July 4, 1935

LIB

James Layton Ralston

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

Mr. Chairman, I am perfectly ready to stand by anything I have said at any time but I would point out first that my hon. friend is out of order because he cannot refer to a debate which took place during this session, and second that to-day I was dealing with a specific bill and not with the budget. I do point out that the policy which I advocate is the policy embodied in subsections (b) and (c) of section 8, and which was accepted by the whole committee.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
UFA

Robert Gardiner

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARDINER:

As my hon. friend takes exception to my quoting from his budget speech-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
LIB

James Layton Ralston

Liberal

Mr. RALSTON:

No, I am only pointing out that it is out of order. My hon. friend knows the rules.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
UFA

Robert Gardiner

United Farmers of Alberta

Mr. GARDINER:

Well, in his statement made at that time my hon. friend drew attention to the attitude and policy of the Argentine government as compared with the attitude and policy of this government in relation to wheat. He pointed out that the Argentine had to all intents and purposes

cleared out its bins, and had done it through the policy of putting its wheat on the market and getting rid of it. He said that the policy of the present government seemed to be more or less holding wheat off the market, and consequently accumulating a very great surplus. As far as the past policy of the government is concerned I must confess that I am very sympathetic towards it, simply because as a practical grain grower in western Canada, unless the government had done something along the lines they did or put some other policy in its place which would have been equally effective, I do not care to contemplate what the condition of the farmers of western Canada would be to-day.

Now I wish to spend just a few minutes on the bill. When I spoke on the second reading of Bill No. 98 as presented by the Prime Minister I said that I accepted the principle of the bill but that there might be some need for amendment when the bill came before the committee of the whole house. At that time I gave an outline of the efforts of the farmers of western Canada to improve the marketing and handling of grain. I say again that during all my thirty-three years experience in western Canada I do not remember a year when the farmers were not interested in trying to secure a better method of handling their grain. I indicated then the very substantial progress the farmers had made in that regard. Through the various institutions which they brought into being they have been able to remove many of the difficulties under which they marketed their grain. But in recent years the farmer has come to the conclusion that so long as you permit the price of the commodity which he produces to be governed largely by speculative interests he has very little hope of securing a stable market and a stable price for his grain. So far as that point is concerned I am satisfied that 95 per cent of the farmers who produce and sell grain in the west would be very well satisfied to see that speculative element eliminated altogether from the selling of Canadian grain. I see no reason why any producer should permit the product of his labour to be subject to speculation. Just look at the cost, for instance, of the Winnipeg grain exchange. Look at the stately homes which these men have been able to build out of their operations on the exchange. Just think of the costs that are added to the handling of grain by virtue of these organizations being in existence. We farmers of western Canada producing grain desire the most orderly method of handling

Grain Board

grain that the brains of man can devise, but more than that we want to be sure that every unnecessary expense in connection with the transportation and handling of grain from the time it leaves the hands of the producer until it reaches its ultimate destination, namely the bins of millers in other countries, shall be eliminated. We want to be rid of the superfluous cost added to the handling of western grain. I am satisfied that the farmers of western Canada would support any policy which had that object in view. I can assure this committee that that is my earnest belief.

After second reading the bill was referred to a special committee, and along certain lines I believe that committee has done excellent work. It gave interested parties an opportunity to come before the committee and present their schemes. It is not my purpose even to touch upon any of the evidence heard. I should like to observe however that very substantial amendments were made to the bill while it was before that committee and it is to those amendments I shall address myself for a few moments.

If lion, members will turn to the last section of the reprinted bill they will find it reads as follows:

17. This act, except sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 shall come into force when assented to and sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 shall come into force on proclamation of the governor in council.

What does that mean? It simply means that the real heart of the bill, the thing that is vital and of real importance, will not become effective merely on the assent of the governor general, but will have to await the pleasure of whatever government may be in power, such government having the power to determine by order in council whether sections 9. 10, 11 and 16 will come into force. That, Mr. Chairman, is the heart of the bill. If those sections are not proclaimed and are not made part and parcel of the bill then I must confess that in my judgment the legislation will be of very little value to the farmers of western Canada. If these sections are not made effective any board created for the purpose of handling wheat or grain will to all intents and purposes be a nonentity. They would have practically no powers to step in and handle the farmers' grain in an efficient manner. It is true that they will function, but provision is made in the redrafted bill that the board may recommend to the government a set price. The government may accept that recommendation and pass an order in council determining that that may be the minimum or set price. There is no question about that. The action taken by a

government in that regard would depend entirely on whether it were sympathetic to the legislation. The set price may be below the market price, it may be the market price or any other price. I would not suggest a set price would be above the market price at a particular time, but it is very likely to be below the market price, having in mind the anticipation that when the wheat is finally sold if the set price is less than the market price at the time of the price setting there may be some funds available for participation when the crop is sold. Under those circumstances and knowing the economic pressure being exerted on western farmers, I maintain that if the set price is below the market price, even if the government of the day passes an order in council making the set price below the market price the board will get very little grain to handle unless sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 are made effective. That is so simply because when the farmer delivers his grain his financial position is so precarious he will be forced to take the market price, as he is doing to-day. It will be a state of financial compulsion, not on the part of the trade but brought about by the financial condition of the farmer. If that is so, of what use will the board be in stabilizing or in creating an orderly market when the bulk of the grain may go into the hands of the grain trade primarily because the set price may be a figure below the market price at the time of setting it? Of what advantage would it be? So far as 1 can see there would be no adr vantage. If when the governor general gives assent to this legislation sections 9, 10, 11 and 16 are included and become effective, I am prepared to accept the legislation as a reasonable beginning towards finding a better way of marketing western grain. But if we have to depend upon government action to bring these sections into force by proclamation, through orders in council, I say that as it stands the bill is without significance and is of no value to the western grain grower. The decision whether this will be simply another piece of legislation with no real value will depend upon the attitude of the government which may be in power.

I appeal to the Prime Minister to make the necessary change whereby when the legislation passes it may become effective, so that we may know exactly where we stand, and so that the farmers of western Canada may know whether or not the legislation contains any hope or whether that hope is deipendent upon the attitude of future governments.

Grain Board

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Ernest D'Israeli Smith

Conservative (1867-1942)

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smith, Cumberland) :

Earlier in the afternoon an amendment was moved by Mr. Roberge. As translated it reads as follows:

That Bill No. 98 be amended in the following manner:

(1) That the title of the bill be the follow, ing: "An act providing for the establishment

and definition of duties of the Canadian Grain and Other Farm Products Board."

(2) By substituting the following section

for section 1. "1. The present act may be

cited under the title: An act respecting the Canadian Grain and Other Farm Products Board, 1935."

(3) By adding at the end of subsection (1) of section 2 the following paragraph:

"(f) other products of the farm" means in the present act: butter, cheese and maple

sugar.

(4) By substituting the following subsection for subsection (1) of section 3:

"3 (1) a board to be known as the Canadian Grain and Other Farm Products Board is constituted; it is composed of three members appointed by. the governor in council."

(5) By adding the following subsection at the end of section 7:

"(3) the board may grant a bonus of 5 cents a pound on the sale of each pound of butter, cheese and maple sugar, sold by farmers who have no grain to sell or who do not benefit by the present act in any other way."

(6) By adding the following subsection at the end of section 13:

" (2) the board may also adopt regulations respecting the application of subsection (3) of section 7."

Obviously the amendment is out of order. It deals with several sections of the bill which are not at present before the committee, and I am bound to declare that in my judgment it is out of order.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

It is a money measure.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

Mr. Chairman, I have paid a great deal of attention to the discussion that has taken place on the bill that is now before the committee, and I can hardly follow the reasoning of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) when he says that this board will be almost inoperative unless clauses 9, 10, 11 and 16 of the original bill are included in this bill. If he has read the bill, and I assume he has, I am sure he will agree that any power that was given to Mr. McFarland was given to this board; indeed the board has even greater power, because when it comes to the fixing of the initial payment the board has power to do whatever it chooses. Whether clauses 9, 10, 11 and 16 were in the bill or not, the board has still the same power to set the price, and the fact that these clauses are not in the bill does not mean that the board will act any differently from what they would if they were in the bill. So I do not see very much in that point.

1 Mr. Gardiner.]

The hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) compared the functions of this board with those of the pools. I do not think it is fair to make such a comparison, because this board, to begin with, has the financial backing of the government. It has that financial security; it will not be under the dictation of the banks and subjected to the many other influences to which the pools were subjected. If the fears expressed by the hon. member for Camrose were realized and became a factor in the operation of this act, the board itself would have the power to set aside certain sections of this act which would give the board all the necessary power it required subject to the approval of the governor in council.

All governments and every member of the committee, whether politically minded or not, are agreed that something must be done, and regardless of the political affiliations of the members of the committee I believe that this bill represents the best intentions of the committee to deal with the present situation. We believe we have got something in this bill that can be recommended to this house and to the Canadian people. I will say this without fear of contradiction, that in my opinion there was no political thought in the framing of this bill or in the discussions of the committee, more especially when we got in camera. On the contrary there was a desire, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), on the part of all members of the committee to frame a bill that would be acceptable to all concerned.

I listened to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) this afternoon and I could not follow his logic at all. When Mr. Mclvor was giving evidence he said that the cost to the government of the volume of wheat now held by Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited amounted to 85-9 cents per bushel. Surely my hon. friend is not arguing that the farmer got that 85 cents, because some of this wheat has been carried for three years, and it costs 10 cents a bushel a year to carry it. As Mr. Mclvor pointed out, the 15 cents excess that the farmer had got because of the operations of Mr. McFarland was, to use his own words, hypothetical. The question was hypothetical and the answer was hypothetical. I know that all the members in the southeast corner of the house who have taken any part in this discussion are themselves farmers. Are they going to tell me that many of the farmers in Peace River and northern Saskatchewan and Alberta who took less than 15 cents a bushel in 1932 are going to find any consola-

Grain Board

tion in the fact that they have 15 hypothetical cents in their pockets?

: There has been some discussion as to the control of production. We are probably all to blame for the extent to which production has increased. Ever since I have been a ..member of this house the hon. member for Peace River has insistently in season and out of season advocated the building of a railroad out of Peace River, and what would such a railroad have meant to the possibilities of production in that great country from which he comes? He knows, as every hon. member knows who has given any consideration to the problem of lessening production, that there are large areas in the western prairies which are useless for any purpose other than the growing of wheat, and where if the people were not producing wheat ninety-five per cent of them would have to leave that part of the country.

There are other factors that enter into the carry-over of wheat. I think the farmer members who addressed this house before I did will agree with me that if live stock had been at a little better price, or even at to-day's prices, the carry-over of wheat would not have been as great in Canada as it is . to-day, but you cannot feed wheat at 45 cents a bushel to 3 and 3|-

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Henry Alfred Mullins

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MULLINS:

Does the hon. member

know that they are 10J cents on the Toronto market?

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANOE:

That is to-day. I said

that if prices were what they are to-day a lot of the surplus wheat would have been fed to hogs and cattle.

It has been pointed out that the Argentine must sell her wheat because she has not storage facilities. Is the hon. member for Acadia going to argue that because the Canadian farmer has been so efficient in building up great storage facilities, which he has built and paid for, he shall be crucified on that account? Is that any argument? Why should the Argentine or Australia build more storage facilities to. take care of their crop, as we have done, if they can get rid of their wheat? That argument is simply ridiculous.

As one of the members of the committee, having in mind the huge carry-over and the general position in which the wheat producer finds himself in Canada, and having in mind also the larger world picture, this Bill No. 98 in my opinion is one of the best efforts that could be made in the present circumstances, having the whole world picture in mind.

I do not propose to go into the evidence that was submitted to. the committee. What

are the difficulties that we are facing? 1 think that the greatest difficulty with which we are faced is the large carry-over of 228 , ipillion bushels.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

That is hardly correct.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

At the least it has been put at 180 million to 200 million bushels; but whatever the exact figure is, it represents a large carry-over, and we have to compete oil the world market with both Australia and the Argentine, our greatest competitors who have year after year a fixed policy with regard to wheat.

Coming back to my friends in the comer of the house, let me say that I am one of those who believe as they do, that Mr McFarland through his stabilization effort* did render to the Canadian wheat grower a service, but let me ask them this question: If Mr. McFarland1 has been so efficient, why this bill? Why the original bill? It has been, said1 that Mr. McFarland was not as successful as he should have been, but I do not propose to go into the ramifications of his actions. It will not do any good to go that, far back to consider the many periods through which the wheat grower has gone. However, I do propose to discuss this bill as it is applied to the problems with which we are faced.

I should like again to direct the attention of t'he committee to the type of organization in existence in the Argentine. When the resolution was before the house, the house seemed to be of the opinion that there was more than one marketing agency in theArgentine. I hold in my hand a publication put out by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) dealing with the grain situation in the Argentine, and giving a resume of the activities of the control board for the past year. In order to make my point that they do have more than oneagency, I should like to read one paragraph of this report. I might mention that I drew this report to the attention of thecommittee in order to convince the chairman, if he needed convincing, that the

Argentine had met only the control board. The paragraph reads:

There has been only average activity on the market here during the past month. Prices have remained fairly steady, with a slight upward tendency towards the end, when the millers wrere competing for parcels of good quality to meet current needs. The announcement of the control board that whilst it would buy new wheat at the same rates as last year it would buy no more of the old crop.

I think that proves beyond a doubt that the system in the Argentine is similar to

Grain Board

that being proposed by this bill. Australia has a board and provides subsidies to her growers of three pence, or six cents, per bushel marketed and three shillings, or seventy-five cents, per acre sown. In the face of the necessity of meeting competition of that kind I was convinced that it was necessary to take some action at this session. I suggest that the bill now before us is about as good a compromise as could be arrived at. There are some features of the bill which I should like to see improved, but taking it all in all, I think it must be commended. If the hon. member for Acadia will read section 7 of the bill he will find there set out the powers of the board and I believe he will agree that they are greater than those ever held by John I. McFarland. Mr. McFarland was subject to order in council the same as this board will be. One of the powers of this board is:

(a) to receive and take delivery of wheat for marketing as offered by the producers thereof.

That is a very essential section. The definition of producer is as follows:

"Producer" includes, as well as any person actually engaged in production of wheat, any person entitled, whether as landlord, vendor, mortgagee or otherwise, by contract or operation of law to the wheat grown by a producer or to any share therein.

It will be remembered that the five cent wheat bonus was paid only to the actual grower of wheat. I might interject here that I am a farmer but as I was not actively working the 'land behind the plough and the harrow it was not my privilege to receive any of that bonus, even though I was paying the operating costs and carrying the whole load.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

But your tenant did.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
LIB

John Vallance

Liberal

Mr. VALLANCE:

Yes. Under this definition it will be possible for an owner as well as a tenant to take advantage of the bill. Section 6 of the bill is also to be commended. There is a belief abroad in Canada that some of the mistakes made by Mr. McFarland, provided that we admit that mistakes were made, might have been prevented had a board been set up instead of a one man commission. We have gone even further in this bill; we propose to set up an advisory committee. The section reads:

The governor in council may appoint during pleasure an advisory committee to advise the board, which committee shall consist of not more than seven members of whom four shall represent wheat producers.

[Mr. Vallance.1

The section then goes on to define the functions of this committee. The committee may be called at least once a month and it must report to the minister. Section 7 deals with the powers of the board. It reads, in part:

(e) to pay to producers delivering wheat at the time of delivery or at any time thereafter as may be agreed upon such fixed price per bushel,-

There were some who thought that a clause should be inserted to provide that the fixed price should cover at least the cost of production. It would be very difficult to determine the cost of production of a bushel of wheat. In some portions of the west the average crop will be between 30 and 45 bushels per acre, while in other portions the average is around 12 bushels. The average for the whole province of Saskatchewan is 16 bushels per acre, so it will be seen that it would be very difficult to arrive at the cost of producing a bushel of wheat.

We come now to section 8 which further defines the duties of the board. This section reads, in part:

(k) to make such investigations as from time to time it may deem necessary of the operations of the Winnipeg Grain and Produce Clearing Association and the Winnipeg Grain Exchange in their dealings with wheat and other grains where such wheat and other grains are the subject of transactions affecting interprovincial or international trade, and for the purposes aforesaid the board shall have, without the issue of any commission, all the power and authority conferred upon a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, being chapter ninety-nine of the revised statutes of Canada. 1927, and shall from time to time report to the minister the result of such investigations.

I think this section gives us a weapon to investigate the transactions of the grain exchange. It will be noticed that the board can buy only from producers and that it has no right to buy hedges. The trade itself will have to depend on some other organization to take up their hedges. I contend that the very apposite result to that referred to by the hon. member for Acadia will result from the operations of this board. I believe that the board will have such control of the market that the trade will take very little grain. In my opinion the board will take seiventy-five per cent of the grain offered.

I do not know that I can say anything further. I am like the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell): if anyone oan suggest an amendment while we are taking up this bill clause by clause which will benefit the producer any more than he is benefited by this bill, I shall support it.

Companies Act-Senate Amendments

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

If agreeable to hon.

gentlemen opposite, I was going to ask that the committee be allowed to rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again to-day in order that the Secretary of State might, by leave of the house, -move concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to the Companies Act. With one exception, they are of a minor character. He will not be here this evening.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
?

Some hon. MEMBERS:

Aes.

Progress reported.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink
CON

Richard Bedford Bennett (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council; Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, I asked my hon. friends opposite to agree to have the committee considering Bill No. 98 rise and report progress in order that the Secretary of State, who is compelled to be absent this evening, might move concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to the Companies Act. The Secretary of State, with the leave of the house, will proceed accordingly; he has discussed them with the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston).

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN GRAIN BOARD
Sub-subtopic:   PURCHASE, STORAGE AND MARKETING OF WHEAT AND OTHER GRAINS
Permalink

COMPANIES ACT, 1934, AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):

With the consent of the house, I move that the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 85, to amend the Companies Act, 1934. be now read a first and second time and concurred in. These amendments are not important, except that in one or two sections I doubt whether the language of the amendments is an improvement on the language we decided upon in this house. For instance, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and the Prime Minister agreed upon the words, "a just and adequate consideration therefor," -and the Senate amendment strikes out these words and substitutes the following: "the fair equivalent of cash to the total nominal amount of the shares proposed to be issued."

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPANIES ACT, 1934, AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
Permalink
LIB

Ian Alistair Mackenzie

Liberal

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

An insult to this house.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPANIES ACT, 1934, AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
Permalink
CON

Charles Hazlitt Cahan (Secretary of State of Canada)

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. CAHAN:

The original bill imposed a

penalty on directors who might speculate in shares of the company. The Senate has retained the penalty against speculation but it has struck out the definition of speculation. There are one or two verbal amendments. It is made clearer that certain provisions apply to public companies and not to private companies. That was agreed upon by the committee of the whole of this house.

If I may be allowed to refer to a discussion that took place in another place, I agree with the purport of the remarks of the leader of the opposition in that place when he said that after careful consideration he believed that this bill as amended was the best that could be agreed upon at the present time under present conditions, and for that reason I ask this house to concur in this motion.

Perhaps it would be well to go over the different amendments. Section 2 of the bill amended section 5 of the act, and a. new provision, subsection (4), is added:

"(4) If any company-

(a) carries on any business which is _ not

within the scope of the purposes or objects set forth in the letters patent or supplementary letters patent, or _

(b) exercises or professes to exercise any powers which are not truly ancillary or reasonably incidental to the purposes or objects set forth in the letters patent or supplementary letters patent, or

(c) exercises or professes to exercise any powers expressly excluded by the letters patent or supplementary letters patent,

such company shall be liable to be wound up and to be dissolved if the Attorney-General of Canada upon receipt of a certificate of the Secretary of State setting forth his opinion that such company has carried on business or exercised or professed to exercise powers as in this section provided, applies to a court of competent jurisdiction for an order that the company be wound up under the provisions of the Winding-Up Act."

The language is slightly changed. I do not think there is any difference in intent, and I think the section as amended may be adopted. Section 3 of the bill referred to the purposes and objects which it is intended that the company shall actively pursue. They have struck out the word "actively" so that it reads "shall pursue." In line 20 on page 2, section 4 of the bill, they have changed the word "shall" to the word "may." Perhaps "may" is the more appropriate term.

Topic:   QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   COMPANIES ACT, 1934, AMENDMENT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
Permalink

July 4, 1935