The Ontario and Minnesota Power Company Limited was given certain rights with regard to power on the Rainy river by a 1905 statute of Canada. 4-5 Edward VII, chapter 139. The company is a subsidiary of Minnesota and Ontario Paper company and is about to be amalgamated with four other subsidiaries of that company. Provision for the amalgamation is made in the plan of reorganization of the parent company which is effective February 28, 1941. Under the amalgamation the financial structure of the five companies will be considerably simplified and one operating organization will carry on all the undertakings of the five companies.
All five subsidiaries being amalgamated are incorporated under the Companies Act (Ontario), and the amalgamation is being effected under that act which provides that the rights and liabilities of the amalgamating companies shall extend to the company formed by the amalgamation.
The purpose of this bill is simply to ensure that the rights and obligations of the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company Limited under the 1905 statute will extend to the amalgamated company.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Topic: PRIVATE BILLS
Subtopic: ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY LIMITED
Does not this look a little like wholesale slaughter of homes? I do not know why the members of this house should sit here and pass on these bills year after year. Surely some better method could be evolved without members of the House of Commons having to sit here and pass these bills wholesale.
Mq hon. friend surely realizes that this is but the first reading and does not commit anyone to any principle or to anything else. What has been suggested is but the shortening of a very unpleasant and unprofitable process.
Protests have been made in this house from time to time regarding this procedure in relation to divorce bills. I understood last year that some consideration might be given some other method of dealing with these bills. To-day we have a large number and the motion is to give first reading to all of them en bloc. I wish to protest against this method of granting divorces. This ought not to be the function of this house; it is a judicial function. The relief that is requested by act of parliament should be given through a regularly constituted court of law. As a member of this house I do not feel that I ought to take responsibility for voting on these bills as they come before us here without having given some attention to the evidence, and I am quite free to confess that the evidence which comes in an envelope to my office, with a great deal of other material, can only find its way into the W'aste-paper basket. Someone says "oh", but I believe that is probably what happens to the evidence that goes to many other members.
To my mind this condition is a reflection on the Dominion of Canada, and it ought to be grappled with. Either we are going to grant divorces or we are not, and if we are to have divorces they should be proceeded with in a proper judicial manner and not in this way I wish to protest.
one of the functions of parliament and we may as well do our duty in the premises. The constitution contemplates that divorce may be granted. The only point that could be made with profit at this stage is the question whether or not we should give first reading to the bills in one motion. On the broad question of divorce, if any hon. gentleman wants to attack the principle he can do it on the second reading of bills. In the meantime, this is merely an effort to save a little time.
as these bills are concerned, the interested parties come from provinces in which there are no divorce courts, and the only means by which they can get divorce is through an act of parliament. I am more opposed to divorce than hon. gentlemen who have spoken in opposition to this procedure, but it is the only way. This method of giving first reading to all these bills simply means that instead of devoting half an hour to them at this stage they are advanced to the point where they will come up for second reading. It is on second reading that the principle will be open for consideration, and I shall be opposed to the principle. The present motion has the effect only of ridding us of a disagreeable process in two minutes instead of in half an hour.