l(No. 182) for the relief of Nellie Bridgland Morrison.-Mr. Harris.
Bill (No. 183) for the relief of Francis Whittington Truesdell.-Mr. Smith (Nanaimo).

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 158) to incorporate Keviuon r'reres Trading Company.-Mr. Devlin.
On section 8,
8. The property and assets of Revillon Brothers, Limited, to be vested in the company incorporated by this Act shall be deemed to be and consist of the properties specified in the schedule to this Act; but nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any creditors of the said Revillon Brothers, Limited.
William Pugsley: I would like to call the attention of the committee to this section, also to sections 6, 9 and 11. In the first place, I presume the committee has considered the matter, and I would hesitate to criticise their action in passing this Bill. But it strikes me as about as extraordinary a Bill as 1 have ever seen. This Bill purports to vest by Act of parliament all the assets of another company in a new company, and it repeals the charter of the old company, it revokes and annuls the letters patent, and repeals the statute passed in 1906 confirming these letters patent.


George Eulas Foster: Is that the new company or the same?


William Pugsley: Another company. Each company has a separate existence and may have separate liabilities. Then by section 9 it seems to recognize another company; still it is a company incorporated in France, and whose assets are alleged by this Bill to be handed over to the new company, whereas this Bill 271
does not hand over the assets of the French company at all, but only the assets of the company which was incorporated by letters ipatent in 1904. In this case it may be all right, there may be no creditors, but what we do to-day may be a precedent for legislation to-morrow. Suppose there was a man who had a claim against the existing company and a suit was pending; the moment this statute comes into force the charter of the existing company is annulled, its letters patent become void, the statute recognizing these letters is repealed, and there is no old company in existence; so the man would find himself out of court at once. It is true his rights are protected by a provision that this company shall be liable for th6 debts of the old company, but every man's suit would be discontinued. It seems to me the proper course would be to authorize the existing company, to convey their properties to the new company by the proper conveyance, and then make this company liable for the debts of the existing company, and make provision that any suits pending might be carried to a conclusion in the name of the old company, but that the new company should be liable for judgments which might be obtained. But by this statute we wipe out at once, by a stroke of the pen when this statute comes into force, the charter of the old company, and wipe out all suits that might be pending. It strikes me as entirely new legislation, and objectionable.


Samuel Barker: I was on the committee when this Bill was brought up, and I certainly felt as the Minister of Public-Works has just said. The applicants for the Bill were two gentlemen of very high professional reputation, Mr. Lafleur and Mr. Mc-Dougall, and there was an indisposition to doubt the correctness of the measure, because these gentlemen were vouching for it. The whole story was of the most intricate character. There had been two blunders, apparently, in the course of the existence of these companies. The first charter appeared to be a blunder, then there was another blunder, and this was an effort to redeem the two blunders, and put .the corporations upon another footing. Feeling the importance of the matter, I suggested in the committee that we should appoint a committee of four legal gentlemen to act with the counsel and go over this Bill with extreme care, and see that now, after all the troubles they had been involved in, we did not make another and a worse blunder still. I do not think it was possible for any member of the committee clearly to understand what they were doing. I have no doubt whatever that the promoters of the Bill, the legal gentlemen present, were strictly truthful in everything they said, and said nothing they did not know. But I think also that the committee were re-



*sponsible, and I felt that we ought not to act entirely on the opinion of the legal gentlemen present. I was not able, on the statements made there, either to approve or disapprove of the Bill. I can only say that as a member of that committee, and now sitting in the House, I have no more idea whether the passing of the Bill will produce the result that was intended, than I have as to whether there are inhabitants in Mars. I doubt whether any member of the committee thoroughly understood it. It was passed largely upon the reputation of the two legal gentlemen who were present, and who had been acting all through for the Revillon Freres Trading Company, Limited. There is a Revillon Freres in France, and there is a chartered Revillon Brothers under a charter issued by the Secretary of State, and there is now this Bill. Who will be who by and by, I do not know. I am not surprised that the minister is in doubt about it, and I do hot think that any member of the committee has the slightest idea what it means. I think that for the sake of the reputation of parliament something should be done. I do not think we are justified in passing legislation that we do not understand. I think it ought to be referred to a special committee, who would report to the general committee. That is what I suggested before, but my view was not accepted by the committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: As the promoter of the Bill is not here, and the objections of my hon. friend seem to be very *serious, I would move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.


George Eulas Foster: Has my right hon. friend any suggestion to make in the way of getting this where it can be intelligently dealt with? It is rather stunning to hear a competent member of that committee say that he does not know any more about this Bill than he does about the people in Mars; and I do not think the Minister of Customs knows any more about it, either, than he does about the people in Mars. I am sure, in reading this Bill, I do not know anything about it.


Wilfrid Laurier: If anything comes from Mars, my hon. friend the Minister of Customs will look after it, I know. In the meantime, the suggestion made by the member for Hamilton seems to be the most sensible one under the circumstances. The promoter of the Bill not being here, I suggest that the committee rise and report progress.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I can fully endorse everything my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) has said. It was the most confused Bill I ever saw come before the committee, and I think the committee were just about as confused after the Bill was [DOT] Mr. BARKER.
passed as when we took it up. I think it would be advisable for this committee to take some step to put this Bill in a form that it would be workable, at any rate.


Samuel Barker: I do not think there was a member present in the committee who wanted to interfere with the Bill; we only wanted to do what was right, but wq did not know what we were doing.


Henry Horton Miller: As I understand it, the Revillon Freres were a French company having a charter and doing business in many countries in Europe. They desired to do business in Canada, and they applied to the Secretary of State under the Companies1 Act for a charter. That charter was granted, and it was a very peculiar charter, a copy of which was produced before the committee. The charter stated that all the property of Revillon Freres, the French firm, should thereafter be vested in Revillon Brothers, the Canadian company. It did not even limit the property so vested to the Canadian property, but that all the property of Revillon Freres should be vested in Revillon Brothers, the Canadian company. I asked Mr. Lafleur the solicitor for the promoters why they did not ask for legislative authority to have the Canadian company convey their Canadian property to the new *company. It appears that when Revillon Brothers were incorporated in 1904 there was no application filed, that there were no provisional directors named, and that the charter vested the property of Revillon Freres in the Canadian company, but the Canadian company had no entity and no directors who could convey the property. The French company is really the whole company. They supplied all the caprtal, they did business in Canada under the name of Revillon Brothers, under a charter granted by the Secretary of State and without any one finding fault for a number of years. The Bank of Montreal who were their bankers suddenly said:	We do not think you
have the right to carry on business in this way, and we will not advance you any further money because the charter granted by the Secretary of State conveys nothing to anybody, there being no directors, and they have never organized and could never organize under that charter. They answered: We will get the French company to endorse our paper, but the bank said:	That
is worthless because the French company have vested all their property in the Canadian company, and, therefore, it is divested from them and nobody has it. It was absolutely impossible for the Canadian company to reconvey, and the only thing that could be done was to get this Act of parliament vesting the property in the ' new company.


George Eulas Foster: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) had better sleep over it, and find another explanation.


Henry Horton Miller: My hon. friend might not understand it, but most members of the committee did.


George Eulas Foster: I do understand that, according to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) the Dominion government issued a charter to nobody for nothing. They granted a charter to a company which had no directors provisional or otherwise.


Henry Horton Miller: That is quite right.


George Eulas Foster: And consequently it was not worth the paper it was written on, and yet it was given to conduct a large business. That is pretty good proof that there is something wrong in a department which would issue such a charter.


Henry Horton Miller: I am not defending the charter; I am simply stating the facts.
Progress reported.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 186) respecting the Jolliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.-Mr. Dubeau.
Bill (No. 190) for the relief of Violet Jane Dakin.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 191) for the relief of Hugh Samuel Bell.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 187) respecting a Patent of the Boiler Flue Cleaner and Supply Company, Limited.-Mr,_ Clarke 

(-Essex), -
Bill (No. 188) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of Trussed Concrete Steel Company of Canada, Limited.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill (No. 192) to provide for increasing the capital stock of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company.-Mr. Bickerdike.
Bill (No. 193) respecting the Sauvegarde Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 195) to incorporate the Western Canal Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 196) to incorporate the Continental Fire Insurance Company of Canada. -Mr. Molloy.
Bill (No. 200) for the relief of Gertrude Mary Grantham.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 198) to incorporate the Quebec and Great North-Western Railway Company-Mr. Hodgins.
Bill (No. 199) for the relief of Fanny Mary Healey.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARTIN (Regina) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 201) respecting the Canada National Fire Insurance Company.
George Ewan McCraney: There is a corporation having its head office at Saskatoon which 2714
bears the name of the Canadian National Insurance Company. I have a wire from the company to-day asking when this matter will be considered in the Banking and Commerce Committee, because they wish to have some of their directors present at the committee. I hope that the chairman of the committee can give an appointment to-night, so that I may wire the Saskatoon people to be down here when that committee meets.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 202) 'to incorporate the High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 203) respecting certain patents of Munderloh and Company, Limited-Mr. Mnedonell (Toronto).
Bill (No. 204) respecting the Cariboo, Barkerville and Willow River Railway Company.
Bill (No. 205) respecting the Canada Cement Company, Limited.
Bill (No. 206) respecting the Chatham, Wallaceburg and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
RELEASE OF VICTOR DINL * 1 2 3
-*MrJSQRTHBUP:
1.	Is the government aware that on the 21st of February last, 1911, one Victor Dini was sentenced by His Honour Judge Bazin of Montreal, to twenty-three months imprisonment for stealing $4,000 from the Dominion Express Company?
2.	Is it a fact that the said Victor Dini, as alleged, has since been liberated from prison? If so, by whose order was he liberated ?
3.	Was he pardoned or liberated on a ticket of leave, for what reason was he liberated or pardoned, and on whose recommendation?

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	How many sub-targets have been purchased, at what price and what is the total expenditure to date?
2.	Who are the officers of the company with whom the government has contracted in regard to the purchase of these sub-targets?
3.	Has the government contracted to purchase any specified number of these sub-targets? If so, how many, and upon what terms?
4.	To what use are the sub-target guns put at present time?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	(a) Five hundred and fifty-two (552).
(b)	$250 each; except for 200 machines purchased in 1907 at $249.25.
(c)	$137,850.
2.	The only officer of the company known to the department at present is Mr. George I. Riddell, the manager.
3.	No contract has been made for the supply of any additional number of these machines.
4.	For the preliminary musketry training of the militia and cadets.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-CUSTOMS DUTIES.
Haughton Lennox: Does the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company pay the regular customs duties, or any customs duties, upon goods, supplies and material imported by them and entering into the construction of the western division of the Transcontinental railway?


Mr. PATERSON.: The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company pays the regular customs duties upon goods, supplies and material imported for and entering into the construction of the Western Division of the Transcontinental railway.


JOHN R. BARLOW.
Haughton Lennox: Is there a Mr. John R. Barlow in the service of the government or the geological Department as a surveyor? If so, what is his
address ?


Mr. TEMPEMAN.: There is no person of the name of John R. Barlow in the employ of the Geological Survey.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: 


NICOLET PUBLIC WORKS.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1 What is the total amount paid each year since 1907 up to this date for works done at River Godfroy, River Nicolet, and at the post office at Nicolet, to John O'Shaunessy?
2.	What is the amount of stone purchased by the government from John O'Shaunessy during the year 1910 for the works at Sorel?
3.	How many toise of stone, at what price, and what is the name of the person who measured this stone?


William Pugsley: 
NICOLET CUSTOMS COLLECTIONS.
Eugène Paquet: il. What was the total amount collected at the Nicolet customs office for each of the fiscal years, 1906-7, 1907-8, 1908-9, 1909-10 and 1910-11?
2. What was the amount paid to the collector of customs at Nicolet for each fiscal year from 1906 to 1911?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	The total amount collected at the Nicolet customs office was as follows: 1906-07 (9 months), $372.71; 1907-08, $10,464.02; 1908-09, $5,358.53; 1909-10, $1,284.53; 1910-11, $697.89.
2.	The amount paid to the collector of
customs at Nicolet for each fiscal year was as follows: 1906-07 (9 months), $300; 1907-08, $466.68; 1908-09, $700; 1909-10, $700; 1910-11, $700.	*


NICOLET POST OFFICE.
Eugène Paquet: Has the government received a petition from Nicolet asking for the construction of an annex to the post office, for the occupation of the postmaster?


William Pugsley: No.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	Does the government know, as alleged, that the mail clerks on the Intercolonial, as well as on the Delaware road, between Nicolet and Montreal, are accustomed to permit their friends to travel in the mail cars?
2.	If so, is the government going to permit this abuse to continue longer or have it discontinued?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: 1 and 2. The government is not aware that mail clerks on the
85S5

Intercolonial or on the line between Nicolet and Montreal, permit their friends to travel in mail cars, as such action on the part of clerks is against the rules and regulations, and any violation thereof is followed by the suspension of the clerk at fault. In 1905 one clerk, running between Montreal and Nicolet, was dismissed and one suspended for three months for violation of this rule.


NICOLET MILITARY ACCOMMODATION.
Eugène Paquet: Does the government intend to put the military arsenal of the 80th battalion in the upper story of the post office, as well as the office of Weights and Measures, as proposed at the time of the building of the post office at Nicolet?


William Pugsley: There is no military arsenal at Nicolet. The Minister of Militia informs me that this question may relate to the use of a part of the public building for an armoury. This may be considered as answer to the question.


RIVER NICOLET DREDGING.
Eugène Paquet: What is the amount voted for the dredging of the River Nicolet from the mouth of the River St. Laurent up to the bridge of the village, and is this work to be done by day labour or by contract?


William Pugsley: This work will be done by contract and paid for from the general vote for dredging, provinces of Quebec and Ontario.


LEGALIZATION OP MARRIAGES.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):: 1.	Has the Dominion government to legalize or validate any or every marriage solemnized anywhere in Canada?
2.	Has the government taken any steps to ascertain the power of this parliament in that regard ?
3.	If not, does the government propose to take any steps for that purpose?
4.	Has the opinion of the law officers of the
Crown been asked or obtained upon this question ?	*
5.	Does the government propose to obtain the opinion of the law officers of the Crown thereon?


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH:: 1.	The government does not consider that it possesses any such power.
2,	3, 4 and 5. The government has not
considered the advisability of taking any of the courses suggested.	.


POST OFFICE ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIEUX moved that the House go into Committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved", that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act by providing (a) for annual increases to the salaries of the superintendents of city post offices until a maximum salary of $2,500 is reached; and (b) for raising the minimum and maximum salaries of railway mail clerks to $500 and $3,400 respectively; and making the yearly increases for all railway mail clerks $100 instead of $50 until a salary of $800 has been reached.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. LEMIEUX moved that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act by:-
(a)	changing the classification of the clerks in the city post offices, offices of the post office inspectors, office of superintendent of railway mail service, and in the money order exchange offices by abolishing the stampers and sorters class and fourth class clerkships, and substituting therefor third class clerkships, ranging from $500 to $1,000, and divided into two classes known as third class 'A' and 'B.*
(b)	abolishing the junior and senior second class clerkships and substituting therefor classes 'A' and 'B* of the second class, and increasing the maximum of the class formerly known as junior second, and now known as class 'B/ to $1,200, and increasing the maximum of class 'A.,' corresponding with the former senior second class, to $1,400.
(c)	dividing the first class clerkships into divisions 'A' and 'B' with maximum salaries of $1,800 and $1,600, respectively, and increasing the minimum of the first class clerkships from $1,200 to $1,400, and creating a new class of clerks to be known ns chief clerks in tile city post offices, subject to-certain restrictions.
(d)	improving the position of office superintendents in city offices, and changing what was formerly a fixed salary of $1,800 to a minimum of $1,800 and a maximum of $2,500.
(e)	providing for the employment of temporary clerks in the above named offices for a period of not more than one year, at a fixed salary of $500, and temporary helpers to meet the exigencies of the service at a salary not exceeding $2.50 a day.
(f)	increasing the salaries of certain inspectors, assistant inspectors and superintendents ef railway mail service in recognition of years of service.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I will be pleased to give the minister the names of the contractor and subcontractor in the case I have mentioned.']
Mr R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I wish to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior in his capacity as Superintendent General of Indian Affairs to a matter that has been brought to my notice quite recently. It has reference to certain damage done by a fire caused by a steam threshing machine operated by government officials
85S7

on Pasqua's Indian Reserve, which is situate! near Fort Qu'Appelle, on the 29th of October, 1910. At the time the threshing was taking place the wind was blowing a perfect gale. Practically all the machines in the neighbourhood shut down though another fire was caused by one of the machines which continued threshing that day. The fire, according to my informant, burned the separator, and was allowed to run out over the country, doing damage which was estimated by the North West Mounted Police to amount to between $8,000 and $10,000. Mr. Nichol, the Indian Agent, who at the time was in charge of the machine, was summoned by the North West Mounted Police for allowing the fire to run at large. He appeared before a justice of the peace at Fort Qu'Appelle, and was fined the sum of $25 for the offence. My informant informs me that the inspector of Indian Agencies, Mr. W. M. Graham, took occasion to go through the district and inquire as to the amount of damage which had been caused by the fire which took place after the burning of the machine. It is stated that he made an estimate of the losses, and sent that estimate to Ottawa. Several settlers made application to be reimbursed for the losses they sustained; and the only word they had from Ottawa was to the effect that the department did not consider themselves responsible. Now, it is well known all through the North West that it is a very dangerous thing to continue threshing with a steam threshing outfit when there is a very high wind blowing. On such occasions very few farmers will allow threshing to go on, as the number of accidents that occur from that cause are very numerous; but when such accidents do occur, the responsibility is placed on the owner of the threshing machine to see that all damages which result to the people are paid. In the same neighbourhood as the case I mention a fire starting from a threshing machine of Mr. Guy May got away and burned several bins of wheat and oats belonging to his neighbours, and he had to pay for the damages done. Mr. May had some excuse, perhaps, for threshing on that particular day. It seems that he had only five acres of crop to finish his whole season's work, and on such occasions men will try to finish their threshing. But I am rather at a loss to understand why a government official should consider it necessary to take risks under such circumstances, and to continue threshing on a day on which the wind was so extremely high. The fire in question burned out a number of settlers in the neighbourhood.
I have a list of some of them, but not a complete list. Three of those settlers have written to me asking me to try to get the government to consider the losses they ' Mr. LAKE.
have sustained and to reimburse them. It seems to me that when a fire of that sort is caused by the recklessness or carelessness of a government official, the government who employ that official should be in the same position as the owner of a private threshing machine, who in .similar cases.is required to reimburse those who suffer loss in consequence of his recklessness or neglect. One of my correspondents writes me to this effect: "
I have practically lost all my grain and buildings, and it seems strange that I cannot get common justice from the Interior Department, when it was proved that it was their employees who caused it. This is the second time that I have lost grain and buildings by fire from the same cause. I came to Canada from England with a little capital and bought this farm. Now I have nearly lost it all by these fires.
Another man wrote to me that he had lost two-thirds of his crop, which was threshed and in the granaries. Yet another writes about the considerable losses that he sustained. I know that settlers living in the neighbourhood of Indian reserves frequently suffer very seriously from fires which accidently or carelessly start on these reserves. I presume this is due mainly to the fact that there are very few settlers on the reserve, and a very small amount of land is broken up, and the fires get great headway before they are brought under control. In this particular case the fire started from a threshing machine which was being operated by an employee of the government, who was threshing the grain of the Indians. The fire must have been a terrible one because it jumped across both railway tracks at a point where there is a siding and continued unchecked on the other side of the line. I thought, it necessary to bring this matter up to-day as rumors are current that the government are likely to move an adjournment or prorogation before very long; and it is only within the last day or two that the facts have come into my possession and the sufferers have asked me to bring this matter up. This fire occurred in the end of last October, and it is very desirable that the payment of damages should not be delayed. If these people have suffered these losses owing to the fault of the government, they should be reimbursed immediately. A great deal of hardship has been inflicted on a number of innocent individuals, and they consequently are perfectly entitled to compensation just as much as they would be, had the fire been set by the owner of a private threshing machine or some one in his employ. I hope the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs (Mr. Oliver) will have the matter looked into and give orders that the government pay whatever damages have been inflicted.


William Melville Martin: Like my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Lake) I have a good deal of sympathy with the farmers who suffered such severe loss by the prairie fire that started on the Indian reserve. This matter was brought to my attention some two or three months ago, and-I at once wrote the Deputy Superintendent General of Indian Affairs. I wrote to him on two or three occasions giving him all the facts. In my opinion, under similar circumstances a private individual who owned that threshing machine would be responsible, because there was evidently negligence on the part of those who were handling it. But unfortunately the government does not stand in the same position as a private individual in respect of damages. On referring to the file in connection-with this matter, I find that it was referred by the Indian Department to the Justice Department, and the following opinion was given by the latter:
Sir,-Eeplying to your letter of the 15th 'December, 1910, in which you request to be advised whether your department is liable for the claims of various persons for loss of property by fire which originated, it is alleged, from the negligence of those in charge of a threshing outfit on the Qu'Appelle Agency, Saskatchewan, I have the honour to say that I am not aware of any grounds on which your department could be held liable for such negligence, if proven.
There is, therefore, a great difference between the liabilities of a private individual in a case-of this-kind and the liability of the government. Not having met with much success in the Indian Department, I saw the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) who took the position that the department did not want to shelter itself behind a technicality of the law, but would be willing to pay damages if they were assessed. The great difficulty, however, even if negligence were proven, lay in the assessing of the damages. Were an action in damages brought against the government in the Exchequer Court it would not succeed; but it is possible that an action against the man who was running the threshing machine-and running it on a day when the wind was so high that it was absolute folly to do so-would hold good; and the Minister of the Interior was good enough on one occasion to suggest that if an action were brought against this man, and he was held responsible, the department would stand behind him, and pay the damages. Of course when a man has had his crop destroyed by fire, the crop is always worth twice as much as he would have realized out of it. The whole difficulty is in the assessment of the damages, and that is the position taken by the department to-day.


Mr. PORTEE.: I cannot see on what grounds the Deputy Minister of Justice distinguishes between the liability of an individual who is running the machne and the liability of the owner of the machine.


William Melville Martin: The difference is this, that the government cannot be held responsible for wrong done by one of its servants, unless there be some statutory obligation.


Edward Guss Porter: That seems to be the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice, but upon what authority does he base it? I do not know of any such distinction.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: What is the distinction?


Edward Guss Porter: That when the government employs an agent to operate a machine, and that machine causes damages, the agent would be responsible but not the government.


William Melville Martin: On the well known principle that the King can do no wrong.
Mr- LAKE. What practical steps would the Minister of the Interior suggest that these settlers should take? The fire caused a great amount of damages and suffering to these individuals, and that fire was due to the fault of a government employee. I would ask the minister what action these sufferers should take, in order to prove their loss and be paid compensation p_______


Frank Oliver: As my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) Has said, 1 nave had several discussions with him, and the conclusion arrived at was that in order to avoid the difficulty which was stated by the Department of Justice to stand in the way. the parties should take proceedings directly against the individual at fault, who was in charge of the machine, and was also an employee of the government, with the understanding that any damages assessed against him the government will be prepared to pay on getting a vote from parliament. The position is an unfortunate one in which the settler stands at present, but it is one we ourselves cannot avoid, the law being as it is. JBut by the procedure that 1 suggest, it seems to me that would be avoided, and the payment of the claim would be a matter of policy which 1 would recommend the government to recommend to the House and, for which I am sure, the House would provide in due course. I wish it distinctly understood that the department does not wish, as a matter of policy, to avoid the responsibility which would rest upon it if, instead of a department it was an individual and damage had resulted to private citizens from any act for which it is responsible.

The difficulty about settling and awarding damages as a departmental matter must strike any one who gives the subject attention. It is not wise for any branch of the government to undertake to adjudicate over its own matters which, under other circumstances, would be decided on by an action in court. There is room for all sorts of discussion as to motives, and as to the result which would be achieved by such procedure; and it seems to me that, in the interest of both the country on the one hand and of the sufferers on the other hand, the responsibility should be decided by an impartial tribunal, and amount of damages should be assessed by such a tribunal. Such a tribunal, of course, are the courts of the country, if the matter can be brought before them; and it seems to me the matter can be brought before them in the way i suggest. At first, as the House has been informed, the question was asked the Department. of Justice: Can we deal with this matter in the ordinary course? We were informed we could not. The matter was then taken up for further consideration with the result I have indicated


Robert Laird Borden: The principle that the Crown is not responsible for the negligence of its servants has been very largely cut down by legislation in this country, in connection with the operation of the Intercolonial railway and m connection with public works. And I do not think it has been further extended by statute, certainly not so far as I am aware. As to the case to which the minister refers, it is highly probable that the servant guilty of the negligence himself would be liable. But what the minister suggests, I understand, is that action should be brought against him. and then the Crown should take into consideration whether they should pay?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That does not seem a very satisfactory or definite attitude. In the first place, if these men have suffered damages by the negligence of another person, that damage ought to be made good, even though the person who caused it was a servant of the Crown when he did it. There is no reason why this fajrmer should be out of pocket by reason of the negligence of another person, simp'iy because that other person happened to be a servant of the Crown. Some person ought to reimburse him; and, if the Crown is disposed to take cognizance of the matter, they ought to say: Co on and make your case against this man who was acting as our servant, and if you make out that he was guilty of negligence in the course of Mr. OLIVER.
his work, we will see that it is paid, and the cost of the action also. It does not seem to me to be dealing with this farmer in a fair way to say, after he has gone to the trouble and expense of an action against the party: We will take it into consideration.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to be understood as leaving the matter in the position which my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has suggested. But he understands that in my place 1 cannot bind the government, nor can I bind parliament to vote the money. But I am, on the responsibility of my position, stating what is the policy of the government in this particular case. And, of course, that is binding upon the government so .far as its recommendation to parliament is concerned. If we could go further I would be glad to do it, but that is as far as I can go, and I should think it -would be satisfactory.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax) If the minister means that the government will submit an estimate to parliament of the amount of damage, that is perfectly satisfactory.


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: If I understand he is simply dealing with the technical consideration that he is not able to bind parliament, yet I think the government undertakes to bind parliament with matters of more importance, or rather, not undertakes to bind parliament, but undertakes to submit to parliament and carry through, which is much the same thing.


Edward Guss Porter: Might I suggest, as a way out of this difficulty, that if the department is satisfied that this is a case deserving of compensation, and in view of the fact that a collective action could not be brought, but that there would have to be separate or individual action on behalf of every one of these farmers, which would mean great expense, the government, instead of going through the forms of trial in each case, should appoint an assessor to assess the damages for all the farmers and then submit an estimate to parliament to pay these damages. That would avoid the trouble of individual trial. And some of these people may not be in a position to incur the expense of a trial. But if the government, recognizing its liability, would take the course I suggested I think it would overcome the difficulty.
_ Mr. OLIVER. While the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Porter) could be adopted, I do not think it is wise, as I have already said, either in the interests of the country or in the interests of the claimant, that the amount of the damages should be settled in that way. I am satisfied that my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) who sits beside

the hon. member for West Hastings (Mr. Porter) will suggest to him that if the government undertook to make an assessment of the damages, the assessment might be varied according to the political predilections of the claimant rather than the merits of the case. I think it is fairer to everybody and in everybody's interest that there should be full opportunity given to have the matter brought to court and tried out in the ordinary way, so that there may be no question about the rights of the country or of the individual being affected by anything b.ut the merits of the case.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the negligence admitted?


Frank Oliver: No; I forgot to mention that point. There is no actual admission of negligence in the proceedings that have gone forward so far against the man who operated the engine. When the fire took place a summons was issued against the agent of the reserve; he was brought up and pleaded guilty and was fined $25. But the agent was not on the reserve on that day, so that his plea of guilty, while it may have had some merit in some way, did not really bear upon the point, it did not bring the question to an issue. It was a general allegation, and he made a general plea of guilty. But my hon. friend will understand that it was not a satisfactory solution of the question. The question of whether~the man who ran the engine was directly responsible, has not really been tried-nut yet.- -


Richard Stuart Lake: Would not the fact that a high gale was blowing at the time be sufficient evidence of negligence? Any one knowing that country would say so.


Frank Oliver: That question illustrates my point. .Courts exist for the purpose of doing justice between man and man, that is their primary object, and that question was the very question the courts should decide; it should not be- a question of the judgment of one of the interested parties.


Samuel Barker: It seems to me the minister puts the case in this w*ay: There has been damage done to some farmers, and he will not take the trouble to investigate for himself, and ascertain vdiether tire government is responsible, but the proper way is for the courts to decide the question. That is very well for the legal profession, they must have every case fought out in court, with law costs for the plaintiff and law costs for the defendant, and then the government will pay the damages. Why should not the minister inquire into the facts, and if he finds there is negligence why should he call a jury to pass upon it? That question comes up
every day with railway companies, and they have to pay. They do not insist upon providing law costs on both sides of the case before they pay. Surely the hon. gentleman can take the trouble to ascertain whether the agent of the government was wrong or not, and if he finds he was wrong he will pay these damages.


Haughton Lennox: This is one of the special cases in which the minister might depart from what he says is a general rule, and a very good rule. The minister says that as a general rule it is not a good thing for the government to take matters of this kind in hand, and settle them without a lawsuit to establish the liability, and the amount of damages. The minister says he has not actually admitted the liability, and technically he has not. His agent admitted liability, and was fined, but he was not there when the fine occurred, and negligence consequently has not been established. There is tire fact, I understand, of a very high gale, and it was negligence to run the machine at all in such a gale. Now, if the minister is satisfied that it is a case in which the government ought to pay these people, he does not need to stand on technicalities. This matter has been before the House and the House I think is of the ODinion that there ought to be compensation. Why then have a lawsuit about it? I would suggest that the minister have an investigation to ascertain the facts. Let him appoint a judge to look into this matter. I think there has been sufficient negligence to justiiy^the- country in paying these-farmers. If the minister thinks that there has been negligence, then he need not refer that point to the judge, but let him refer the question of how much damages in each case was sustained. I would not under such circumstances recommend the minister to refer the question of negligence to the judge, but to ask the judge to take evidence as to the amount of damages. It has been suggested to me that a farmer might recover only $200 or $300. But there are some farmers who cannot bring an action at all, and when the minister is here, and has the whole parliament as his advisers. I think he can act upon their advice and make this an exceptional case.


Mr. MACDONALD.: I am at loss to understand how my 'hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) who is a good lawyer, could undertake to say that he has heard enough about this case to give judgment upon it, and that the minister would be justified in dispensing with the usual preliminaries of legal proceedings before he settles these claims. If the Department of Justice has investigated this matter thoroughly, and has advised that there is no negligence, then there is no right of action.


Haughton Lennox: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) if the facts are as he understands them, that is that the Department of Justice has advised that there is no negligence. I understood that all the Justice Department were consulted about was the question of liability on the technical point as to whether the government were liable for the negligence of their servant, and that they advised they were not. If the Department of Justice took the facts into consideration, and said on the evidence as well as the law that there was no liability it would assume a different position.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: I have here the letter of Mr. Newcombe, in which he says:
I have the honour to say that I am not aware of any grounds on which your department could be held liable for such negligence, if proven.
The opinion of the Department of Justice upon that question seems to me to close the door as far as the minister is concerned, and the proposition he has made appears to me very reasonable. When dealing with this question of claims, it is all very well to say: It is a good general rule, but we must make an exception. I do not think that, sitting here as members of parliament apd hearing the facts presented, ably as they were, by the hon. member for Qu'-Appelle, we are able to form a judgment which ought to be arrived at only by a court of competent jurisdiction which could determine whether there was negligence as a matter of fact or within the law. My hon. friends cannot blow hot and cold. We frequently hear them complain that the departments have settled claims by appointing commissioners, but here is a ease where the minister takes the course they have advocated. The minister is prepared to treat these gentlemen fairly and to recognize any verdict given in the case after a thorough investigation by a court. That is the proper way to deal with claims, and it is not right to make exceptions.


Samuel Barker: Would the hon. member say from the papers who paid the fine?


Frank Oliver: The fine has not been paid.


Robert Laird Borden: Every one understands that the Crown is not liable for the negligence of its servants; we got beyond that an hour ago. The minister was considering what he could do in case negligence was proven by a servant of the Crown, by submitting an estimate to parliament.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: The question was whether there was any negligence.


Robert Laird Borden: 1 agree for the moat part that the Crown should determine Mr. MACDONALD.
these matters by some tribunal. On the other hand if there was a perfectly plain case, if the negligence was so clear that no question of its existence could be raised, it would foe of no use to send the matter to the courts, if for instance a man took off his spark arrester in a gale.


Frank Oliver: Because it was, a windy day it does not follow that negligence is established. My information is that the thresher was working in the shelter of the woods, and for that reason it was believed to be safe. If that is the case, there is sufficient doubt to warrant it being referred to court.


Mr. BRADBURY.: In case the courts found there was no negligence, then would the minister do anything to help the farmers, or drop the case? As a matter of equity, the farmers should be compensated.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The discussion is very irregular at this stage, and I will have to stop it.



Haughton Lennox: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Labour to an item in the Toronto ' News ' of Saturday. It is headed:
Robbing Foreign Labourers on the Transcontinental Railway-Startling charges from Port Arthur that stores are used to swindle hard-working foreigners who leave in debt after months of toil.
The article states that labourers are advertised for, $2.50 a day being offered. Upon arrival at the point where they are directed to apply they are told there is no employment. Then whilst they are deliberating, it is suggested to them that not being able to obtain work in the ordinary way at wages, they had better become subcontractors, and that a few of them should band together as subcontractors. They agree and then work for weeks and months, perhaps for six months, under a contractor as subcontractors. During that time, they get their supplies at a small store which belongs to the ccntractor. These facts are said to have been ascertained by the counsel at Port Arthur, who investigated the matter and obtained a considerable amount of evidence. The ' News ' states that it has in its. possession a good deal of material upon which to found its article, that these men, after moving solid rock and loose rock and all the rest of it for six months, working harder and longer than they would by the day, and imagining they are making money, finish their contract, their account is made up, they are credited for the work they have done and debited

lor the supplies they have received, and the result is that they are found not to be entitled to anything but are in debt. It is said that the contractor generally comes to the rescue to the extent, that being anxious to get rid of them he transports them to civilization, adding the cost of their pass. age to their indebtedness. Thus, having worked for six or seven months very hard, they receive practically no compensation. The " News ' says they have copies of these accounts in their possession, and adds:
This is the story which the Port Arthur council will tell to the Labour Department at Ottawa. The story will be substantiated by all the figures, contract forms, &c., of a representative case. The foreigners in the particular case to be submitted to the Labour Department bought ten cakes of rough soap, a very laudable thing to do.
For this soap they were charged ten cents per cake, almost enough to make them cease using that article altogether.
Shovels cost these men at the stores $2.50 each; one sack of potatoes, $4; hour, $6; coarse towels, 80 cents a pair; a tin dipper, $1; jam, $1.05 a pail; dynamite, for two cases, $21; lamp chimneys, 25 cents, and so on through a long list with one overcharge piled upon another.
I hope there will be a thorough investigation into these statements in this newspaper. This is not by any means the first rumour that the workmen are being swindled by the contractors, and if there is found to be any foundation for that rumour, I trust the investigation will be general.


Edward Guss Porter: I had a case in court only two weeks ago, the action being between a contractor and three subcontractors and the facts as stated in this newspaper were sworn to by witnesses and corroborated by the accounts produced in court. The contractors took the work at a certain price, re-let to subcontractors, furnished them with supplies and material, and when at the end of the operation a statement of account was asked for, each of the three sub-contractors was found to be in debt rather than having anything to his credit.


Hon. MACKENZIE KING (Minister of Labour).: Cases of this kind have been brought to the attention of the department, and on investigation the complaints have been reported to be well founded in some cases and the contractors obliged to redress the grievances, while in other cases there appeared to have been much exaggeration. I have no notice that the particular complaint referred to by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) has as yet been brought to the attention of the department. I have seen some reference to it in the newspapers, and I had intended having it looked into irrespective of a formal complaint, but as a rule it is advisable that the government should wait until its attention is directed to these difficulties. The government has recognized the necessity of a somewhat closer supervision of these construction camps, and an appropriation has been passed for the appointment of one or two officers whose duty it will be to look into just such cases as this.


Edward Guss Porter: I will be pleased to give the minister the names of the contractor and subcontractor in the case I have mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into. Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Royal North West Mounted Police-pay of force, $340,000.
Wilfrid Laurier: This is the same vote as last year except that the pay of the force is increased by $10,000 and the subsistence by $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: How many men are there?


Wilfrid Laurier: Six hundred and forty-nine men, but this vote is estimated for 700 men which we intend to have.
Mr. LAKE What is paid by the two provinces?


Wilfrid Laurier: Seventy-five thousand dollars each.


Mr. PERLEY.: Some of the force lost their lives recently on a trip to the Yukon. I have not been able to understand why they were sent on this journey. Will the Prime Minister explain?


Wilfrid Laurier: The policy has been to keep a constant patrol in the remote parts of the Dominion-the Hudson Bay, the mouth of the Mackenzie river, Fort Churchill, Fort McPherson-which patrol carries the mail and gathers information. We have been very lucky up to the present time; this is the first casualty.


Robert Laird Borden: Inspector Fitzgerald was a native of Halifax, and had very long and very distinguished service.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: The unfortunate fatality is greatly to be regretted. What is the distance between the two posts they were travelling between?


Wilfrid Laurier: Three hundred and fifty miles from*Fort McPherson to Dawson.-Inspector Fitzgerald was a very good officer, and the men under him were good men.	.


George Halsey Perley: Do I understand that these men were making the trip in the ordinary discharge of their duty?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Richard Stuart Lake: Can the department say what was the cause of the fatality?


Wilfrid Laurier: The diaries kept by the men have been received at Regina and are now on their way to Ottawa. They will give the particulars.
Subsistence, forage, fuel, light, clothing, contingencies, &c., $341,666.67.


Edward Guss Porter: * Is the number of the
force increasing or diminishing?


Wilfrid Laurier: It has remained stationary for the last five or six years. We thought at one time that it would be possible to decrease the force, as the provinces might take over their municipal police business. But we find a great reluctance on the part of the settlers in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta to see the force reduced in any way. It is difficult for us to reduce it. We are under contract with the governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan by which they pay us $75,000 each per year for the services of the police. I am afraid we may have to increase the force, because, as settlers go in beyond the limits of the provinces the force has to be extended. Settlement is now going on north of Edmonton in the Peace river and Mackenzie River districts, and I am sure that we shall have to extend the force in those two districts. Whether we shall be able to reduce it I have serious doubts. At the present time the men are distributed as follows:	In Alberta, five
divisions and ninety-nine detachments; in Saskatchewan, four divisons and eighty-nine detachments; in the Yukon, one division and ten detachments; in the Northwest Territories, one division and five detachments. A division is a settled place in which there is an officer and several men; a detachment consists of one or two or three policemen at a particular point. These men are in the midst of the settlers, ready to give information on almost every point, and to assist them in various ways. For instance, if a settler loses an animal, he goes to a policeman, and the policeman looks after it. If a fire takes place, the settlers go to the police for assistance. In a multitude of ways the police are of great utility to the settlers. Under present circumstances, if any change takes place, it will be in the direction of increasing rather than diminishing the force.
Mr. PORTEE^ I have heard the force spoken of with great commendation; but in travelling through that country it has occurred to me that as the provinces be-Sir WILFRID LAUHIER
come more settled, the officers might be more and more transferred to the outlying districts, and in that way the force might be decreased.


Wilfrid Laurier: I also have travelled in the two provinces, and I have not yet heard it suggested that the force should be diminished at all in either of the provinces. On the contrary, I think it was suggested that if we were to reduce the force which we have in these two provinces, there would be loud protests.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What oath of office, if any, is required from the officers of the force? What I wish to know particularly is, are any aliens employed on the force?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, British subjects only.


Richard Stuart Lake: What is the nature of the oath that a man has to take on enrollment?


Wilfrid Laurier: The oath of allegiance, nothing else.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman what is the number of the patrol at the head of Lake Winnipeg, and what are their duties?


Wilfrid Laurier: We have a force stationed at Hudson bay, and in winter time the patrol is from Hudson bay t-o Lake Winnipeg.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the distribution of the force?


Wilfrid Laurier: In the Hudson Bay district, 12 men, no .horses, 41 dogs-they are at Churchill and Fullerton; in Athabasca and Mackenzie district, 39 men, 34 horses, 27 dogs; in the Regina district, 192 men, -in the Maple Creek district, 39 men; in the Dauphin district, 60 men; in the Battleford district, 38 men; in the Macleod district, 63 men; in the Calgary district, 40 men; in the Prince Albert district, 66 men; in the Edmonton district, 51 men; in the Lethbridge district, 12 men. So that the whole force is practically distributed all over the continent, from Macleod near the boundary line up to the mouth of the Mackenzie river, to Hudson bay and Dawson city.


Robert Laird Borden: What particular use is made of the men at Regina, Calgary, Macleod and other cities and large towns?


Wilfrid Laurier: The station at Regina is the central station for all the force. At a station like Maple Creek there is an inspector, and a body of men, and there are a certain number of stations throughout the district with one or two or three meh at each station, all under the command of and in touch with one officer.


Richard Stuart Lake: 
Wilfrid Laurier: The whole distribution of the force is absolutely in the hands of Commander Perry, the commissioner.
of men at each station according as there may be crime, or fear of raid or invasion by cattle raiders, and the force is increased or decreased at each place according to the judgment of the commissioner. Sometimes we are asked to send a contingent where there is trouble expected on account of a strike. There is no fixed rule as to how the force is to be moved. That is 'left to the judgment of the officer in charge.


Robert Laird Borden: What I do not quite understand is this: Take Regina, a city of 20,000. amd Calgary, a city of 40,000, why should you have detachments oi the police there? If there be any place in the Northwest where the people should be able to take care of themselves as in eastern Canada it should be in those large centres. I thoroughly appreciate the very great importance of this force, and the great work it has done, and I am not suggesting that it should be decreased, -but I do not understand why we should have a detachment in Regina or Calgary any more than in Ottawa.


Wilfrid Laurier: At Regina we have 192 men. Regina is the capital of the province, and a trading post for ail the forts. Recruits are brought to Regina and there drilled and prepared for their work. At Calgary we have some 49 men. Ail these men are not kept in the city of Calgary, but are distributed throughout the district. In the Calgary division there is a certain number of detachments, and the men are distributed throughout the division. We have so many men at Calgary, and so many men at Regina, but these do not cover only each city but the whole radius.


Robert Laird Borden: Every one realizes the necessity for this force, and 1 am not prepared to say that the necessity for it has decreased, or that the force should be decreased, or that it should not be increased. But I would like to know on what principle the government acts m maintaining or not maintaining it in any particular district. Take the district between Regina and the American boundary. You have population pouring in there, the country becoming pretty thickly settled, under what conditions do you take your force away from there and transfer it to some more remote district, less thickly populated?


Wilfrid Laurier: The divisions were made long ago. Take the country between Regina and the American boundary, we have a division at Lethbridge, another at Macleod, and another at Calgary. At each of these places we have barracks. We may decrease or increase the number


Robert Laird Borden: On what principle do you act in determining that the ordinary civil authorities shall be responsible for the prevention and detection of crime on the one hand, or that the Northwest Mounted Police shall be responsible on the other hand. For instance, about a year ago the posse comitatus of various counties in Ontario or Quebec was employed in chasing half a dozen criminals who roamed through the woods, and finally some of them were captured. It would be very convenient if we had a force of the mounted police to do this, but here it is done by the ordinary civil authorities. How do you get at the proper responsibility when you consider undertaking a duty of that kind?


Wilfrid Laurier: When the western provinces were organized we made an agreement with them under which each province pays us $75,000 a year, and we look after the administration of justice. We are at their service, and the Attorney General commands the services of the police when needed. -


Robert Laird Borden: The mounted police had in the first instance an authority or initiative. They did not wait for the warrant from the ordinary civil authority, but the inspectors issued warrants and the men served them. Is that initiative still retained?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. When the police were organized the officers were all justices of the peace, and also some of the non-commissioned officers, and they were continued in that capacity by the provincial government, so that there was no conflict.


George Halsey Perley: If each province paid in proportion to the number of men in it, it would pay a much larger sum than $75,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is quite possible.


Edward Guss Porter: Is it a fact that the Northwest Mounted Police officers do the ordinary police work of the city where located? Take Caig-ary the city to which the Prime Minister has just referred. I am informed that in that city the Northwest

Mounted Police do the ordinary patrol duty of the city.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that at the present time Calgary and Regina have their own city police.


Edward Guss Porter: They have some, but it is said that the Northwest Mounted Police perform that duty as well.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that Calgary and Regina have their own police who look after city ordinances. But in case of a crime against the common law, the services of the Northwest Mounted Police may be still required. We are still bound, under our agreement, to act when asked by the Attorney General of the province.


George Halsey Perley: Was the arrangement with the provinces made for any considerable time?


Wilfrid Laurier: For five years.


George Halsey Perley: From what date?


Wilfrid Laurier: We had an arrangement for five years, and we renewed it last year.


Mr MARTIN (Regina).: I would like to substantiate what the Prime Minister has said with regard to the policing of the city Regina. True, the headquarters of the Mounted Police are located within the town limits of the city of Regina, and usually a large number of policemen are stationed there. I think that there is also a small Mounted Police station maintained there that is absolutely separate from the police organization of the city and maintained for Mounted Police purposes alone. We have our own police organization headed by the chief and with constables under him. I cannot make it too plain that the two organizations are separate and distinct. I had not intended to take part in this discussion, but while I am on my feet I desire to say a word further. Representations have been made to me with regard to the Pay given to the constables of the Northwest Mounted Police. I do not speak of the pay given to the officers, but in my opinion the pay given to the constables is not sufficient to induce the best men to go into the Mounted Police, and remain as policemen. We, who come from western Canada know that the cost of living is higher than in the east. I put some question on the Order Paper with respect to the pay of the Mounted Police, and I find that of the constables^ is from 60 cents to $1 per diem, and a living allowance estimated by the department to be worth $335 per annum. The department estimates the pay of the constables as beginning at $554 and increasing to $700 in the course of five years. That pay is not as much as the Mr. PORTER.
ordinary constable is given in the ordinary towns in the province of Saskatchewan, and not by any means as much as the ordinary constable obtains in the city of Regina. I asked if any difficulty had been experienced in the obtaining of recruits, and the reply was that no difficulty is experienced, but the rate of wages in the west induces a number of the best men to purchase their discharge. The reason is that they can obtain better positions by acting as constables in the various towns. It may be a good thing for the Northwest Mounted Police to educate constables for the towns of the west, but unless we give additional pay, as things are, I fear we cannot obtain the best men for the Mounted Police force.


Wilfrid Laurier: Up to the present time, we have had no difficulty in getting the number of men required, and it is, I believe, the universal testimony that the force is a high class one, and that the quality of the men could not be better. The men start on 60 cents a day and increase gradually until they reach an average sum, with allowance, of $700 a year. My hon. friend (Mr. Martin, Regina) must remember also that when a man has served O'.) vears in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police he is entitled to a pension. I know of some men who started early in life who served 20 years, and, when a little over 40 had a pension,-which, of course, they had well earned, and which the country did not grudge. I think that, on the whole, with the pay, the allowance, and the pension in addition we have been able to keep the force on a very high footing, indeed. We are exposed to lose men, and we do lose some men, because of the attractions offered to young and vigorous men in the west in business, or farming, or other occupations. But I think the pay is reasonable.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Richard Stuart Lake: What is the practice of the department in regard to obtaining supplies? For instance, at the headquarters at Regina a large amount of clothing and provisions must be provided. What is the practice of the department in regard to the matter?


Wilfrid Laurier: All supplies are obtained by tender and the order is given to the lowest competitor. This applies to all except 25 per cent; there is a certain amount of small items which, as my hon. friend (Mr. Lake) knows, could not be obtained by tender.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: It is now 11.30, and time to adjourn.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no. We
are just on the eve of working.


George Taylor: I did not understand that the hon. gentleman wanted much work done. I thought he wanted in bulk-


Wilfrid Laurier: But I do not want to lose my time. There are items I want to put through.


George Taylor: I thought the arrangement was to give a certain amount in bulk-


Wilfrid Laurier: We shall get a certain amount of bulk, I hope. But surely we are not to lose time?


George Taylor: There is lots of other work to go on with, to clear the Order Paper.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope to do that, but we cannot do it if we stop at 11.30.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty is that we do not get very good notice of the work that is coming up. On Friday night we were told that Bills were to be taken up, and after that, railway estimates. Later we were told that militia estimates were to be taken up. Finally, the Prime Minister takes up his own estimates.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, the militia estimates were taken up on Friday night. Wo said that Bills would be taken up in the afternoon and Supply afterwards. We should have gone on with the estimates of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), but that hon. gentleman being confined to his house, I thought that, as I shall be leaving for Great Britain, I would ask my hon. friend to take up my estimates.


George Halsey Perley: After the House rose on Friday night, I was speaking to the Minister of Agriculture, and he mentioned an item of the Minister of Customs which had already been passed that day, and the Minister of Agriculture said he did not know that item had been passed. So he said: We will take up the estimates of. the Minister of Militia on Monday after we get through with Bills.


George Taylor: There are gentlemen here who are prepared to discuss militia, but some gentlemen who wish to discuss the North West Mounted Police are not here.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well, there are some items for pensions on page 45 to which no one will take exception, and we will pass them and then rise.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Bills first, then Trade and Commerce, Customs and Excise.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11.36 p.m.

Tuesday, May 9, 1911.