August 11, 1917 (12th Parliament, 7th Session)


Frank Broadstreet Carvell



I can quite understand the necessity of [DOT] amending the Act so that an agent of a provincial company shall be under the same law and subject to the same penalties as the agent of a Dominion or foreign company. But I have never quite understood the reason for this law, anyhow. I do not see why an insurance agent should not be allowed to canvass business and sell insurance as cheaply as he likes; that is a matter between him and the purchaser. It seems to me we are drifting into-I do not know whether it is socialism; I think it is these public-ownership faddists getting their work in again. Why in the worldi should not an insurance company he allowed to sell me insurance for a price which I am willing to pay, regardless of the price they

sell to any one else? You might just as well interfere with the man who sells sugar and pork, which are juet as necessary to my family as insurance is. If you say that an insurance agent cannot sell me insurance except at such a price, you have just as much right to say that a grocer cannot sell me sugar or pork except at such a price. I was never able to understand the reason for these provisions at the time the Insurance Act went through. It seems to me we are simply drifting in the direction I have indicated, and unless a stop is put to it no man can tell what the end will be. After a while they will be telling us we cannot do anything except under the instructions of some public authority; individual action will be taken away entirely. If the Government would go a little further and say that the munition makers and profiteers could make only so much money, there would be some sense in that. They fight shy of touching these people, however, but when it comes down to the average man who is trying to get a living, they make legislation of this kind. I do not know that I can object to the amendment, because it makes the law uniform, but I object to the principle of the whole thing.

Full View