April 15, 1901 (9th Parliament, 1st Session)


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace

Conservative (1867-1942)


I think they are bound to do so. Ostensibly they have kept them separately. I am told that perhaps a shareholder might get the information by going to the company, but the company might or might not be willing to give that information. It is in the interest of those who insure in either of these branches that this amendment should pass. Now that the amalgamation has taken place, conditions that prevailed previously should not be relaxed, because a company joining in with another company must have its obligations and undertakings assumed by this amalgamated company. Clause 14 of the Bill reads very loosely. It says :
The temperance section of the Temperance Company shall hereafter be maintained by the

company as the temperance section in such manner as the directors think best.
That wipes out these safeguards and conditions which were necessary in the Temperance and General Life Company, and permits the new company to do whatever they may please in regard to the matter. I do not think that is fair. I do not think we should give the amalgamated company such wide privileges, which do not exist in the companies before amalgamation. When a company takes over another company they assume all the liabilities of that other company, and instead of having that wide latitude given them by clause 14 of the proposed Act, I believe this amendment should be adopted.
S. Fielding). This motion was discussed in the committee, and I believe a majority of the members thought that this was a matter for the internal economy of the company, rather than for legislative enactment. Unless some stronger evidence is furnished than that which I have heard, I am disposed to view the matter in that light. My hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) and others probably are anxious to learn something from the experience of this company. One hon. member whom I am sorry is not present, because he was much interested in the question, suggested that the liquor drinkers were being taxed to give the temperance people cheap insurance. That was, in brief, the argument he advanced. It is a very interesting problem, but it is one which I do not think we should investigate through the agency of this particular company.

Full View