707
CHAP. 1] THE DOMINION OF CANADA
3 decidedly drastic provision, and one which has been
attacked in the province itself as a needless drag upon
business done by non-resident companies by correspondence.
It may be noted that the Dominion Government has dis-
allowed Acts cc. 43-5 of 1909 of Saskatchewan, Quebec Act
c. 82 of 1910, and Manitoba Act c. 82 of 1910, because they
contain clauses authorizing companies to carry on extra-
Provincial trade, and apparently the Dominion policy is to
insist on the limitation of provincial authority. On the
other hand, they have not disallowed Acts imposing heavy
taxation on commercial travellers, though such Acts in 1905
caused much excitement in connexion with Quebec and
British Columbia! and were alleged to interfere with the
Dominion control of trade generally, and between the pro-
vinces and foreign countries. But they have disallowed
legislation of an exceptional character affecting companies
incorporated under British or Canadian law less favourably
than companies of the province? It is also contended by
Lefroy that if the company is incorporated for objects
within the exclusive power in s. 91, its operation can be
regulated by the Dominion only.
If a company is incorporated under a provincial Act, the
Dominion Parliament claim the power to extend its authority
Over the whole of Canada by the plan of granting a licence,
a8 in the Dominion Insurance Act (40 Vict. c. 42, s. 28), and
@ fortior: it may give it federal incorporation for federal
‘ See Acts 5 Edw. VII c. 31 (Quebec) and 7 Edw. VIL c. 10 (British
Columbia) ; Provincial Legislation, 1904-6, pp. 14, 15, 140, 154. A
Manitoba, Act, 58 & 59 Vict. c. 4, was disallowed merely because it imposed
® licence fee on all companies with provincial objects ; ibid., pp. 1005-10.
* See Provineial Legislation, 1867-95, pp. 941, 1007 ; 1896-8, pp. 60-71,
81-3; 1899-1900, pp. 11 seq., 48; 1901-3, pp. 21, 22, 104 seq. ; 1904-6,
P. 69. Most of them are British Columbia Acts. hut see Ontario Act
63 Viet. c. 24.
* Op. cit., p. 622. The difficulties of limiting the powers of the province
are seen at p. 623, note 1; cf. Cameron J. in Clegg v. Grand Trunk Railway
Co., 100. R, 714. Nothing but express legislation on the topics would do
(ef. p. 626); cf. Hamilton Powder Co. v. Lambe, (1885) M. L. R., 1 Q. B. 460.
What constitutes action by a company in a province is dealt with in
Standard Ideal Co. v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co.. [1911] A. C. 78,
TO
