This amendment does not refer to building to the international boundary line, but to the boundary line of British Columbia. The Senate amendment is that the company shall not build within five miles of the boundary line of British Columbia.
In that case I misunderstood the amendment.
I consented to have the line go to the boundary of British Columbia, but the Senate amendment is that it shall not go within five miles of the boundary of British Columbia. I have not consented to that so far, but I suppose I will have to do
so to-day, as I do not wish to put any obstacle in the way of the Bill passing.
Amendments read the second time, and agreed to.
I wish to point out that we are getting into d very loose way of passing these Senate amendments. Some one should explain what they are in each case, so that we may know what is going on.
DOMINION ASSOCIATION OP CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS.
BELCOURT (Ottawa) moved second reading of Bill (No. 160) to incorporate the Dominion Association of Chartered Accountants.
I understand that this Bill has already been inscribed on the orders of the Private Bills Committee, under the impression that it is to reach them to-day, which rather indicates that it is to be railroaded through the House. I have no special knowledge of the Bill, but I have received a telegram from the president and the secretary of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Nova Scotia, which reads as follows :
Institute Chartered Accountants here ohject to Dominion Bill. Our interests require its rejection.
S. S. SCOTT, President.
W. E. LEVERMAN, Secretary.
Of course, I offer no objection to the Bill going to the committee, but it should be with the usual understanding that opportunity shall be afforded in the committee for all parties interested to be heard.
Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).
In corroboration of what the hon. the Minister of Finance says, I have received a telegram from Toronto, which reads as follows :
Eighty chartered accountants oppose Accountant's Bill. Name and other features objectionable. Kindly vote against it and get others.
A. T. KERNAHAN.
So that from both ends of the Dominion opposition is being manifested to this Bill.
This Bill has been before parliament ever since the opening of the session, and it has been discussed probably as much as any other private bill before parliament. In the Senate both those in favour of the Bill and those opposed to it were represented, and active canvassing has been going on ; and the sending of these telegrams at this time, in view of the fact that the Bill has been discussed openly and fully, Is to my mind simply unfair. I have no objection to find with the manner in which they have been brought before the House ; hut I am sure that if my hon. friends will reconsider the circumstances, they will not think of objecting to the Bill being considered by the Mr. McCreary.
Private Bills Committee. Any person or persons who want to toe heard before the committee will have an opportunity of being represented by counsel when the committee meets at three o'clock.
My bon. friend rather misses the point of my observation. I do not object to the Bill going to tlie committee, but I say that if it does go, it should go under the same conditions and limitations as any other Bill-that the committee should afford an opportunity to all parties interested to toe heard.
I am in charge of this Bill, and I wish to say that I do not think there is any attempt to railroad it through. This Bill has been before parliament since the opening of the session, it has been thrashed out in the other House, and if it is to be passed this session, it must be dealt with by the Private Bills Committee to-day.
Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).
I do not see any objection to the Bill going to the committee, provided there is an opportunity for all parties to be heard.
They are ail here.
The hon. gentleman is speaking without warrant, because I know that parties from Toronto who intended to be here are not here.
Mr. A. JOHNSTON (Cape Breton).
Mr. Speaker, a resolution has been placed in my hands by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Halifax, which I propose to read to the House, this being the first opportunity I have had of protesting against this Bill. The resolution is as follows :
Whereas it has been brought to the notice of tills institute that W. H. Cross, Henry Barber and others have applied at Ottawa for an Act incorporating them an Institute of Chartered Accountants,
And whereas, it is the opinion of this Council that, in view of work being done by existing provincial associations, that the time has not arrived for the creation of a corporate body by Dominion legislation to interfere with and against the wishes of existing bodies, therefore,
Resolved : That the Council of the Institute of Nova Scotia declare itself opposed to the passage of the said bill at the present time, on the following grounds :
First : Because it is an interference with the l'iuies and rights of the existing provincial charters.
Second : Because ex sting chartered bodies are opposed to it until such time as they and the promoters of the proposed legislation can agree upon suitable legislation in the interests of the profession as a whole.
Third : Because the promoters did not consult or seek the co-operation of our Institute, which should have been done if the promoters were acting in the interests of the general profession.
We therefore respectfully recommend that the proposed legislation be deferred until such time as the existing bodies can determine upon suitable legislation for all Canada.
That is the resolution which has been passed at a meeting of the Institute of Char-
tered Accountants of Nova Scotia, and 1 propose to bring the matter up in the Private Bills Committee when the Bill comes before it.
Mr. G. O. ALCORN (Prince Edward).
I desire to say that I also am in receipt of requests to oppose this Bill. As it has been stated that all parties interested have had an opportunity to be heard, I beg to say that that is a mistake, and this morning I telegraphed to Toronto for counsel to come down. They cannot possibly be here until Monday, and therefore I think it would be unfair to press this Bill before the committee today. The very fact that the Bill has been before the Senate for such a length of time is excellent reason why it should not now be railroaded through the Commons without careful consideration.
I believe there was an understanding that any Bills which were opposed should stand over until Monday. I do not want to obstruct this Bill, but if it receives its second reading to-day I wish it to be on the understanding that the committee shall let it stand until Monday. If the parties interested in it do not then appear or send any one to represent them, that is another question. Otherwise I think we have a right to object to this motion. I understand that the Private Bills Committee is now sitting upstairs waiting to receive the Bill.
I understand that the House has already passed a resolution to the effect that the posting of private Bills after their second rending shall be dispensed *until. That I understand is a general motion applicable to all private Bills, and tnis Bill, if it is now read the second time, will follow this rule. The committee is not sitting now. but is to sit this afternoon at three o'clock, and I think the Bill ought to go to the committee to be dealt with this afternoon with other Bills. .