Mr. McBRIDE:

The hon. member said, if I am not mistaken, that if these ships had been ready for sea when the war broke out they could have seized enough shipping to pay for the first year of the war.

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.

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.

Mr. McBRIDE:

I do not think this

bill got proper consideration by the committee. It was a special committee, they had to send whips out to get a quorum, and the committee sat less than twenty minutes. In my view the bill did not get the consideration it was entitled to.

Questions

Mr. McBRIDE:

I should like to say a few words in connection with this bill. I do not want the committee to think I am criticising their work in any way, but I think this bill passed the committee in somewhat of a hurry, as the committee was in session only about twenty minutes. This company, which goes under the name of the Canadian Transit Company, wants to change its offices from Windsor, Canada, to the American side, and I think we should look into this bill a little more carefully before we pass it. We must stand up for the good name of Canada, and if any company comes over here in order to get prestige from the name of Canada, I think Canada ought to be good enough for it and to keep, its headquarters in. Not only do the directors of the company want their headquarters transferred to the other side; but they want to sell bonds in Canada and when they do so, they want to have the right to mortgage the property. I know, on a number of occasions when this sort of thing was carried out in British Columbia, bonds were sold up to pretty nearly the limit of what the company intended to do. They sold the bonds to people who did not expect that there would be anything crooked about the matter. They sold the bonds to men working for $30 a month. I know men working for that amount who invested over $2,000 in such a company. They then mortgaged the property and allowed the mortgage to lapse, so that the people lost everything they had. I do not think this bill should be passed as it is. I do not think it has had the consideration

Supply-Naval Service

that this House should give it nor that the Railway Committee should have given it. We have the good name of Canada at stake in this matter, and I think this bill should be referred back.