Mr. BORDEN moved:

That on Wednesday, the 4th of March next, and subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the House will meet at three o'clock p.m., and that the sittings on such days shall in every respect be under the same rules provided for other days, and that on said Wednesdays Government notices of motions and Government orders shall have precedence after questions.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I suppose

there is no serious objection to this motion, but I would suggest that we should be given to-morrow again and that the motion should run from the following Wednesday, the 11th.

Mr. BORDEN:

I accept that, and I therefore beg to move that the 11th be substituted for the 4th.

Motion as amended agreed to.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER:

I beg your

leave, Mr. Speaker, to ask the Minister of Finance to give the House some information, which he seems to have given to the press this morning. I suppose I need not lay down the principle that Parliament is entitled to as much consideration at his hands as is the press. I wish to ask the hon. gentleman with regard to a statement attributed to him in the Ottawa Citizen. The article refers to the new Canadian loan, and in the last paragraph of the article, it is stated that the Minister of Finance said there was no truth whatever in tbs rumour current here that the Government had in view an issue later on for the purpose of making a loan to a railway corporation; and, that no application for assistance by way of loan had been or was expected to

be received by the Government from any railway or other company. I refer to this especially in view of the statement published in another newspaper, attributed to Sir William Mackenzie, to the effect that there had been a demand laid before the Government, if I correctly apprehend his statement, because it concludes:

He could not give out anything as to what -the Government would do; he had simply laid the case before them and it was now in their hands. He seemed to be as confident as ever as to the work he had in hand.

Can the Minister of Finance give any information to Parliament on this matter?

Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance) :

I can give an explanation of

the statement which I made to the press, but as to the statement of Sir William Mackenzie, or as to any remarks that may be attributed to him, of course I cannot ispeak. My hon. friend has correctly read what I stated to the press, namely, that no application had been received for assistance by way of loan to any railway company, nor was any expected to be received. ;So far as I am aware, that is a correct statement of the facts.

Mr. MACDONALD:

What about the

loan?

Mr. DOHERTY:

The matter referred to

by the' hon. member seems to involve a determination of the question of how far a company, incorporated by this Parliament or under the laws enacted by this Parliament to do business generally, or incorporated by or undeT the laws of one province, is entitled to do business in any other province without being subject to such requirements as the legislature of the province in which it seeks to do business chooses to impose. I take it that the plaintiff in this particular case was an incorporated company. This is a question upon which there has been very considerable divergence of judicial opinion. It is one of the questions in connection with the respective powers for the incorporation of companies by Parliament on the one hand and by the legislatures of the provinces on the other hand, which have been submitted for the adjudication of the courts. These questions have been passed upon by the 'Supreme Court of Canada, and the judgment is in process of being taken before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Until their Lordships pronounce upon the question, 1 am afraid that it will be difficult for me to give to the hon. member any answer that will be of any great use to him. No doubt, when the words ' foreign company ' are used, it strikes one as an anomalous that a company incorporated by Parliament or under its laws should be treated as a foreign company within a province; but Chief Justice Haultain is not alone among the judges of this country in having held that there was within the provincial legislature a power to impose conditions upon the doing of business within the province by companies incorporated otherwise than by the legislature or under the authority of the legislature itself. That is a question upon which there is a great deal to be said upon both sides, and I do not think that I can, on my own authority,

make any satisfactory answer to the question. The hon. member will have to wait with the rest of us for the determination by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

Mr. NESBITT:

Will the hon. minister

tell us what the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada was?

Mr. DOHERTY:

The judges of the Supreme Court were divided in opinion. Two of their Lordships held that companies incorporated by Parliament or under the laws of Parliament were entitled to exercise the powers conferred upon them within the provinces; and that the right, at all events, of the provinces to impose taxes for the purpose of raising revenue was concerned, the provinces were not absolutely at liberty to prevent the companies from carrying on buisness within the provinces. It is a little dangerous for me to undertake to say offhand what the holdings of the different judges were, because the questions are intricate and involved, and it is not easy to say that there was an absolute decision applicable in all cases without taking into consideration the circumstances of the incorporation and the particular powers sought to be exercised. Speaking in a general way, however, two of the judges -of the Supreme Court held favourably to the power of Parliament to incorporate companies and to confer upon companies incorporated powers exercisable not subject to be restricted by legislation of the provinces. So far as we are dealing with companies incorporated for purposes, which themselves are expressly included in the subjects regarding which this Parliament may legislate, the judges, as I understand it, held that these companies can do business within the provinces without being subject to restriction, and as to those companies which are incorporated only under the general powers upon the question, how far they may be subjected to further restrictions by provincial legislation in regard to the exercise of the powers conferred upon them were differences of opinion. While two of the judges, speaking in a general way, may be said to have held favourably to the incorporating powers on the part of this Parliament, and more restrictively than the others upon the question of the power of the provincial legislatures in regard both to the incorporation of com- , panies to do .business outside of the prov- ' ince, and also their power to restrict the operations of non-provincially incorporated companies, it is not possible for me

to undertake to discuss the matter in detail, or to specify in a word the difference of opinion existing. But the questions involved are, no doubt, of the very first importance to the business public of Canada; and, because they are of that, importance and because there does exist on the part of the judges this marked divergence of opinion, it is important to have the judgment on the question of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.