whether this Bill is not boun1 up in the Quebec measure, and to see whether they are not part and parcel the same legislation, and whether, under the circumstances, this is legislation which ought to pass this House.

Hon Mr. TRUDEL The hon. mover of this amendment has been exceedingly unfortunate in the way he has chosen to question the constitutionality of those Bills. It is to be regretted that he has thought it advisable to question the right of the Province to pass such legislation. I am ready to admit that these Bills have given rise to some doubt as to their constitutionality, but it is not in the sense advocated by the hon. gentleman who moved this amendment, and by the hon. gentleman from Amherst. Everybody knows that the people of the Province of Quebec have very strong reasons to maintain their provincial autonomy. They are well aware that, if we now enjoy such privileges as we have under the constitution of the Dominion, it is due in a great measure to the fact that Quebec had special institutions and laws which thej people of that Province were anxious to preserve. Confederation was accepted, because it was perfectly well understood that a certain class of subjects, such as civil rights and property and matters of similar import were specially reserved for the exclusive control of the local legislatures. I know there is a tendency in the Dominion towards making the laws of the country uniform. I understand that there are for a part of people of the Dominion strong reasons to desire that uniformity, and I suppose it will be equally well understood and acknowledged that there are still stronger reasons for the people of the Province of Quebec to hold views to the contrary. The hon. gentleman from Montarville has raised the question as to whether the local legislature had a right to grant such a charter as the one alluded to that is the charter of the "Franco-Canadien Credit Foncier." If I heard the hon. gentleman raise the same doubt as to the power of the Dominion Parliament to legislate upon such questions, then I could understand the position taken by him; but, when his objections are urged against the power of the Province to

-

grant such a charter, I repeat that I
cannot understand how he can reconcile
his great desire - and I know that he
is desirous of preserving the rights of his
Province with the position he takes
to-day. I do not like to trespass upon
the time of the House, but this question
is of so much importance, and the
right of the Province to legislate
on such questions has been so freely
denied (I think the hon. gentleman
from Amherst went so far as to say that
it was absurd to pretend that the local
legislatures have such powers), that it is
my duty to say a few words more on the
subject. It will hardly be necessary for
me to refer to the British North America
Act, its different sections are
so well
know to hon. gentlemen in this Cham-
ber; still, I may take the liberty of
calling their attention to the different
sub-sections of section 92 - amongst
others to sections 8, 11, 13 and 16.
all these sections it will be seen that the
intention of the framers of the Act was
to give the local legislatures the right to
legislate on municipal matters, civil
rights, property, and generally on all
matters of a local and private nature.
I will ask the hon. gentleman what is the
nature of the business to be transacted
by such a Company as this? Is not this
a landed credit Company, that is, a Comi-
pany for the purpose of loaning money to
farmers and real estate owners, trans
actions which are regulated by the civil
law of the Province ?

Hon. Mr. DICKEY -
in France.

In

Doing business

Hon. Mr. TRUDEL Whatever places the capital comes from, and I will tell the hon. gentleman that I am not now going into the details of the Bill, but I am discussing the principle of the jurisdiction of this Parliament and of the exclusive power of the Local Legislature to legislate on this matter. I will bring in support of the opinions which I have expressed what I consider to be a very high authority - no less a one than Lord Carnarvon, author of the British North America Act. When the noble lord presented that Bill before the House of Lords, he made a very clear distinction between the powers which were conferred on the local legislatures and those conferred on the Federal Parlia

"The real object which we have in view is to give to the Central Government those high functions and almost sovereign powers by which peace and uniformity of legislation may be secured in those questions that are of common import to all the provinces."

ment, and in the course of his remarks question. This opinion of the learned he said: Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal was pronounced in the case of McCiannagan vs. the St. Ann's Mutual Building Society. I might quote a number of these authorities, but I will restrict myself to one more. It comes from the Privy Council, in a case on an appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court of New Brunswick. In that case, Sir Charles Colville said: -

Is it not very clearly stated by the mover
of that Bill that the intention was to se-
cure uniformity of legislation only in
matters on which such uniformity was
intended to be obtained for all the pro-
vinces, and not in matters of property
and civil rights, since the Parliament has
taken special care to put property and
civil rights in every province under the
exclusive control of the provincial legis-
latures? This question, fortunately for
us, is not a new one. The highest tribunal
in our Province- one which we have
the right to consider
consider as deserving
of much credit the Court of
Appeal has repeatedly decided
прои
questions which are somewhat similar to
this. In one instance, it was upon a
question raised about the building socie-
ties. Everybody knows that these build
ing societies are of the same character as
the Crodit Foncier; that is, they are
associations for lending money on real
estate. In that case the hon. Chief
Justice of the Court of Appeal, rendering
the judgment of the Court, says :-

"We cannot agree with the Court below that the Dominion Parliament have the right

to pass the Act 42 Victoria, chapter 38."

It was an Act which had been passed in order to liquidate an Act affecting the management of building societies, and yet the Court of Appeal says decidedly that this Dominion Parliament has acted ultra vires in passing such a law. His Lordship continues :

"This Act is not in the nature of an Insolvency law, since it is intended to apply to all building societies, whether solvent or not. It

is, therefore, essentially an Act affecting civil rights, which, under the provision of the British North America Act of 1867, comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the local or provincial legislature."

Is not this conclusive? Does it not come from a very high authority from the very highest tribunal in the Province, and the very best qualified to judge of the rights of a province? I do not think any one will seriously doubt the

"Their lordships are further of opinion with Justice Fisher, the dissenting judge in the Supreme Court, that the Act in question, even if it did not fall within the second article, would clearly be a law relating to a matter of a merely local or private nature within the meaning of the 16th article of section 92 of the Imperial statute, and, therefore, one which the legislature was competent to pass, since its subject matter could be distinctly shown to fall within one or other of the class of subjects specially enumerated in the 90th section."

---

It is true that this last jugment which I have quoted is not upon a matter exactly similar in its nature to the present one, but the principle is the same that such matters which are clearly of a local nature fall exclusively under the control of the local legislature. I was astonished to hear the hon. gentleman from Amherst stating that the Bill which we have just passed concerning savings banks, being a Bill of a private nature, should by

the same

reason be submitted to the

Jocal legislature. It is not necessary to remind the hon. gentleman that banks and banking are specially reserved for the jurisdiction of this Parliament, and this by a positive provision of the Act of British North America, 1867. The hon. mover of this amendment said that such companies are banking companies. I would like the hon. gentleman to explain how a society of credit foncier, which is a society for lending money on real estate, can be considered as a bank.

Hon. Mr. DEBOUCHERVILLE

I

said it was of the nature of a bank, because it was so considered in France, from which this charter was copied. It was there called La Banque Credit Foncier. Apart from that it differs a great deal from building societies, because it is a Company to borrow money and to lend money and to issue, not bonded obligation, as stated in the English version, but lettres de gage which are almost the same thing.

Hon. Mr. TRUDEL--As to lettres de a circulating medium, and they will be gage, I challenge the hon. gentleman to of the nature of a Dominion note. This say that they are anything else thau de- is not correct. There is all the difference bentures! He might as well say that a in the world between a debenture and the railway company is of the same nature circulation notes of the banks. I do not as a bank because they have the right to intend to go into the details of these Bills, issue debentures. This is nothing less because I do not wish to occupy the time than a debenture. A promissory note of this hon. House any longer has a special character which is well I rose to speak merely for th. known, and I invite the hon. gentleman purpose of preventing, as far as e to open any law book and he will find lay in my power, this House fion that there is an essential difference be- pronouncing in a sense which I consider tween the two. The hon. gentleman said to be against the constitutions and the that the capital of the Company having powers of the provinces, and injurious to been mentioned in francs, and the franc the interests of the Province of Québec. not being a legal tender in Canada, it I regret very much that such opinions would amount to creating a legal tender, have been so freely expressed by hon. and thus bring the subject under the gentlemen of such high standing as the control of the Dominion Parliament. I hon. Senator from Montarville and do not see how he can give such an in- the hon. gentleman from Amherst, and terpretation as that, and say because the to find in the mind of the former such an Company comes to this Parliament and inclination on his part to restrict the asks for its incorporation, mentioning its powers of the provinces, and by this capital in francs, the fact of this Parlia-means give the greatest blow to local ment recognizing such capital in franes institutions. There is another question would change its jurisdiction. that it which I consider cannot be ignored in this should put it in pounds, shillings and discussion. Everybody knows that there pence, or in dollars and cents. Such an are two of those Bills of a similar charact would not be creating a legal tender.acter before the House. I understand, But this Parliament has a right to say though I am a perfect stranger to both, what will or will not be a legal tender; that there is a competition or something for instance, they have a right like a competition between the two; and to make Dominion notes legal the fact of submitting this Bill to the tender, but it does not follow that Supreme Court would necessarily have Parliament cannot recognize the cur- the effect of killing it, and giving undue rency of another country, or that preference to the other, and I do not because they recognized by an act think this should be done unless we are the currency of a foreign country, that it prepared to submit both bills to the constitutes it a legal tender. The law Supreme Court at the same time. will simply recognize that this Company has a capital of so many millions of francs; that does not mean that the franc will be a legal tender in Canada; it is entirely a different matter. The hon. gentleman from Amherst has raised the point about increasing the capital; it seems to him to be a very extraordinary power to confer on this Company. If the hon. gentlemen were consistent, and considered this Company as a bank, they would remember that the Act of 1871 gives the bank unlimited power to increase its capital; of course I do not admit that the fact of increasing their capital places them on a par with a bank. There is another argument used; they will issue bonds, said the hon. mover of the amendment, and these bonds will be

Hon. Mr. GIBBS moved the adjournment of the debate.

The motion was agreed to. VENTILATION OF THE PARLIAMENT

BUILDINGS.

MOTION.

Hon. Mr. REESOR moved that the
names of Doctors Paquet and Baillar-
geon be added to the Committee to con-
sider the question of the ventilation of
portions of the Parliament Building.
The motion was agreed to.

BILL INTRODUCED.
Bill (77) "An Act to amend the
Dominion Lands Act." - (Hon. Mr.
Aikins).

The Senate adjourned at 6 p.m.

But another

"Whereas, the Montreal Building Asso- The only answer that I make to that ciation, a body politic and corporate, incorpo- point is, if the Company has no capital rated by Acts of the Legislature of the Prov-it cannot lend money. ince of Quebec, have, by their petition, represented that they desire under the name conferred on them by the Legislature of the Province of Quebec, at its last session, to have the rate of interest chargeable by them regulated, and other powers usually granted to loan and investment companies conferred upon them, etc."

Now, that is one, but there are several
other Acts which I might cite, and I shall
call the attention of the House whilst I
am about it to one passed in the same
year, chapter 43, immediately following
the one which I have just cited :
Act respecting the Ontario Express and
Transportation Company,"
amble of which is as follows:

"An

the pre

"Whereas, the Ontario Express and Transportation Company, incorporated by Letters Patent, under the provisions of the Ontario Joint Stock Companies Letters Patent Act, 1874,' have by their petitition represented that they are desirous of carrying on and and transtransacting a general express portation business throughout the Dominion of Canada, with power to transact business with similar companies transacting business in the United Stated and Great Britain, and to carry out such project, the said Company are desirous of having their charter confirmed by the Dominion Parliament, and of being empowered to do business as an Express and Transportation Company throughout the Dominion of Canada, and it is expedient to grant the prayer of their petition, etc."

I do

point, and one on which he dwelt at considerable length, was that extraordinary powers were given to this Company to enable it to borrow money, powers such as were not given in the Joint Stock Companies Act of 1877. The hon. gentleman said, I think (speaking from memory only) that under that Act power was given to the Company to borrow double the amount of its capital. Under certain contingencies that is correct, but on the principle on which this Company desires to borrow money, viz., the issue of bonds and debentures, the same Act to which the hon. gentleman alluded, passed in 1877, specifies:

"That if the Company borrow money solely on the debentures or other securities mentioned in the ninety-first section, and by guarantee under the ninetieth section, the aggregate amount of the sums so borrowed shall not, at any time, exceed four times the amount of its paid up and unimpaired capital, or the amount of its subscribed capital, at the option of the Company."

which is as follows:

I do not

But

Under that Act, they have power to borWe ask row four times the amount of their capital on their debentures only. that this Company shall have power to borrow five times the amount. think the stretch is so very great that the hon. gentleman should characterize The hon. gentleman in the course of his it as an extraordinary provision. criticisms declared that some of the pro-another Bill was passed in 1880, chapter visions of this Bill were of an extraordi- 65, "An Act to give certain powers to nary character, and said that the House La Compagnie Francaise du Telegraphie was asked to give a charter to a Com- de Paris a New York." The preamble of pany which had no capital. Now, think my hon. friend went a little beyond what he was warranted in doing, and I that scarcely think that he treated portion of the Bill with the fairness which I am bound to say he usually gives to Bills which come under the consideration of this House. In the Bill which is now under consideration, it is stated that the Credit Foncier Company has been incorporated by a statute of the Legislature of Quebec. If you turn to that Act, you find it is so incorporated, that it possesses a certain amount of capital, and the argument which the hon. gentleman sought to make by the objection he raised was, that this House was going to pass an Act for the benefit of a company which had no capital.

"Whereas La Compagnie Francaise du Telegraphie de Paris a New York, and the shareholders thereof, have by their petirion repres sented that the said Company has been duly incorporated in accordance with the provisions of the laws of France, for the construction of telegraph lines between France and America, and between England and America, and the establishing and maintenance of submarine cables to unite the two continents, and of such other land or submarine telegraph lines as may be requisite to complete, prolong or with make the necessary connections for or the principal lines, etc." Now, that goes beyond the Dominion, whereas the Bill before the House merely Act of the Legislature of cites an for that we Quebec; and though

brought

to

book,

are

this