May 15, 1922

JUDGMENT OP MANITOBA COURT OF APPEAL.


On the Orders of the Day:


CON

Arthur Meighen (Leader of the Official Opposition)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition) :

Some time ago an hon. member called the attention of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) to a decision of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba on the question of federal jurisdiction in the matter of the grain trade. That decision was of a very serious nature and the Minister of Justice stated at the time that he was securing information as to its effect before determining what course the Government should follow. Since then some two weeks or more have elapsed. If the decision goes to the extent that it appears to go, there will be cause for action on the part of Government and Parliament, unless the whole supervision of the grain trade is to remain in the most precarious position. I now call the attention of the Government to the matter again. Although the Minister of Justice is absent, I hope we may have a statement on the subject from the Solicitor-General or the Prime Minister.

Topic:   GRAIN TRADE
Subtopic:   JUDGMENT OP MANITOBA COURT OF APPEAL.
Permalink
LIB

William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

As soon as the Minister of Justice returns I will ask him to make a note of the remarks just made by my right hon. friend.

Topic:   GRAIN TRADE
Subtopic:   JUDGMENT OP MANITOBA COURT OF APPEAL.
Permalink

PRIVATE BILLS

FIRST READINGS


Bill No. 86 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edwin Dixon Weir.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 87 (from the Senate), for the relief of Henry James Bristol.-Mr. Boys. Bill No. 88 (from the Senate), for the relief of Florant Brys,-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou). Bill No. 89 (from the Senate), for the relief of Catherine Rudd.-Mr. Ryck-man. Bill No. 90 (from the Senate), for the relief of Norman Edward Harris.-Mr. Ryckman. Bill No. 91 (from the Senate), for the relief of Maria Amy Drury.-Mr. Stewart (Hamilton).


SECOND READINGS


Bill No. 81 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alexander Frederick Naylor.- Mr. Duff. Bill No. 82 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Yallowley Jones Con-alty. Mr. Jacobs. Bill No. 83 (from the Senate), for the relief of Telesphore Joseph Morin.-Mr. Rankin. Bill No. 84 (from the Senate), for the relief of Daisy Mary Nicholson.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).


THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY


House again in Committee on Bill No. 52, respecting the Canadian Transit Company, Mr. Gordon in the Chair: On section 2-Head office:


PRO

Thomas George McBride

Progressive

Mr. McBRIDE:

I took exception to this bill the last time it was before the House and asked that it be referred back to the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines. When it was before that committee I did not consider that it received either the time or the attention to which it was entitled. As I said before, the word " Canadian " in the name of the company lends a certain prestige to the concern; and I notice in the press that another corporation is to be known as the German-Canadian Company. Now, I think that if this company desires to have whatever advantage may attach to this special designation it should have its head office in Canada and should be Canadian in fact. I do not see why it should have the title " Canadian " and hold its meetings in other countries. I would like an explanation of this before the bill is passed.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

James Palmer Rankin

Liberal

Mr. RANKIN:

The home of the company is in Windsor where its head office is situated, although it is true that a great many shareholders and some of the directors live in Detroit. For the accommodation of those shareholders it has been deemed advisable to hold some of the meetings in that city. The same practice, I may observe, prevails in connection with the Niagara Bridge Company, some of the meetings of which are held in Niagara, Ontario, and some in Buffalo. There is nothing derogatory of the national dignity of this country in the matter; it is purely a question of courtesy to the shareholders and directors who reside out of Canada. The amendments which are proposed have been found necessary to facilitate the business of the

Canadian Transit Co.

company in different ways. I repeat, the company has its head office in Windsor, and its place of business is in this country. I can see no objection to the passage of this bill.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
PRO

Thomas George McBride

Progressive

Mr. McBRIDE:

I do not think the explanation is entirely satisfactory. The name of the concern is the Canadian Transit Company, and all its meetings should be held in Canada.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

William F. Carroll

Liberal

Mr. CARROLL:

The company is already incorporated and this bill is simply to amend the original act to facilitate the shareholders in transacting business on the American border. We are not giving the company a new name, and, as my hon. friend (Mr. Rankin) has explained, the head office is in Windsor.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Richard Burpee Hanson

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. HANSON:

Notwithstanding that

statement, I would call the attention of the committee to the fact that a subsequent section in the amending bill provides that the company shall be taken out of the provisions of the Railway Act 1919, under which the meetings of the company should be regularly held in Canada. The section to which I refer says:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Railway Act 1919, any general meeting of the share holders of the company, whether annual or special, may be held elsewhere than at the head office of the company; and may he held at the city of Detroit, in the state of Michigan, one of the United States of America.

I do not know what the practice of this House has been in the past, but it does seem to me that companies organized under Canadian jurisdiction should be Canadian in fact as well as in name and should be amenable to all the laws of this country. In the absence of some very much better explanation than that which has been given by the sponsor of this bill, I submit that this section should not carry.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

Lewis Herbert Martell

Liberal

Mr. MARTELL:

So far as I understand

the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Rankin), this section is simply to provide for the shareholders holding meetings in Detroit as being the more convenient centre. The head office of the company still remains at Windsor notwithstanding anything in this amending act, and of course all the books of the company will be kept there; in a word, everything pertaining to the company will be in Windsor, and the company will continue to be amenable to our laws. As a matter of courtesy and convenience this amendment is neces-

112J

sary to legalize anything that the shareholders might do at any meetings called in the city of Detroit, where the majority of them reside, and simply gives what I term extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
CON

Murray MacLaren

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MacLAREN:

As Detroit is very

near the border it is consequently very near many Canadian towns. If, for instance. Windsor were the city designated for the shareholders' meetings, it could hardly be said that it would be any inconvenience to either the directors or the shareholders to attend there. This would save time and would ensure all meetings being held where I think they should be held, in Canada.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
CON

James Arthurs

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARTHURS:

The whole purport of

this bill, so far as I understand, is to designate where the head office shall be. There is no question in my mind that the company should not be allowed to have its head office nor to hold its meetings in Detroit.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink
LIB

William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)

Liberal

Mr. FIELDING:

Was this point considered by the committee which examined the bill? If it was, and they gave their deliberate judgment in favour of the amendment, I would be inclined to accept it. If it was not considered by the committee, there may be good reason to refer the bill back to them.

Topic:   THE CANADIAN TRANSIT COMPANY
Permalink

May 15, 1922