Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

Why was the special provision stricken out of this Bill, that the majority of the corporation should be subjects of His Majesty.

Mr. FLINT.

This is frequently done in private Bills at the request of promoters, and the committee felt that it was very proper in this case.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I have not heard of it before.

It has been done, but I do not know why.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

Can the promoter of this Bill give one instance out of the numerous cases in which it has been done. My memory is that the practice of late years has been the very reverse.

Mr. FLINT.

I imagine that three out of every five private Bills have this clause. Based on broad ground, there is really no reason for the prohibition. At present such an enormous amount of foreign capital is invested in our enterprises that it is only proper that occasionally it should be provided that the directors need not be British subjects.

On section 8,

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

This clause gives the directors the power. I think that power should be in the stockholders.

Mr. FLINT.

The next clause provides for that.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

The next clause requires the consent of the shareholders of

the other company to sell, but that has not the slightest application to section 8. Under section 8 one company can do this with the consent of the board of directors but they must have the consent of the shareholders of the other company.

Mr. FLINT.

The main object of this is to purchase the assets of the other company. This is quite an ordinary clause and is on the line of similar clauses in other private Bills. I really do not understand how any one can be injured in any way by this clause. The Bill was considered very carefully in the committee and no objection was taken to it.

Hon. Mr. HAGGAKT.

When they come to purchase it requires the consent of every shareholder of the company purchased, but the purchasing company can do so without the consent of any shareholder.

Mr. WADE.

Care is taken to safeguard the rights of the old company by requiring the consent of its shareholders to the sale, but if you were to pdt in any provision requiring the consent of the stockholders in the present company there might be difficulty.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

It is not an unusual provision to enable the company to pay for property purchased by stock instead of money. Probably the objection of my hon. friend from Lanark is because we are enabling the purchase of a large property to be made without the consent of the shareholders.

Mr. FLINT.

I do not think that any difficulty need be anticipated on that account. The rights of the old company are safeguarded by requiring the consent of the shareholders, and the directors of the present company are simply authorized to issue paid up stock to the extent of the value of the property which they may purchase from the old company.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

I do not wish to offer any objections for the purpose of delaying the Bill. If the hon. gentleman wants to consult any one with reference to it, we will consent to pass the Bill through the committee, but not allow the third reading until another day. In the meantime my hon. friend may look into the matter, and we can see whether any amendment be required on the third reading.

Bill reported.

Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

This section provides :

The aggregate amounts borrowed shall not at any time be greater than seventy-five per Hon. Mr. HAGGART.

cent of the actual paid up stock of the company, but this limitation shall not apply to commercial paper discounted by the company.

This is the first time I have seen such a clause in any private Bill. What does it mean ? There seems to be no limitations at all to the borrowing powers. Who is the member of the government in charge of private Bills ? This simply means that they can borrow as much as they like.

So can any company.