1911-03-16

WATER SUPPLY IN PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

['Rutherford, C.M.G.,\nVeterinary Director General,\nOttawa.\nSir,-I have the honour to report as follows on samples of water taken at the parliament buildings on the 8th instant:\n2322-\tSample taken from drinking water supply in Senate. A non-pathogenic sporulat-ing organism present in very small numbers. No evidence of sewage bacteria.\n2323-\tSample taken from drinking water supply on the floor of the House of Commons. A non-pathogenic sporulating organism present in very small numbers. No evidence of sewage bacteria.\n2324-\tSample taken from lavatory on main floor of the House of Commons. Sewage bacteria present.\nFrom the above it is apparent that the raw city water is unsafe for human drinking purposes, while that supplied from the sterilizing machines is a perfectly safe drinking water.\nI have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant,\n(Sgd.) CHAS. H. HIGGINS, Pathologist.']
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: Mr. Speaker, as the House is deeply interested in the question of the water supply furnished in these buildings, I think it well to read a report from the biologist of the Department of Agriculture, so that it may be placed on ' Hansard ' and hon. gentlemen will have information of which I have no doubt they will be very glad:



[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, March 11, 1911.
2322-2323-2324.
Dr.  J. G.@: Rutherford, C.M.G.,
Veterinary Director General,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I have the honour to report as follows on samples of water taken at the parliament buildings on the 8th instant:
2322-	Sample taken from drinking water supply in Senate. A non-pathogenic sporulat-ing organism present in very small numbers. No evidence of sewage bacteria.
2323-	Sample taken from drinking water supply on the floor of the House of Commons. A non-pathogenic sporulating organism present in very small numbers. No evidence of sewage bacteria.
2324-	Sample taken from lavatory on main floor of the House of Commons. Sewage bacteria present.
From the above it is apparent that the raw city water is unsafe for human drinking purposes, while that supplied from the sterilizing machines is a perfectly safe drinking water.
I have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) CHAS. H. HIGGINS, Pathologist.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	What have been the yearly imports, quantity and value, for the past six years into Canada from, respectively, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Prance, Argentine Republic and the United States, of wheat, oats, horses, cattle, sheep, lambs, mutton, beef, eggs, butter, cheese fowl, vegetables and fruit?
2.	What have been the average prices of butter and of eggs in London, England, for the past five years in comparison with the prices, respectively, in eastern provinces, in Montreal, in Toronto, in Minneapolis, in Chicago, in Detroit, in Buffalo, in Boston and in New York ?


Mr. PATERSON.: As far as the customs is concerned I have the answer which the hon. member may have. With reference to the second question the Minister of Agriculture tells me it would take a very long time to prepare and he would like it to stand as a notice of motion for a return.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: I think the United States government very quickly got out a comparative list of the prices, and I cannot see why this .should stand as a notice of motion. This information is very necessary for the discussion on the question of reciprocity.


William Paterson: There is no objection whatever to giving it, but I was just intimating to the hon. gentleman that he must not expect it immediately and it would be better given in the shape of a return.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It would be better to expedite it for the information of hon. members.


Mr. FISHER.: I have already given instructions to the department to set a man at work to prepare it, but I was informed that it will take at least a week to get it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would ask to have included in the return the import duties on these goods going into these countries from Canada.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think we can get that information.


NEW POSTAGE STAMPS.
Mr. WHITE (Renfrew):: 1.	Is the government aware that the governments of Australia and South Africa have offered substantial prizes for the best designs for new postage stamps, emblematic of the present reign, for those portions of the empire?
2.	What steps is this government taking to secure a set of postage stamps for Canada which will be characteristic of the country and of artistic merit?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to offer prizes for the best designs in order to encourage Canadian artists? If not, who will prepare the designs?
4.	Will an opportunity be afforded to the members of the House to inspect whatever designs may be submitted to the_ Post Office Department, before the selection is finally made?


Mr. LEMIEUX.: We are not aware in the Post Office Department of what is being done in this matter by the governments of Australia and South Africa. What we have done is this. We have written to our High Commissioner in London, Lord Strath

cona, and he is in communication with the home government in order to arrange for a postage stamp in Canada similar to the one which will be issued at the time of coronation for the United Kingdom. We . have not yet received the design, but as soon as received, I shall have no objection to laying it on the table.


BRIDGE ACROSS HUMBER RIVER, TORONTO.
Mr. WALLACE:: 1.	Is the government aware that a serious obstruction to navigation exists on the Humber river, caused by the middle pier of a bridge being built by the Grand Trunk railway over the river?
2.	If so, has the government done anything to remedy it?


William Pugsley: No doubt this question relates to the application which has been made by the Grand Trunk railway for the approval of the plan of a bridge which they propose to build across the river Humber in order to take the place of the railway bridve now there. The object , of building the bridge, is, it appears, to meet an order made by the Board of Railway Commissioners requiring the company to make a change of grade so that the proposed bridge will be higher than the existing one. Objections have been made to the plan by certain owners of property on the Humber and also by the city of Toronto. All the parties have been given an opportunity to be heard. The matter is now being considered by me, and in the course of a few days I expect to decide what recommenda-_ tion I shall make to the Governor in Coun-' cil on the subject.


ACCOUNTS OUTSTANDING.
Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe):: 1.	What were the total amounts of the accounts outstanding and unpaid, hut since paid, in each department at the end of the last financial year?
2.	Were these amounts taken into the accounts in preparing the annual financial statement ?


Mr. FIELDING.: Stands as a notice of motion for return.


CANADIAN EXPORTS OF HAY-REMISSION OF UNITED STATES DUTIES.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	When will the commission called upon to decide the amounts to be reimbursed Canadian exporters of hay, from 1866 to 1882, customs dues collected by the United States customs officials, be named under the terms of the recent convention between Great Britain and the United States?
2.	What is causing the delay in the nomination of said commission?


*Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: These claims are included in those with regard to which Mr. LEMIEUX.
the governments of Great Britain and the United States have agreed on a convention, and will be taken up as soon as the convention sits.


SESSIONAL CLERKS.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. MONK:
1.	At what rate per day are sessional clerks paid, and is the rate uniform for all such clerks ?
2.	Was the per diem rate of pay for sessional clerks increased last year? If so, by what authority?
3.	To what class of such clerks does the increase apply?
4.	Do the clerks whose salaries were so increased work more or during longer hours than the others ?
5.	Why was the salary thus increased for
some only ?	..
6.	Have the clerks whose salaries have not been increased petitioned for an increase?
7.	If so, was the petition rejected as far as they are concerned?
8.	Is it not a fact that a number of the sessional clerks whose salaries have not been thus advanced possess technical qualifications not held by those whose pay was increased?
9.	What "is the reason for this apparently unjust discrimination?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	There are two divisions of sessional clerks, viz.: * Post office clerks ' and ' sessional clerks'. The rate of pay is uniform for sessional clerks and is also uniform for post office clerks. The rate of pay for post office clerks is $5 per diem and of sessional clerks $4 ner diem.
2 and 3. The per diem rate of pay for post office clerks was increased last session by authority of the Board of Commissioners of Internal Economy of the House of Commons. The rate of pay for sessional clerks was not increased.
4.	The work of the post office clerks is of an entirely different nature to that of the sessional clerks. As to whether post office clerks work longer hours than sessional clerks it may be stated that in some cases they do and in others they probably do not.
5.	Answered in the reply to question No.
1.
6.	The sessional clerks have petitioned for an increase of pay.
7.	The petition has not been rejected, but is under consideration of the Board of Internal Economy.
8.	Some of the sessional clerks are stenographers and typewriters, some are typewriters only and some are neither typewriters nor stenographers. The work required of post office clerks does not require them to possess the qualification of typewriters or stenographers. _
9.	There is no desire to unfairly discriminate among these officials. The matter of adjusting their pay according to the nature of their work is under consideration.


IMPOSTS OF LEAF TOBACCO.
*Mr. MONK:: 1.	What was the total amount of leaf tobacco imported from the United States for each of the last three years?
2.	What is the value of manufactured tobacco of all sorts imported from the United States during each of the last three years for which reports have been compiled?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1. The quantity of ' Tobacco, unmanufactured for excise purposes, under conditions of Inland Revenue Act,' imported into Canada from the United States during the last three fiscal years was as follows:
Pounds.
1908	 15,544,752
6909	 14,761,094
1910	 14,242,809
2.	The value of manufactured tobacco imported into Canada from the United States during the last three fiscal years was as follows :
1908.	1909.	1910. [DOT]
Value. Value. Value.
Cigarettes	$ 2,896 $ 1,530 $ 3,462
Cigars	
20,321	20,969	30,852Tobacco,	cut	
110,549	40,692	38,217Snuff	
29,903	25,462	4,600
Tobacco, all other
manufactures of....	57,793	55,577	60,737


INTERNATIONAL PRISON CONGRESS.
*Mr. MONK:: 1. Did the government send a representative to the meeting of the last International Prison Congress held at Washington, U.S.A., last year ?
2 Was the government invited to participate in said meeting?
3.	If so invited, why was not the government represented at said meeting?


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.-
3.	See answer to No. 1.


JOHN JARDINE.
Mr. BARNARD:: Referring to questions and answers re Mr. John Jardine set out in columns 3926 and 4762 of the revised ' Hansard,' was the department aware at the time or times of making the payment or payments therein referred to, that payment was being made for work done in excess of his instructions? If not, when did the government first become aware of the fact?


William Pugsley: The department at Ottawa was not aware at the time of making payment that the work done by Mr. Jardine, and for which the resident architect sent in duly certified accounts, exceeded what had been authorized by him, as the resident architect had been instructed to consult Dr. Montizam-bert as to what works he considered most important and would advise to be done from the appropriation of $28,000 which was available.


SAND SUPPLIED TO KINGSTON PENITENTIARY.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	How much money has been paid by this government in each year from 1896 to and including 1910, to R. H. Fair, for sand supplied to Kingston penitentiary?
2.	Were tenders called in each year for sand supplied.
3.	Has the government paid the said R. H. Fair for supplying sand for any other public buildings or works at or near Kingston in the years 1896 to 1910? If so, how much?
4.	Has the said R. H. Fair received any money from the government for any other supplies or services? If so, for what, in what years and how much?


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH:: 1896-7			$ 100 00
1897-8			 300 00
1898-9			 232 03
1899-1900			 434 55
1900-1			 52 75
1901-2			 76 05
1902-3			 9 90
1903-4			 410 25
1904-5			 343 50
1905-6			 122 67
1906-7			 87 99
1907-8			 189 06
1908-9			 49 86
1909-10			 398 90
1910-11				 577 67
	$3,385 18
No.	
For potatoes:	
1898-99			$ 41 65
1900-01			 69 49
1902-3				 52 13
1905-06			 29 47
1907-8			 7 66
	$ 200 40
CHEESE WEIGHING AT MONTREAL. Mr. EDWARDS:
1.	Has the government during the past year received any complaints from cheese boards or individuals in regard to the weights and quality of cheese as allowed by buyers in Montreal?
2.	Has there ever been an official referee at Montreal appointed by the government? If so, what was his name, when appointed and at what salary?
3.	What were the duties of said official referee?
4.	Is there an official referee at Montreal at present? If not, when were his services dispensed with, and why?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	The Department of Trade and Commerce has received complaints from cheese boards and individuals, in regard to the weights and quality of the cheese as allowed by buyers in Montreal during the past year, and the Department of Agriculture received at various times three requests for the services of an official referee owing to disputes between buyers and sellers as to the quality of cheese.
2.	The following officers of the Department of Agriculture have acted as official referee, of butter and cheese at Montreal: J. A. Ruddick, July, 1900, salary $1,800 per year; A. W. Woodard, May, 1901, to March 31, 1906, salary $1,200 to $1,700 per year; Geo. H. Barr, May to November, 1907, salary, $1,800 per year; Jos. Burgess, May to November, 1908, salary $1,100 per year; J. F. Tilley, May to November, 1909, salary $100 per month. The position was not filled during the seasons of 1906 and 1910.
3.	The duties of the official referee consisted of making examinations of butter and cheese on request of both buyer and seller when there was a dispute as to quality.
4.	There is no official referee at Montreal at present. There was so little demand for his services in 1909 that there seemed to be no justification for continuing the office.'



PRIVILEGE-MR. NORTHRUP.

Mr. NORTHRUP.: If in rising a second time, as a matter of privilege, to take exception to some remarks made by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), my observations shall be very brief. I trust the House will understand that it is because I recognize the rule limiting the rights of members at such a time as this to a statement of the words actually used. If an hon. member attempts to go any further, he is very apt to be called to order. The particular paragraph to which I take exception is in the speech of the hon. member for North Cape Breton delivered in this House the night before last. I will read the paragraph to which I do take exception. He says at page 5389:
I quote here an opinion which will be found in ' Hansard,' page 408, 29th November, 1910. It is the opinion of the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) given while speaking in the debate on the address. He is taking the address paragraph by paragraph, and he takes this paragraph:
An arrangement may be made which will admit many of the products of the United States in on satisfactory terms. .
Then follows some interruption, Mr. Bradbury raising a point of order, and the Deputy Speaker ruling upon it. I will omit that and go on with the remarks of the hon. member for North Cape Breton.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Mr. Chairman, if any hon. friend will insist upon it, all I have to say is that this statement was made on the 29th November last when the hon. member for East Hastings expressed himself strongley in favour of reciprocity. He assured us that he would hold up both hands in favour of such an arrangement. I would ask my hon. friend from East Hastings if he will put up one hand in favour of it if it comes to a vote now. In case anybody may think I am not quoting him properly I have taken the page and day when he spoke, so that anybody will see what the hon. gentleman said.
Then followed a reference to some remarks made by the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm), and the hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) proceeded:
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have quoted a great many opinions but I have quoted none with greater satisfaction and greater faith than the two last opinions, because, judging from what has been going on around me here for the last three weeks, the fiery eloquence of the hon. member for East Hastings denouncing and condemning this agreement in all the moods and tenses, I certainly could not think that he had ever expressed a view in favour of the proposal.
Then he continues:
Then, having discovered this oasis in the desert, I find there are a great many other saints in Caesar's house and that from other quarters we are getting support for this agreement.
Turning to the remarks to which the hon. gentleman refers, what do I find? The hon. gentleman professed to quote some remarks made by me in this House, and he himself says:	in order to avoid any possibility of
mistake I have taken the page and date when he spoke. On turning up page 408, which is the page given by the hon. gentleman, I find that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) was discussing the Canadian navy. So, we see with what care the hon. gentleman gave his reference.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I shall be pleased to hand the hon. gentleman ' Hansard ' if there is any doubt about it.


William Barton Northrup: May I ask the hon. gentleman


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may have made a mistake in the page.


William Barton Northrup: May I ask the hon. gentleman does he deny that he made the statement that I am reading from page 5389, March 14, 1911, when he says:
I quote here an opinion which will be found in ' Hansard,' page 408.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I may say that I might have made a mistake in the page, but I have the extract in my hand that I clipped out of ' Hansard ' and I will be pleased to give it to the hon. gentleman.


William Barton Northrup: If there is a mistake in the page, so far so good. The only reason I referred to the fact at all was to justify the apology and excuse that I intend to offer for the hon. gentleman before I conclude. It seems impossible for him to quote anything correctly, even the page at which I had spoken. The gravamen of the charge is this paragraph of my remarks:
An arrangement may be made which will admit many of the products of the United States in on satisfactory terms.
Will the House be surprised to learn that I did not say anything of the kind, and that there is nothing at all approaching it in any part of the speech made by me on that day. the 29th November?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Read what you did say.	.


William Barton Northrup: I will read it and read it correctly. The paragraph to which the hon. gentleman refers and in which the hon. gentleman for East Hastings is said to have ' expressed himself strongly in favour of reciprocity ', is a paragraph taken not from my speech but from the speech from the Throne. But the House must be reasonable, for certainly the paragraph as quoted by the hon. gentleman bore so slight a resemblance to the speech from the Throne which I quoted that it is no wonder that he thought it was mine, let me give you what the hon. gentleman gives as the paragraph and let me give you what the speech from the Throne gives as the paragraph. The hon. gentleman quoted:
An arrangement may be made which will admit many of the products of the United States in on satisfactory terms.
That is the remark which I was supposed to have made. What I did quote from the speech from the Throne was this:
An arrangement may be made which will admit many of the products of the Dominion into the United States on satisfactory terms.
If there is no difference between Canadian produce going into the United States and American produce coming into the Dominion of Canada, then I am bound to admit that the hon. gentleman quoted me fairly and properly, but if there is any difference, or if the hon. gentleman can conceive or imagine or suppose or dream of any difference, between American products coming into Canada and Canadian products going into the United States, then I think I have surely ground for objection to being reported to have said exactly the opposite of what I did sav when I quoted from the speech from the Throne. Then the hon. gentleman also rejoices within himself in the expectation that I would hold up both hands in favour of this arrangement. What did I say? Referring to the correct pages
in ' Hansard ', November 29, pages 392 and 393, I find that my remarks were along the line that I was finding fault-I merely mention this that what follows may be understood-with the government because there was no mention of reciprocity in the speech from the Throne. I called attention to the fact that while, there was ample reference to the admission of our goods into the American market, there was no mention of American goods into our market. That is the point I was making. Then I made the quotation which has been garbled.
An arrangement may be made which will admit many of the products of the Dominion into the United States on satisfactory terms.
And said:
Why, of course, we would all hold up both hands for that. But does any one suppose for a moment that our American friends, the shrewdest, keenest, business men in the world, came to Canada merely to discuss measures by which the products of Canada would be admitted into the United States on satisfactory terms to Canada? Did it ever enter the minds of the right hon. gentleman or his colleagues that perhaps the Americans might like some of their goods to enter Canada on satisfactory terms to them? And, when we are called on to discuss such a question as this surely we have the right to ask that when the question is reciprocity, if it is reciprocity, we should be told so. Everybody will hold up both hands for any arrangement to enable us to send our goods on satisfactory* terms to ns in the United States, but whether or not we shall agree to let their goods in here is another story.
I think the quotation which I have given is pretty closely what was really said by me on the 29th November. As to the second statement quoted from the hon. gentleman's speech at page 5389, I am not perhaps to blame for not replying to it, because it is so far beyond my humble intellect, so far beyond the grasp or conception of an ordinary mind that I can merely leave it to hon. members to fathom if they can. The hon. gentleman said:
Then, having discovered this oasis in the desert, I find there are a great many other saints in Caesar's house and that from other quarters we are getting support for thia agreement.
I do not contradict that, Mr. Speaker. I do not assent to it; but I frankly admit that had the hon. member for North Cape Breton been an Irishman I might have had some suspicion as to the explanation of it, but coming from a Scotchman I can only say, Sir, that I am hopelessly at a loss.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As a matter of privilege-if there is any privilege left after the tremendous drain made upon it by the hon. member for East Hastings from day

to day,-I suppose I might claim some little of what privilege remains. The hon. member makes a great deal of noise about very little.


William Barton Northrup: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He makes a great deal of fuss, and he quotes scripture with great effect.


William Barton Northrup: Hear, hear.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He says that the great offence I committed the other day was to unite his name with that of the leader of the opposition.	'


William Barton Northrup: No such statement will be found on my part.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It will be found on 'Hansard' that he said he would not get on his feet were it not that I united his name with that of the leader of the opposition.


William Barton Northrup: Yes, in the charge you made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then, he went on to quote scripture. But there is one quotation from scripture which, had he used, he would have shut my mouth completely, and that is the reference to yoking an ox with an ass. Had he cited that as a reason why I should not unite his name with that of the leader of the opposition I would have nothing more to say. I did not get very much information or satisfaction out of the hon. gentleman's repeated speeches. If they are a question of privilege all right, but it is another matter altogether if they are merely made to keep my hon. friend in the limelight, and give him an opportunity to make little fiery speeches which I think is all the privilege he wants. Theire is another apt illustration that I might put on record in connection with the hon. member for Hastings. A Scotchman had a certain quadruped which he wanted to catch, and he chased it into a house in which there was only one window, and that a pane of glass 9 by 10. When he got the pig into the house he thought: Well, I've got you now, but the pig was not to be trapped, and he jumped through the 9 by 10 window. The Scotchman was perplexed, but he looked after the pig and said: Well, I lost you, but I've got your measure; it's 9 by
10.	Well, I have got the measure of the hon. member for Hastings, but it would be tremendous extravagance to say be is 9 by 10 for I believe mathematically speaking he is nearer to 3 by 2. I care nothing for what the hon. gentleman says, and that is all the privilege I require.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 



WAYS AND MEANS-THE FARMERS' BANK.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Fielding that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means, and the amendment of Mr. Henderson thereto.
[u"Lortie.\nMacdonell,\nMcCall,\nMaddin,\nM'eighen,\nMiddlebro,\nNorthrup,\nPerley,\nPorter,\nReid (Grenville), Rhodes,\nRoche,\nRussell,\nSchaffner,\nSexsmith,\nSharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Smyth,\nSproule,\nStanfield,\nstaples,\nStewart,\nTaylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), ihoburn, Thornton, Wallace,\nWhite (Renfrew),\nLake,\tWilcox and\nLalor,\tWilson (Lennox and\nLewis,\tAddington).-62.\n NAYS: Messieurs\nAllard,\tMcAllister,\nAllen,\tMcCoig,\nAyles worth\tMcCraney,\n(Sir Allen),\tMcIntyre,\nBeauparlant,\tMcKenzie,\nBeland,\tMcLean (Huron),\nBiekerdike,\tMcMillan,\nBorden\tMarcile (Bagot),\n(Sir Frederick),\tMartin (Montreal,\nBoyer,\tSte. Mary's),\nBrown,\tMartin (Regina),\nBureau,\tMartin (Wellington),\nCarrier,\tMeigs,\nCarvell,\tMichaud,\nCash,\tMiller,\nChew,\tMolloy,\nChisholm, (Antigonish),Murphy,\t\nChisholm (Inverness), Nesbitt,\t\nClark (Red Deer)\tNeely,\nClarke (Essex),\tOliver,\nCongdon,\tPapineau,\nConmee,\tParent,\nCurrie (Prince\tPaterson,\nEdward),\tPickup,\nDelisle.\tProwse,\nDemers,\tPugsley,\nDouglas,\tRankin,\nDubeau,\tReid (Restigouche),\nEthier,\tRichards.\nFielding,\tRivet,\nFisher,\tRoss (Middlesex),\nFowke,\tRoy (Dorchester),\nGauvreau,\tRutan\u201e\nGeoff rion,\tSavoie,\nGirard,\tSchell,\nGraham,\tSealey,\nGuthrie,\tSinclair,\nHarty,\tSmith (Middlesex),\nHodgins,\tSmith (Nanaimo),\nHunt,\tSperry,\nKnowles.\tTobin,\nKyte,\tTodd,\nLachance,\tTolmie.\nLanctot (Laprairie- Turcotte (Nicolet;,\t\nNapierville),\tTurgeon,\nLapointe,\tTurriff,\nLaurier (Sir Wilfrid), verville,\t\nLaw,\tWarburton,\nLeBlanc,\tWhite (Victoria,\nLemieux,\tAlta.) and\nDoggie, MacNutt,\tWilson (Laval).-97. PAIRS. Messieurs\nMinisterial.\tOpposition.\nBrodeur,\tHaggart (Lanark),\nKing,\tAmes,\nHarris,\tBeattie,\nBlack,\tBristol.\nGervais,\tBlondin,\nChampagne,\tFraser,\nEcrement,\tChisholm (Huron).\nTempleman,\tCowan,\nGei'man,\tCurrie (Simcoe;,\nDevlin,\tPrice,\nMcGiverin,\tOsier,\nTalbot,\tOwen,\n\nGordon (Kent), Stratton,\nLafortune,\nLanctot (Richelieu), Pardee,\nLow,\nSeguin,\nProulx,\nMfcColl,\nSmith (Stormont), McLean (Sunbury), Roy (Montmagny).\nWright,\nGordon (Nipissing), Forget, Worthington, Lennox,\nMarshall,\nPaquet,\nNnntel,\nMagrath,\nLancaster,\nMcCarthy,\nMonk,\nAmendment negatived."]
John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that there was a branch of the Fartaiers' Bank established in my county in the village of Sharbot Lake; That there were 76 shares of stock held by residents of the county of _ Frontenac, and that with the double liability caused to these shareholders a loss of $15,200. That, added to the money placed on deposit in that one branch entailed a loss to certain residents of the county of Frontenac of some $60,000, which _ although a relatively small sum in comparison with the loss sustained in other pairts of the province is nevertheless a serious blow to that part of the county as it was distributed almost entirely over two rather poor townships. But, the sadness of the whole picture is only equalled by the splendid courage' exhibited by many aged men and women in bravely facing the loss of all they possessed and of being brought down to penury and want. I desire, Sir, to express in the strongest possible terms my appreciation of the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), asking for a Royal Commission, and in doing so I am but endorsing the expression of opinion of all the people in my county who have sustained loss through the failure of this bank. I support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, in the hope, that if a commission should be appointed certain evidence would be brought to light which would lead to the recovery of some of the money which has-been lost, and thus to a certain extent recoup those who have suffered. I also support the resolution in the hope that this Royal Commission may obtain some information which may enable it to give to the Minister of Finance and to the House some definite information which will lead to the improvement of the Bank Act, and in consequence prevent similar loss in the future. Before discussing the Farmers' Bank in particular, I desire to make a few general observations in regard to the working of the Bank Act and to certain losses which have been sustained, by bank failures from time to time in Canada. From 1880 to 1906 there were 43 chartered banks established in Canada, and of that number 12 or 25 per cent failed, and others only saved themselves from failure by amalgamation. In the neighourbood of 30 per cent of all the

banks which have been established since 1880 have failed and one half of these failures have occurred since 1896 during the time the present Finance Minister has held office. Surely, Sir, it is a sorry commentary on our banking system and on this government, that the percentage of failures of chartered banks in the Dominion of Canada has been greater since this administration came to power in 1896, and under the care of the present Minister of Finance, than in any other country in the world. Mr. H. C. McLeod, former general manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, commenting on this deplorable state of affairs, used these words:
Most, if not all the above mentioned failures were fraudulent, and it is now plainly evident that a few hours examination by a skilled banker would have disclosed an insolvent condition in any one of these banks years before it collapsed.
This criticism was made some years ago and had the Minister of Finance acted upon the suggestion of this eminent financier, Mr. McLeod, endorsed,- as it was, by many others from one end of the country to the other, I firmly believe that the people who are to-day suffering from the failure of the Farmers' Bank would not have sustained loss. The monthly bank statement for the month of December last shows the note circulation of all our banks in Canada to be $87,694,840. To what extent I may ask is that note circulation protected? The deposit with the government known as the Bank Note Redemption Fund, is only a fraction of the note circulation, and that is no use in saving a bank from failure in a time of stringency, because it is not available until the bank has closed its doors and gone into liquidation. The amount of it is so extremely small that it is practically of no use. So far as the Rest or Reserve Fund is concerned, the Farmers' Bank does not appear to have had any. The double liability of shareholders is represented as a very great guarantee of safety to depositors, but not only in regard to the failure of the Farmers' Bank, but in regard to the failures of the various banks which have taken place in this country for years past, the double liability of shareholders is absolutely no security whatever. That has been demonstrated time and again. The assets of the bank are the only guarantee that depositors have, and these assets, unfortunately, are often worthless or of such a kind that it is impossible to realize on them in time of need. What guarantee, I would like to ask, i3 afforded by the double liability of the stock of the bank when most of that stock is held by the bank itself? Take the case of the Banque Ville Marie, which failed in 1899, and was finally wound up in 1905; the total claims of depositors and noteholders were $1,364,000, and only $96,-
000 was collected from the shareholders on account of the double liability. Why? Because about $200,000 worth of the stock was held by the bank itself, having been bought up to support the price of the stock in the open market. And the greater part of the $300,000 of stock remaining was held by people from whom the double liability could not be realized-or, at least, was not collected. The paid up capital of this bank was $500,000, and although the Act restricts the amount of the note circulation to its paid-up capital, yet at the time it failed and for some time previously the note circulation was in excess of the paid-up capital. This is managed by the parties making false returns to the government, which, apparently, makes no effort to verify the bank returns made to it. This has occurred time and again. Another point in the failure of the bank just referred to is that the sum of $33,000 went to defray the expenses of liquidation and law costs, a very exorbitant sum, especially when you consider that the creditors, including depositors, received only 30 cents on the dollar.
Another evidence of the looseness of the Fielding Banking Act is furnished by the failure of the Bank of Yarmouth in 1905. This failure, occurring about the time this Farmers' Bank was seeking to get. incorporated and before its certificate was granted, should have caused the Finance Minister to exercise caution. In regard to the Bank of Yarmouth, the main, if not the only cause of failure, was found in the large loans and advances to one mercantile house with unhonoured drafts for $249,550 at the time of suspension, and a total indebtedness to the bank amounting to within a very few dollars of half a million. Take the case of the Ontario Bank, which closed its doors in October, 1906. I may say that was about the time when the hon. Finance Minister was receiving warnings in regard to the Farmers' Bank. The ' Monetary Times,' speaking of the failure of the Ontario Bank, said:
This is the story of as miserable a fiasco aa contemporary Canadian history affords.
Before the failure was made known to the shareholders, the Bank of Montreal made a private agreement whereby it acquired the business of the Ontario Bank for $150,000. By this deal it bought a business with over $12,000,000 of deposits, of which $3,000,000 were without interest, and a capacity for note circulation of $1,500,000. What was the cause of failure in that case? It bears a very close resemblance to the cause of failure in the Farmers' Bank-speculation by the manager, which began in 1901, but was covered up by such terms in the returns made to the government as ' current loans,' ' other securities,' &e., which the Finance Minister accepts, apparently, without question and without the slightest investigation

or inquiry as to their character. No less than $1,784,403 was lost through the speculation of the manager of the bank, and $230,091 by the bank purchasing its own stock in the open market, a practice which, as I have shown, makes the double liability a fallacy, a delusion and a snare. There are hundreds of men in Ontario who believe that, in the interests of the shareholders and of the people in general, there should be a Royal Commission to inquire thoroughly into all these bank failures that have taken place during recent years. The incapacity of the Finance Minister to deal with large financial problems effectively has become painfully evident to hundreds who have lost their all, and the hon. gentleman's indifference has aroused throughout the country the greatest indignation.
It looks to me as if, in the winding-up proceedings of these broken banks, the ordinary shareholder gets unmercifully fleeced, while the solvent banks get whatever assets are worth having. But what can one expect? The Fielding Banking Act is framed to meet the wishes of the Bankers' Association, and grants powers to that association which should be possessed only by the government. Take, for instance, section 117 of the Bank Act. That section authorizes the Bankers' Association, if a* bank suspends payment in specie or Dominion notes of any of its liabilities as they accrue, forthwith to appoint a curator to supervise the affairs of such bank, and at any time to remove the curator and appoint another person in his stead. Thus, the affairs of the defunct bank are placed entirely in the hands of its competitors- surely a very illogical proceeding. The effect is that these banks purchase whatever assets are worth having at their own price. The Bankers' Association also have the naming of counsel, who makes the application at court for the winding-up order, and they appoint the liquidator as well as the curator. In the case of the 'Sovereign Bank, the public knew nothing of the condition of the bank until the morning after it was swallowed up by some of the larger banks. The directors entered into an agreement with thirteen banks, which declared the Sovereign Bank, with $20,000,000 of assets and over 80 branches, insolvent, transferred all that was of value to those thirteen banks, allowed them six months to look over the spoils and throw out anything which carried with it the appearance of liability, leaving the helpless shareholders to bear the brunt of the burden. At a meeting of the shareholders of the Sovereign Bank, a motion was submitted asking for a government investigation, but the president refused to put the motion, and said that he held proxies for the stock controlled by J. P. Morgan & Company of New York, and, if necesary, would exercise his voting power under these proxies to prevent an investigation.


John Wesley Edwards: not issue in this matter that the Finance Minister had been deceived, and that we should, therefore, not hold the government responsible. He says that Travers was the agent of the shareholders, and that we should not reimburse these shareholders whose agent Travers was, but he failed entirely to answer the point raised by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), when he referred to the depositors who certainly were not to blame whatever blame may attach to the shareholders.
What are the facts in regard to tlie Farmers' Bank? The Farmers' Bank was incorporated in the year 1905. The matter came before the Banking and Commerce Committee in the regular way. An attempt was made by the Minister of Finance to have the members of the Banking and Commerce Committee share with him the responsibility for the incorporation of the Farmers' Bank. I do not think that was justified, because while the matter came before the Banking and Commerce Committee it is well known that many of the details, such as the examination of credentials, are not placed before that committee, but are supposed to be looked after by the Finance Department. The minister failed utterly in his attempt to drag the members of the Banking and Commerce Committee into the pool created by his own neglect, and lax administration. The Finance Minister has been deceived by Mr. Travers, the Prime Minister says. It is an old saying that there are none so blind as those who will not see, and in reference to the Farmers' Bank it does appear that the Finance Minister deliberately refused to either hear or see; from the time he took office in 1896 until to-day his pathway is strewn with the wreckage of banks, yet he has never taken warning from one of those banks. I do not know what warnings will be necessary to make him' realize his responsibility, he may wait until some bricks fall out of a breaking bank and hit him on the head before he realizes how weak his whole Bank Act is. The statement of a man like Mr. McLeod, former manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, appears to have made no impression on him whatever. One of the ablest and oldest and most highly respected members of this House, the member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) went to the Finance Minister and gave him repeated warnings in regard to the Farmers' Bank, and yet the Prime Minister says the Finance Minister was deceived. I would like to ask why the Prime Minister objects to the issuing of a Boyai Commission? Can those who have suffered by the failure of the Farmers' Bank lose anything by the appointment of a commission, can matters be made any worse for them? Will anybody say there is no possibility that it might bring forth some facts which would lead to the recovery of part of Mr. EDWARDS.
the money? Why then object to the appointment of this Royal Commission? What is the premier afraid of? No doubt if there was a Royal Commission the Finance Minister would be placed in the box and would have to give evidence. Is the Prime Minister afraid of that? Is that the reason why they do not wish a Royal Commission? There is no doubt also that if a Royal Commission was appointed, Mr. Calvert, former chief Liberal whip, would have to go into the box. Is it for the sake of Mr. Calvert that the Prime Minister and his Finance Minister object to the appointment of a Royal Commission?


Mr. BOYCE.: Would not other hon. gentlemen opposite have to go into the box?


John Wesley Edwards: I cannot say, but it seems to me very probable that the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Stratton) would have to testify before such a commission. Is it because of this that the leader of the government, and the Finance Minister object to a Royal Commission? They have not given any good reason why a Royal Commission should not issue, and it does look very suspicious indeed. If they have nothing to conceal, if they have no party favourites to defend and protect, why should not a Royal Commission be appointed to investigate this matter without loss of time? It looks to me as if the objection to the Royal Commission was not on the grounds of economy-think of this government practising economy along any line

but purely on the ground of party political expediency. The Prime Minister says his Finance Minister was deceived. Buit, suppose he was-though in the face of facts that were placed before him previous to that certificate being issued I do not see how he could be deceived-but, if he were deceived all the moTe reason there is why a Royal Commision should be appointed which will get at the methods by which men like Travers can come along and deceive a man like the Minister of Finance, so that we may be able to guard against that sort of thing in the future. On the 8th of October, 1906, Mr. Leighton McCarthy wrote the Minister of Finance giving notice that a number of subscribers would dispute the bona fide character of the subscriptions, and that was followed by another letter from the same gentleman on the 19th of October inclosine a special endorsement of writ from the High Court of Justice and giving the names of plaintiffs and defendants. These letters and documents allege fraud, deception, and misrepresentation in getting subscriptions; they gave numerous examples and all of this information was in the hands of the Minister of Finance before the certificate was granted. The Prime Minister tells us, however, that his Minister of Finance waa

deceived, but the allegations made in these letters of Mr. McCarthy and in the documents sent were acknowledged by Travers when he paid back the money and gave up the notes to these subscribers, which he did rather than face the court. I repeat that all of these facts were before the Minister of Finance prior to the certificate being granted. It was the duty of the Minister of Finance to guard the people's interest and to see that section 13 of the Bank Act was complied with. Did he do so? No, on the contrary he knew it had been violated and that Travers and the provisional directors had no right to call the meeting of the subscribers which they did call under that section. Was the Minister of Finance deceived in that? I think he knew, and he must have known that the meeting was called illegally, and it looks to me that he was indifferent rather than that he was deceived. The names of men who had been released by the High Court of Justice as subscribers to the Farmers' Bank and whose money and notes had been returned to them by the order of that court were falsely retained on the list as subscribers for shares, and how can the Minister of Finance say he was ignorant of that fact. And yet, the Prime Minister puts forward as his only reason for opposing the appointment of a Royal Commission, that his Minister of Finance was deceived. Will the Minister of Finance say that the $250,000 was properly raised by the taking of notes from the subscribers and the discounting of the same. Why. the Minister of Finance himself says in a letter to Travers dated November 30:
We have been told that in some cases the subscribers did not actually pay in cash hut gave notes to the provisional directors which were used to raise money.
On the very same day Sir Edward Clous-ton, president of the Canadian Bankers' Association wrote a letter to the Minister of Finance counselling delay in the issuing of the certificate and urging thorough investigation for the protection of the public. And yet, with all these facts before him, the Minister of Finance issued a cir-tificate without which the Farmers' Bank could not have gone on and without which these losses would have been impossible. And yet we are told by the Prime Minister that the government is in no wav responsible, because the Minister of Finance was deceived. Now, Sir, this brings us up to the granting of the certificate, and I say it is a most remarkable thing that the Finance Minister in the face of these repeated warnings; in the face of this indisputable evidence that Travers was crooked, granted this certificate. But, I would take the matter just a step further; I would like to know if the responsibility of the govern-171
ment ends with the granting of the certificate. Has the government no further duty to perform? has it no further obligation to protect the people? Let them read sections 112 and 113 of the Bank Act. Section 112 says:
Monthly returns shall be made by the bank to the minister in the forms set forth in the schedule to this Act.
Section 113 reads:
The minister may also call for special returns from any bank whenever in his judgment they are necessary to afford a full and complete knowledge of its conditions.
*So that after the certificate was granted the Minister of Finance had the right not only to a monthly return, but he had the right at any time to ask for a special return that he might be apprised of the condition of the bank in any respect. Did the Minister of Finance find nothing in the correspondence which passed between him and the state superintendent of insurance for New York over a year ago, to warrant him in asking for a special return in order that he might have full and complete knowledge of the condition of the Farmers' Bank. Let me read what is said by an American paper of date, January 17, 1910, commenting on this matter:
An amazing and almost incredible story, which should make every Canadian blush for shame is on file here in the public records of the Department of Insurance of New York1 State. It relates how, in the face of repeated warnings and urgent entreaties, based on undisputed facts, the Finance Department of Canada refused summarily to investigate the Farmers' Bank a year ago when it was beginning to totter on the brink of inevitable disaster.
There we have the whole thing in a nutshell so far as the minister's responsibility is concerned after the certificate was granted, I repeat that his responsibility as Minister of Finance did not end with the granting of the certificate, but that it was up to him in the face of the correspondence which passed between him and the New York state superintendent of insurance to hold the most rigid and careful examination into the condition of the Farmers' Bank. Had he done his duty in that respect the people of this province would have been saved the heavy losses they have sustained. Now, Sir, what members do we find on the government side of the House opposing this resolution asking for a Royal Commission? We have in opposition the Minister of Finance, and that is of course very natural I suppose, and we have the opposition of the Prime Minister, who thinks it is necessary to protect and shield his followers, which I suppose is very natural also. In addition to that, up to the present time we have had the opposition of



the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) to the granting of this- Royal Commission. That hon. gentleman interested himself very energetically and enthusiastically some time last year, in raising that beautiful fund which was presented to the Minister of Finance, the $120,000 present. I believe it is said that the hon. member for South Grey contributed slightly to that fund. At all events I think I am correct in saying that the hon. gentleman told us himself in this House that he was one of those who solicited subscriptions. Well, that was last year; he occupies the position of chairman of the Banking and Commerce Committee, this year.
Now, Sir, the Farmers' Bank in all its transactions from beginning to end is a very sorry spectacle. It seems to me that it was conceived in fraud and iniquity, and that there was a deliberate attempt from the very beginning of the organization of this bank to rob the people of the province. From the day that the Finance Minister, regardless of the repeated warnings which he had received, granted the certificate, down to the time that the bank failed a short time ago, every bit of history of the transaction is marked with fraud and deceit. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister have failed in their duty to the people and I regret that they are disposed at the present time to add to the burden of their sins, already one would think, greater than ordinary mortals could bear, by refusing this very reasonable request of my hon. friend from Hal-ton that a Royal Commission be issued to inquire into the Farmers' Bank. For my part, I am very strongly in accord with the resolution. I think I would not be doing my duty to the people of my constituency who have suffered serious loss from the failure of this bank did I not urge upon the House the appointment of a Royal Commission. After hearing the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister oppose the resolution we who come from constituencies where people have sustained heavy losses by the failure of this bank have nothing much to expect in the way of the granting of the request of this resolution. Very well, the responsibility will be put on this government and I can assure the hon. Minister of Finance that the people of my county, when they are aware, and they are pretty well aware now, of his inefficiency as a Minister of Finance, of his inability to cope with the financial situation, of his failure to regard repeated warnings given to him and which, if he had regarded them, would have saved them from the loss which they have sustained, will not have very much confidence in his ability to go to Washington and negotiate a treaty for the benefit of this country.


John Wesley Edwards: 


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford).: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal in the remarks of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) in introducing this resolution, with which I personally am entirely in accord. It is a great pity in the financial interests of the country and also in the interests of the people who have been so severely punished that a fraud of this kind should have peen perpetrated on the public. I also have a large number of people in the riding that I haye the honour of representing in this House who have been very severely punished, and I know that we have in two townships in North Oxford lost $105,000 in deposits. It would not require a person to have very much sympathy in his nature to sympathize with these people. I heard the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) last evening read a letter from some one at Lakeside in iny constituency, the lady who wrote the letter, I suppose, being either the wife of one of my constituents or a widow in that constituency. I have been approached by people who lost money deposited in that bank to ask the government to see that they were reimbursed for their losses. I have also been approached by people to ask the government to appoint a Royal Commission to investigate, although I may say not exactly the kind of Royal Commission that is proposed by the resolution. I heard the resolution read yesterday, but I am slow to gather in what is read in that way, and until to-day I did not know what was in that resolution. If I may be allowed I would like to read it just to hear myself read it:
This House is of opinion that a Royal Commission should forthwith issue to inquire into and investigate the incorporation and organization of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, and the granting of a certificate by the Treasury Board permitting said bank to issue notes and transact business, and all the circumstances connected therewith

That is into the issuing of the certificate:
-and generally to inquire into and investigate the operation and efficiency of the Bank Act in relation to the affairs and transactions of said bank.
There is nothing asking the government to appoint a commission to inquire into the working of the Farmers' Bank after it was instituted or into the present condition of the Farmers' Bank that was. What I would think would be much more necessary would be to inquire into the present condition and find out if there were any means of recovering some of the money that the depositors and shareholders of the Farmers' Bank were beaten out of. As far as the issuing of the certificate is concerned, I cannot agree with the hon. member

for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) when he says that the shareholders were looking to the Finance Minister to protect them in not issuing the certificate. I venture to say that there was not one in twenty of these subscribers who knew that when the charter was issued the bank did not come into existence. I venture to say that until this discussion came on in the newspapers with reference to the certificate there were very few subscribers of the Farmers' Bank who knew that a certificate had to be issued after the charter was obtained. I believe that most of them thought that the instant the charter was obtained it authorized the bank to go on and do business. Therefore, I do not believe that there was deception in so far as the subscribers were concerned. Perhaps a good many people who bought stock in the Farmers' Bank now do not really understand what the discussion is as between the certificate and the charter. The fact is that these stocks are sold by very enterprising gentlemen as a rule, men who have very smooth tongues, and you will see in this Return which has been brought down by the government that the prospectus points to the profits that might be obtained by buying stock in this bank, comparing it with the older banks that have been in existence for a long time. That. I know, is done. I am not selling stock for any corporation. I frequently ^^-r^^^itions brought to my attention and I have many times been asked to sell stock for various institutions, but up to the present I have refused for the very simple reason that I never know whether the corporation will be a success or not. I do occasionally buy some stock, if I can borrow money enough to do it, and I have generally been deceived myself, although 1 do not know that I know so very much less than the ordinary individual shareholder in my section of the country Coming down to the question whether the finance Minister was guilty of any negligence or not, I am quite sure that none of my hon. friends opposite will say that they charge him with anything else. I <io not think that any one of them will say that the Finance Minister had ant wrong intention when he allowed that certificate to be given to the Farmers' Bank; but looking at this matter in a proper light, the question is: Was the Finance Minister negligent in his duty? We must all admit that the Finance Minister is not more responsble for the Bank Act than any other hon. member in this House. We are all equally responsible The hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Edwards), has continually referred to it as the Finance Minister's Bank Act, but that Act was, in force practically as it is now before Mr. Fielding became Finance Minister, so that he is no more responsible for it than any other 17li	s dj
hon. member of this House. In executing that Act, he acts in an administrative position. He has to administer the Act as he finds it, and I claim that he did so administer it. Under clause 15, after all other requirements have been complied with, the promoters have to deposit $250,000 with the Receiver General and $5,000 for currency. The hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) did see that that $250,000 was deposited. It is quite true that Mir. Leighton McCarthy notified him not to issue a certificate until some irregularities were removed, but in another letter Mr. McCarthy withdrew that notification. He said most distinctly that he withdrew the charges he had made, and his opposition to the issue of the certificate. He withdrew entirely his apposition, in so far as his clients were concerned. I do say that I can sympathize with my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), who may have given a hint to the Finance Minister that everything was not right, but did not want to put himself in writing. He did not want to commit himself to writing for the simple reason that none of us want to assume the position we would have to assume by putting ourselves in writing if we were not absolutely sure of the facts. I quite believe that if we were aware that a fraud was about to be committed on the government or anybody else, we would be only too willing to give notice to the parties interested. But my hon. friend from Halton was naturally very careful not to put himself on record in writing. He was very careful not to tell the Finance Minister in writing that he thought a fraud was about to be committed. The Finance Minister was in exactly the same position. He dared not move until he was absolutely sure because he might do a good deal more harm than he possibly could do good. When Mir. McCarthy withdrew his objections, the minister had nothing before him to show that there was anything wrong. He had the affidavit required by clause 15, and after Mr. McCarthy had withdrawn his opposition there was certainly nothing to warrant the minister in concluding that Travers was not telling the truth when he told him that the subscriptions were regular and that everything was regular. If my hon. friend from Halton did not want to put himself in writing, I can quite understand that the Minister of Finance would not dare to prevent the issuing of that certificate. If he had, there would have been a cry to high heaven that he was standing in with the moneyed interests and the banking association and consequently had refused to give the farmers a charter and see how they could run a bank for themselves.
The Finance Minister was not authorized by anything shown here to refuse that.

certificate. The next day after the certificate had been issued, when Mr. Clous-ton, President of the Banking Association, told him he did not think everything was right and that the moneys had not been all obtained for that certificate, properly Mr. Clouston was very careful in the letter he wrote not to be very definite in his statements. He did not say that there was something wrong, but that he heard something was wrong, and asked the Minister to delay issuing the certificate. But there was nothing in the Act to authorize the Minister of Finance to stop that certificate. Had he done so, he and the government would have been open to prosecution.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would the hon. gentleman say that the certificate having been issued, and the attention of the Minister of Finance or the Treasury Board having been drawn to the fact the following day that that. ceirtificate had been obtained by fraud, the government were powerless to prevent a continuance of that fraud on the public?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is nothing in the Bank Act to show what the government should do in such a case. There is no power or instructions in it to meet such a case. Mr. Clouston said in his letteir that he had heard that there were rumours and asked that they be investigated. There was no charge.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Clouston safid, as President of the Canadian Bankers' Association, to the Finance Minister that he had reason to believe, and that is very different from having heard.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: when we axe to take up the revision of the Bank Act itself in a few days, and if there is anything lacking in the Bank Act that will be the time to make it right. When that time comes, I hope that hon. gentlemen opposite will show just as much interest in preparing a thoroughly efficient and proper Bank Act, as they are now in asking for a Royal Commission.


Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: My excuse for taking up a short time of the House in discussing this question, is that in my own county, at a small place called Chilten-ham, the people have lost already, or will lose, $36,600. I was much interested in listening to the remarks of my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr, Nesbitt). He stated that those who organized this bank were guilty of fraud, but he is unwilling to vote for a resolution that will bring about a searching examination to find out who is responsible. My hon. friend suggests that possibly a revision of the Bank Act might reach the case. For myself, I cannot understand how any revision of the Bank Act is going to assist to bring those who are guilty to justice, or recover any of the money which has been lost by many persons in the province of Ontario by reason of the failure of the Farmers' Bank. I crave the indulgence of the House to read a petition that was presented from my own county, bearing the signature of 70 men who are sufferers from this failure, men who had invested their money either in stock of the bank, or placed it on deposit. This petition is only one among many others that have been presented to the right hon. the First Minister and the Finance Minister in relation to this difficulty:
To the honourable the House of Commons in parliament assembled:
The petition of shareholders and of creditors of the Farmers' Bank of Canada humbly sheweth
1.	The bank was incorporated by an Act of the parliament of Canada, chapter 77, of Edward VII.
2.	The Act was amended by subsequent Acts.
3.	The bank was organized in the year 1906.
4.	A large proportion of the shareholders are farmers.
5.	The government return for October, 1910, reports the total assets of the bank at $2,670,195, and the total liabilities at $2,051,081, leaving a surplus of $619,114.
6.	The bank suspended on the 19th day of December, 1910, and Geoffrey T. Clarkeson, accountant, has been appointed curator, and has taken possession of the head office and branch offices of the bank, and of the books, assets and securities at the offices.
7.	The curator has with the assistance of a . retired bank manager and some of the officers
of the bank, made a partial examination and investigation into the assets and liabilities of the bank, and your petitioners are informed and believe that the curator will report to the shareholders and creditors that a large pro-Mr. NESBITT.
portion of the capital and deposits has been, lost by the officials of the bank in their own speculative and unlawful transactions, and amongst others:
(1)	In the purchase, equipment and development of a mining prospect.
(2)	In loans on unlawful and insufficient securities.
(3)	In personal loans to borrowers who have no means or ability to repay them.
8.	The deposits are stated to be more than $1,500,000 and the paid-up capital stock about $580,000.
9.	Your petitioners are informed and believe that the shareholders will be called upon to pay the double liability on their shares, and that all the available and collectable assets, inclusive of the double liability, will not realize a sufficient sum of money to pay more than an approximate rate of twenty-five cents on the dollar to the general creditors after payment of preferential claims.
10.	Your petitioners have been trusting to the published government returns of the assets and liabilities of the bank and the difference between the published returns and the actual state of the accounts of the bank, appear to show a loss of the money of the shareholders and depositors within a period of four years of approximately the sum of $1,500,000.
11.	The grief, the sorrow, the physical and mental suffering brought on the families of shareholders and creditors cannot be told in a petition.
12.	Your petitioners refer to the examination under oath of the inspector of the bank in open court at Lindsay, and to the report which will soon be prepared by the curator.
13.	And it is evident that in too many instances the families of shareholders and creditors will be compelled to meet great distress and suffering.
14.	And your petitioners respectfully submit-
I want to direct attention particularly to this.
And your petitioners respectfully submit to the parliament of Canada that it is material and necessary in the public interest to have a thorough and exhaustive examination of the government returns which have been made by the officers of the bank and of all the affairs, accounts and transactions involving the use of the money of the bank.
Now in closing, I want to direct this latter paragraph to the attention of my hon. friend from North Oxford, because in his county there are some people who are losing money.
15.	And your petitioners respectfully pray that a Royal Commission shall at once be issued with full powers to examine into the affairs of the bank from the time of its incorporation until its suspension, and of all the accounts, dealings and transactions witli the money, securities, assets and liabilities of the bank, and your petitioners wifi ever pray.
This is signed by P. 0. Macdonald, T. H. Elliott, F. P. Hames, in all by 70 persons, who have suffered by the wrong-

doing of some persons. For myself I cannot agree with my hon. friend from North Oxford when he says that the responsibility for this difficulty does not rest upon the government; in my opinion all the responsibility rests on the government of the day. There is responsibility somewhere. The Prime Minister has stated that it does not rest with the Banking and Commerce Committee or with the House in passing the incorporation Bill, the one important point is the minister's responsibility for granting the certificate that allowed the bank's doors to be opened for the people to deposit their money. Let me suggest that if the Banking and Commerce Committee of this House when this bank was seeking incorporation for the first time, and subsequently when it came for extension of time had been made aware of such a letter as was written by Mr. McCarthy, then a member of this House, not a member on either side of the House would have granted the extension or granted the bank incorporation at all. Therefore, whatever responsibility may attach to the members of the Banking and Commerce Committee, and of this House there is surely a special responsibility resting on my right hon. friend as Prime Minister, upon the Treasury Board and particularly upon my hon- friend the Minister of Finance. Leaving out the question of incorporation and extension what does the Finance Minister say about it in his speech of yesterday:
The first stage in this matter of the issue of the certificate is to be found in a communication from Mr. Leighton McCarthy, who says he is instructed by some shareholders, his clients, to object to the issue of the certificate, and he states in a subsequent letter that he complains that in come cases where large sums of money have been paid, notes have also been given. Now, at that time the application for a certificate had not yet been received, and, therefore, there was no such application.
Then when this all-important time arrived in the bank's history, the first matter that came to the attention of the Finance Minister was a letter from Mr. McCarthy which was as follows:
Home Life Building, Victoria St.,
Toronto, Oct. 8, 1906.
Counsel, Wallace Nesbitt, K.C. Honourable W. S. Fielding Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
My Hear Mr. Fielding,-I have been consulted on behalf of a number of subscribers to the shares of the Farmers' Bank, and from the instructions I have received, a number of the subscribers will dispute the bona fide character of the subscriptions. I have not time to-night to give a full statement of the grounds of this request to you, but I beg to assure you that grave conditions have arisen
which will require careful consideration before the Treasury Board would grant any certificate for the organization of this bank.
I, therefore, ask you to be good enough to stay any action which might be taken until I have had an opportunity of discussing this with you. If it is not asking you to hold it too long, I would prefer not having to go to Ottawa this week, but will go any day next week which would suit your convenience. Of course, if there is no immediate prospect _ of your granting such a certificate, my seeing you at an early date will not be necessary.



[Stage Direction]
The Finance Minister states that everything has been presented to the House and practically everything has been discussed. The House has no knowledge whatever of the personal interview and of what took place between Mr. McCarthy and the Finance Minister.
William Stevens Fielding: I do not think I had any such interview. I do not recollect any at all events. I do not think Mr. McCarthy came to me on the subject.


Richard Blain: That is one of the difficulties. We have a letter from Mr. McCarthy stating that he would come to Ottawa.


William Stevens Fielding: Later on it appears that he did not come. I am pretty sure I am correct in saying that Mr. McCarthy did not see me about it.


Richard Blain: I accept that statement. My hon. friend had notice from Mr. McCarthy that there was something wrong. My hon. friend knew at that time that a large number of people in almost every part of the province of Ontario had subscribed for stock, had paid a portion of their money and given notes for some of the balance. Not only was my hon. friend aware of that, but he said in the House that when this matter was up for an extension in the Banking and Commerce Committee he was a little suspicious of the affair himself. Suspicious of what? Suspicious that these men who were associated in the early history of this bank were not the men to whom to entrust the people's money and public honour of this country?


William Stevens Fielding: No, that was not it.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend denies that, but he goes on in his speech and is very careful to give a character to Mr. Travers. May I say to my hon. friend, with all deference to the high position he occupies, that the public have dealt to some extent with Mr. Travers, and they want to deal with my hon. friend the Finance Minister now, because my hon. friend the Finance Minister had more to do with the granting of this certificate than any other man in Canada. One word from the Finance Minister at a critical stage in the history of this bank, not after the bank had been

organized and the people had p.ut their money into it, but when he either took this letter of Mr. McCarthy's before the Treasury Board or did not, would have settled this question and. not a man in Canada would have lost a dollar through this bank. May I ask the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister whether or not, when this matter was discussed in the Treasury Board, Mr. McCarthy's letter was read to the board?
Mr, FIELDING. I could not tell my hon. friend. Mr. McCarthy's letter having been withdrawn, was no longer an issue. The Treasury Board record must speak for itself, but as to what actually occurred between the members of the Treasury Board at that time I would not from memory attempt to speak.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend in answering Mr. McCarthy said:
I wired you to-day that no application had been made by the promoters for the Treasury Board certificate, and suggested that you send forward at once any representations which you may wish to make, to which we shall give all due consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: Then they were withdrawn?


Richard Blain: May I say that my hon. friend the Finance Minister was not speaking in that letter particularly as Finance Minister; he was writing over his signature representing the Treasury Board, and he told Mr. McCarthy over his own signature that whatever representations he had to make would be placed before the Treasury Board when they met to deal with this certificate. My hon. friend's memory is a little short now.


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Richard Blain: Well, my hon. friend is not able to state whether or not that letter was read to the board.


William Stevens Fielding: The letter having been withdrawn, Mr. McCarthy having withdrawn his objections, I think it is quite possible the letter was not read, but I cannot speak from memory on a matter of several years ago.


Richard Blain: If it was not read the greater the responsibility on the head of the Finance Minister because he took upon himself to receive communications from a gentleman who was objecting to the granting of the certificate, he corresponded not as Mr. Fielding, but as Finance Minister of this country, and a member of the Treasury Board, took upon himself to accept communications, to answer communications, to receive further communications and telegrams, and then because some of these had been withdrawn, he took upon Mr. BLAIN	i
himself to not submit any of them to the Treasury Board.
My hon. friend's record in connection with the establishment of banks is not so good, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) in his speech during this afternoon.
The responsibility, therefore, must rest with the Minister of Finance. Whatever the policy of the government may have been in the past in respect to granting these certificates to banks; whether they did it at the close of a council meeting or not, whether they did it in a formal or informal way, whatever the past history of my hon. friend as a member of the Treasury Board, he had sufficient warning in this case; he had suspicions of his own when the bank was asking extension of time, he had suspicions when Mr. McCarthy, a member of this House and a political supporter of his own party wrote him a warning letter; he had sufficient information in his possession, as a trustee of the public interest, to call the board formally together and go into the whole matter in detail. There is no question about that. The Finance Minister had been warned time and again. My hon. friend from Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) prior to the granting of the certificate had more than one conversation with him as the Minister of Finance admits. What were these conversations about? Would there be any necessity for them if everything was all right. And yet, we had the Minister of Finance saying yesterday to my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson): You need not be alarmed, Mr. Henderson, you have notified the government, your responsibility ceases. And the member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) struggled to point out that the same responsibility rests with the member for Halton in the premises as rests with the Minister of Finance. Surely when he reads his remarks in ' Hansard ' to-morrow he will not subscribe to such a doctrine. What is the Finance Minister for, anyway, and why is he selected for the second position in the cabinet if it is not that he should specially protect the interests of the public in such a matter. What nonsense it is to argue that he has no greater responsibility in such a proceeding than has an ordinary member of the House. And, when thd Prime Minister spoke he was caTeful to discuss everything but the request of those who are suffering, that a Eoyal Commission should be appointed, and that, Sir, is the crpx of the whole question that is before the House, before the courts, and before the people of Canada. I am not going to discuss just now the question of recouping out of the public treasurv these sufferers, but I will read the resolution of my hon. friend, (Mr. Henderson):

This House is of the opinion that a Royal Commission should forthwith issue to inquire into and investigate the incorporation and organization of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, and the granting of a certificate by the Treasury Board permitting the said bank to issue notes and commence business, and all circumstances connected therewith, and generally to inquire into and investigate the operation and efficiency of the Bank Act in relation to the affairs and transactions of the said bank.
I think I would be safe in saying that my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson? would not have gone too far if he had moved a resolution condemning the government, the Minister of Finance, and the Treasury Board for failing to discharge their whole duty in respect to the granting of the certificate to the Farmers' Bank. But, the resolution is so mild in form, that in view of the statement of the Prime Minister, and of the Minister of Finance that there has been no wrongdoing on the part of the government I should have thought that they would cheerfully accept such a resolution asking for a Royal Commission. If the Minister of Finance is not guilty as he declares, who can suffer. Certainly the government will not suffer from an elucidation of the facts if they have done nothing wrong. Surrounded as this whole question is with suspicion, why is it that the Prime Minister and particularly the Finance Minister do not hail this resolution with sighs of relief and declare that they will reveal everything in connection with the transaction. But, the Minister of Finance stands up and declares to his followers that there shall be no Royal Commission and asks support. In the different sections of the province of Ontario there are homesteads disappearing from the possession of their original owners and there are men who hitherto have lived in comfort forced to take up the pick and shovel to earn a livelihood for the remainder of their years, and all on account of the ruin brought on them by this unfortunate collapse of the Farmers' Bank. And yet the Prime Minister and the Minister .of Finance tell these unfortunate people that they are to have no recourse, that justice is not to be rendered them, that there is not to be an inquiry into how this bank came into being and as to the fraud it perpetrated; and they call on their majority in this House to vote down a resolution which might give these poor people some relief. Yesterday we had the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), the responsible representative of a great city in this Dominion, stating in his place in the House that if a commission is granted he would bring forward other evidence that cannot be presented without the appointment of such a commission. The Minister of Finance knows full well that there is evidence to be found that will not come
out in the investigation which is taking place in the city of Toronto, and which only can be made public through a Royal Commission. I do not wish to detain the House longer, and in conclusion I will say to the Prime Minister and to his Finance Minister that there is no class of the community, whether they be losers by the Farmer's Bank or not who will feel that the government has done its duty if they refuse to accept 'this moderate resolution proposed by my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson). It is not a resolution condemning the government before they are tried; it merely asks for a full and complete investigation by an impartial tribunal so that the people will know where the money came from, and where the money has gone.


Mr. M. Y. McLEAN (South Huron).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only a very few words on this subject, and I do not intend to waste the time of the House discussing the sophistries, insinuations and suspicions indulged in by my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) who has just preceded me. in listening to the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as to those of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, the thought has occurred to me that if the foresight of these gentlemen were only half as good as their hindsight they would be very wise indeed, but unfortunately for us all, that is not our condition. If it were we would be saved from many difficulties, many disasters and many pitfalls. I do very sincerely and truly sympathize with my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) who has moved this resolution. There are stockholders and depositors in this bank in my own constituency. The bank had, I think, three agencies in the constituency and there are deposits to the amount of about $100,000 or over. But, I am sorry I cannot congratulate my hon. friend on the manner in which he has introduced this resolution or the time that he has chosen to do it. Neither, Mr. Speaker, can I congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite on their attempt to make political capital out of this unfortunate affair. I have very carefully and attentively listened to the discussion of this subject, I have very carefully perused all the evidence that has been submitted to this House, I think that possibly I am, in a measure, as capable of judging the evidence as some of my hon. friends who have spoken on the opposite side, and I am free to say that for the life of me I cannot discover that my hon. friend the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) or the Finance Department have been blamable in any sense whatever. In so far as my judgment enables me to interpret these documents they have only done what they should have done in connection with the matter. It is quite true, Sir, that the department was deceived by Mr. Travers, but they are not the only parties-

who have been deceived by Mr. Travers. Mr. Travers deceived his shareholders, he deceived his provisional directors, he deceived his permanent board of directors, and he deceived the late president of that board. I am also free to say that, from my examination of the evidence which has been taken before the courts in Toronto, I am firmly of the belief that, bad as Mr. Travers is, he has simply been the tool of another archconspirator and rogue, who, I am sorry to say, has not been captured, and I am led to believe that the authorities possibly have not made as great exertions to capture him as they might have made.
If, under these exceptional circumstances, the government can see fit, or think it advisable, to recommend that the depositors in this bank should in some measure be reimbursed, and if this can be done without setting a dangerous precedent, I would be very glad. I have not so much sympathy with the stockholders of the bank. The stockholders went into it knowing what they were doing, at least they should have known what they were doing. They went into it as a business enterprise, and if it had succeeded as a business enterprise they would have profited. But, as it has not succeeded as a business enterprise, of course, like investors in any other similar business, they have lost. But, it is very different with the depositors. The depositors placed their money in this institution for safe-keeping, believing ai the time that they were protected in so doing by the laws of the land, and, under the circumstances, as I said before, if the government should see fit, or if they should consider themselves in a position to grant some measure of aid to these unfortunate people without setting a precedent which might be considered dangerous, then I think that the country will certainly support them in so doing.
Let us come down to the real issue that is before the House and to the substance *of the motion moved by the hon. member for Hal ton. That motion has been read two or three times already this afternoon, but for the sake of my argument, I want to read a portion of it again. The resolution says :
That this House is of opinion that a Royal Commission should forthwith issue to inquire into and investigate the incorporation and organization of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, and the granting of a certificate by the Treasury Board permitting said bank to issue notes and transact business, and all circumstances connected therewith

 I
I maintain that there is no necessity for a commission for any such purpose. I maintain that all the evidence which any commission could possibly secure has already been obtained and has already been placed before this House by the Department of Finance. Not only that, but the Mr. M. Y. McLEAN (South Huron).
resolution casts a doubt upon the honesty and fidelity of the Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance, and I certainly cannot vote for such a motion as that, because I have full confidence that the minister, the department and the Treasury Board would not do a dishonest or dishonourable act to favour any person. The second part of the resolution is:
-and generally to inquire into and investigate the operation and efficiency of the Bank Act in relation to the affairs and transactions of the said bank.
Why should we carry a resolution of that kind at the present time? That question is not before the House. That question will be presented to the House before very long, and when it does come before the House is the proper time to decide as to whether or not such a commission is required. But, Sir, I contend that the affairs of this banking institution are at the present time being investigated by the courts of this province. If that investigation is thorough and complete and if it answers all the purposes, then certainly there is no necessity for a Boyal Commission such as is being proposed. It has been said that under a commission the Minister of Finance, and several other gentlemen who were named could be brought up and put into the box; but under the investigation now being prosecuted, the Finance Minister and every other man can be brought forward and made to give his evidence. This again shows the futility of the proposition before the House. I have no hesitation in saying that in the event of its being ascertained that the present investigation is not full, that justice is not being done, that those supposed to be criminals are being shielded and that an additional investigation is necessary, the government would be lacking in their duty to the people and themselves if they did not grant such an investigation. But the time for deciding that has not yet come, When it does, if it should come, the government can take action. For these reasons I have no hesitation in saying that I shall give my vote against the motion of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson).


Mr. C. J. THORNTON (Durham).: concerned. Biuit there is another matter to which I would direct the attention of the Minister of Finance and the House. The Bank Act provides that a bank shall not do business until the certificate of the Treasury Board is issued. We are told that, after this protest, had been entered by Mr. Leighton McCarthy against the issue of this certificate, an interview took place between the Finance Minister and Mr. Travers and that Mr. Travers gave the minister assurance that everything was straight in connection with the raising of the money for the deposit that was necessary before the certificate could issue. In his reply to the Finance Minister, Mr. Travers said:
In reply to your letter of the 30th of November, I have to say that in the case of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, the provisional directors did not raise the money in the way mentioned by you. You will find the statement put in by me absolutely correct as to the amount of stock subscribed and the amount paid up.
This was in direct contradiction of the allegation made by Mr. Leighton McCarthy. At pages 6 and 7 of this return we find the application which was made for this certificate of the Treasury Board. We have been told that the application was made by the Farmers' Bank of Canada. But I think there was an evasion of the law and something misleading in the application made by Mr. Travers. As a layman, I may not understand these matters, but I think that the very fact that the application for the certificate was put in by Mr. Travers in the way it was should have made the Treasury Board suspicious that things were not Tight. As I read the Bank Act, it does not say that the manager of a bank can get the certificate and start the bank. It does provide, as I understand it, that the president and directors of the bank can get the certificate and start 'the bank-assuming, of course, that they have complied with the conditions under the law. In this case, was an application made by the president? No. Nor was it made by the directors. This application reads as follows:
Toronto, Nov. 27, 1906. Deputy Minister of Finance,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour herewith to forward declaration of the general manager of the Farmers' Bank of Canada setting forth facts relating to the incorporation and organization of the said bank, and also giving the names of the directors

And so on. And he goes on to say, at the end of this letter:
I apply for the certificate of the Treasury Board permitting the Said bank to commence the business of hanking.
W. R, TRAVERS, General Manager.
Mr. Travers himself applied for the certificate and was given that certificate. Now,
I do not read the Bank Act as saying that the certificate is to be granted to the manager himself on his personal application. As I read the law, there should be an application on the part of the bank, signed at least by some of the bank officials who have authority. But in this case the application was made by a person said to be the general manager, hut who, even as such, had no authority to ask for nor receive the certificate.
Another point that seems to me of great importance is the correspondence that took place between the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Justice with respect to Mr. Travers' application. I read at page 25 of this return the letter of the deputy Minister of Finance in which he says:
Dear Sir,-I beg to inclose herewith a file of papers being an application from the Farmers' Bank of Canada for a certificate to commence business under sections 13-17 of the Bank Act.
Kindly advise me if, on the papers submitted, such a certificate may legally issue.
Now there is something in this reply of the deputy minister that should have caused the Treasury Board suspicion. Now I will the Deputy Minister of Finance in which Deputy Minister of Justice.
In reply, I beg to state that the statements in the statutory declaration of Mr. Walter R. Travers are sufficient, if they are accepted

Now he does not say they are sufficient, he does not say that they should be accepted, he does not pass any judgment upon their sufficiency, but he says ' if they are accepted,' that is, by the Treasury Board. Surely there is here an implication that they should not be accepted. There is in these few words of that letter, matter which should have caused the Treasury Board to pause, there was something which should have raised a suspicion in their minds that all was not right. Now there is another point I wish to bring out, and that is the fact that no certificate could issue without a meeting of the Treasury Board, and without the consent, of the majority of the Treasury Board. Not only that, but there is the promise of the Finance Minister to Mr. Leighton McCarthy that his objection to the granting of a certificate would be laid before the Treasury Board when they considered the application for a certificate. That was of all things the most important to lay before the Treasury Board, that objection of Mr. Leighton McCarthy was the most important thing of all. Now will the Finance Minister say that that objection was laid before the Treasury Board? Did the Treasury Board consider that charge against these men who were trying to get


Charles Jonas Thornton: this certificate? Did they ask if those things were true? Were they- laid before the Treasury Board? Why, Mr. Speaker, we have the fact that the Treasury Board met on the 30th November, but the papers, all the documents which had been submitted to the board in connection with Mr. McCarthy's protest, were returned to Mr. McCarthy on the 7th of November, and the board did not meet until the 30th of November. Then when the papers had been returned to Mr. McCarthy, how could these matters have been laid before the board? It looks very suspicious to say the least of it.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Charles Jonas Thornton: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock, I was directing attention to the conduct of the Treasury Board at the time the certificate was granted. We have Mr. McCarthy's letter and the minister's answer requesting particulars of the charges against these men who were asking a certificate for the Farmers' Bank, and the minister promised that the matter would be considered by the Treasury Board. All particulars were furnished, the charges were made against the promoters of the bank and yet the Treasury Board met on November 30, but the papers and particulars which had been furnished at the request of the minister had been returned to Mr. McCarthy on November 7. Evidently these men got the certificate without the objections having been considered by the Treasury Board. It is peculiar that the Treasury Board met on November 30 and that on that day there was correspondence between the Minister of Finance and Mr. Travers, and that on that day Mr. Travers received his certificate for the bank to start business. It looks as if everything had been hurried on that day. There was no occasion for hurry, an extension had been granted, good until January 18, so there were still about six weeks before the charter would expire. Who was nurrying the Treasury Board and the Finance Minister? The question arises, was Mr. Calvert or the president of the Trust and Guarantee Company hurrying matters on, and if so for what reason? Was there something in it for these men? These questions naturally arise, and the people out in the couofry are asking them.
There is something very distressing in the failure of the Farmers' Bank. Members from constituencies which were very much affected, receive many letters about it. I receive letters every few days appealing to me and asking if the government and the right hon. First Minister will not do something to relieve those who have
been robbed of their all, for there are many whose whole substance has been taken from them by this, and wanting to know if there is not some relief to be granted by the government. If the government had been as careful of the people's interest as they should be, then immediately this failure occurred, they would have done something to relieve the situation and Ito show the people that they wanted to get after these designing men who robbed the shareholders and depositors. I know the plea is put up that there is no law to touch these men, that the government had no power to interfere. Is that so? Has it come to this? I am perfectly well aware they say there was a law and that the law was being enforced in Toronto, but we know how comparatively helpless that is; we know how the majority of these men have escaped the hands of justice and how the great offender in the case received what everybody says is too light a sentence, only six years for the crime he had perpetrated. The impression is abroad that he should have had 26 years. It looks as if there was something lax in the law when a man guilty of such a crime should receive a sentence of only six years, and is to-day living comparatively a gentleman giving evidence in Toronto. It looks as. if the government ought to have done something more to get after those fellows. If there is no law to get after them should there not be? Are designing men to be allowed to rob innocent men, women and children of their hard-earned savings? If so, God help Canada and help her legislators, her lawmakers to make laws that will get after such men quickly.
There were warnings without number in connection with this bank failure. We had first of all numerous personal appeals made not only to the Finance Minister, but to other members of the government. These were more than gossip, they were practically definite -charges made- against the promoters of this bank, for the way in which they were trying to get the bank started. Then there was the direct charge made by Mr. Leighton McCarthy, coming from shareholders who had been, to say the least, fooled, who were being robbed and misrepresented in connection with the floating of this bank, and on the very day that the Treasury Board issued that certificate we have Mr. Clouston, in the name of the Canadian Bankers' Association, protesting strongly -against that certificate being issued. Then within four months of the bank starting business we have this protest from the manager of the Milton branch of the bank, saying there was crookedness in connection with the management at head office, and we had later on another appeal from the Canadian Bankers' Association, through its secretary, saying there was something crooked in connection with the doings of

this bank. All these warnings about the misdoings of the management should have shown it was time to do something. Had steps been taken by the department in some way to arrest these men in their work of robbing these innocent people, something could have been done. I do not wish te take time to recite the particulars of that insurance matter in New York state. You will remember that when the Minister of Finance was appealed to, his one answer was that contained in a letter dated January 12, 1910, to Wm. H. Hotchkiss, Superintendent of Insurance, Albany, New York:
There bang no government bank inspection in Canada' I do not see bow we can at present take the action that you desire. Probably the bank on application from you would explain the whole matter.
(Signed) W. S. FIELDING.
Now, if there is not government bank inspection in Canada which would prevent these abuses, whose fault is it? Ought there not to be some way by which banks can be controlled, and some way in which bank managers can be prevented from fleecing the people. Let me refer briefly to the question of bank inspection. At different times the subject has been discussed in this House, but no action has up to the present time been taken. It is said, that in the last thirty years the people of Canada have lost no less than $45,000,000 in connection with bank failures, and I am inclined to think that is irather an underestimate. In thirty years there have beep 29 bank failures in Canada, and in view of such deplorable figures it seems to be extraordinary that a system of government bank inspection has not been inaugurated before this. Three years ago this question was brought forcibly to the attention of the House by Mr. Pringle, then member for Stormont, and in the course of his remarks he laid great stress on government inspection of banks. Mr. Pringle stated that at the date on which he was speaking there were $600,000,000 deposited in Canadian banks, and to-day the deposits amount to over $800,000,000. I am well aware that there is a difference of opinion as to government bank inspection, and I can readily see how that may be the case. But some of the best bank managers that Canada has ever had are very strongly in favour of government bank inspection. Mir. H. S. McLeod, late manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia is strongly in favour of government inspection or of an independent audit or both, and he urged this matter on the government as far back as the year 1900, and at different times since then. In a letter to the Toronto ' Globe ' on the 26th November, 1906, Mr. McLeod wrote:
In Canada there were in existence in 1880, forty-one banks. Since then seven have been Mr. THORNTON.
incorporated and have commenced business, making a total of forty-eight banks. Of this total, twelve' have failed and some others have saved themselves by amalgamation. The failures are, therefore, 25 per cent in twenty-six years, the last ten of which were years of unexampled prosperity with steadily rising deposits-conditions under which even insolvent banks seldom close their doors.
Now, here is a very important part of Mr. McLeod's statement:
Most if not all of the above mentioned failures were fraudulent, and it is now plainly evident that a few hours examination by a skilled banker would have disclosed an insolvent condition in any one of the banks years before it collapsed.
There cannot be any doubt as Mr. McLeod says that had there been efficient government bank inspection in Canada during the last 3 or 4 years this disastrous failure of the Farmers' Bank and the dreadful consequences that ensued could not have happened, because, as Mr. McLeod says, a few hours' examination by a skilled banker would have disclosed the insolvent condition of that bank Mr. McLeod says further:
In each of the two most recent disasters a correct diagnosis could have been made ten or more years ago.
Had there been efficient bank inspection the Farmers' Bank could not have run six months without its insolvency being detected, and over one million dollars would have been saved to the innocent shareholders and depositors. Three years ago when Mr. Pringle brought this matter to the attention of the House, one of the most surprising things in that debate was the answeir which the Minister of Finance then gave on the floor of the House. Speaking on the 2nd of March, 1908, he said (volume 3, 'Hansard' 1908, page 1499):
Perhaps the most important question he (Mr. Pringle) discussed was that of government inspection. I confess without pretending to give a final judgment that my inclination is strongly against the views he has presented on that subject.
I am disinclined to favour government inspection for several reasons:
J. In the first place I think it is unnecessary. There is no condition of affairs in Canada that calls for it.
Now, if there is no condition of affair's in Canada that calls for bank inspection I would be curious to know how rotten the condition of things must be to satisfy the Minister of Finance that government bank inspection is necessary. It is most distressing to contemplate that the state of affairs existing in this country in respect to banking must be worse than it is today before they call for efficient government inspection in the eyes of the Minister of Finance. It seems to me that the

want of proper government inspection is where the Bank Act is weak, and where the Minister of Finance is at fault in not providing it. I believe there should have been efficient government bank inspection in Canada years ago. In the United States where there is a system of government inspection of national banks, a system which is not nearly as perfect as it should be, and which, indeed, is very imperfect, there has only been in the last 25 years 5 per cent of failures as against 25 per cent in Canada. It would seem to me, the Minister of Finance notwithstanding, that these figures show that government inspection is a good thing. I believe, Sir, that the time has come when something should be done by the government in the line indicated in the motion of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), I believe that the only way to get at the facts in connection with this deplorable business is to appoint a Royal Commission to make full and independent inquiry.
It has been acknowledged on all hands, and acknowledged by some hon. gentlemen on the government side of the House, that there is no other way to get at the facts except by a commission. I thought the duty of the government, and indeed most people in this country thought the duty of the government was. just as soon as this failure occurred, to have issued a Royal Commission to investigate the whole matter. They should have done it immediately after the failure. They could and should have done so. Three months or thereabouts have elapsed since the failure and nothing whatever has been done. We have been waiting for the powers that be in Toronto to move in this matter. It is a well known fact that in information they have gained there is of such a limited character that it does not throw a great deal of light on it. A Royal Commission is the only means by which the information can he obtained. The matter is of so much importance and the consequences of this failure are felt so widely throughout Canada that I cannot see why or how the government can refuse to grant this request of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). Those who have lost their all do not hesitate to blame the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the hon. the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding). I know the feeling of the country, and it is that if the government and the members of the government, if the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. Minister of Finance want to square themselves with the people they will not hesitate for one moment to grant this request of my hon. friend from Halton. There is no doubt that had ordinary care been exercised when this certificate was granted, these so-called bankers would never have been authorized to do business. It is regrettable from every view point that this failure
should have taken place and I trust that the proposal of my hon. friend will be acceded to. Not only that, but I hope that there will be in the new Bank Act provision for an efficient and thorough system of government inspection. I think that the government should show its willingness to try to do something at least to save as much as it [DOT] can to the innocent sufferers from this miserable wreck.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: Mr. Speaker, I represent a constituency in which there were practically two branches of this institution which was licensed by this government and allowed, with the full knowledge and consent of the government, to perpetrate frauds upon the people of the country. Many of my constituents have lost their all. At the village of Phil-lipsville there was one branch of this bank established. Across the line dividing the constituency of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) and my own constituency there was a branch located, but a great share of the business was done with the farmers in my own constituency. Many of them are stockholders and depositors, I had hoped to see the Minister of Railways and Canals in his place joining with me in advocating that the government should approve of the motion of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) and I hope that when the division comes he will vote with me in the interest of many of his constituents who have suffered, as mine have, from the fact that this rotten institution was granted a certificate by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). With the full knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated upon him and upon the government, they granted this certificate, the minister having at the time the proof of this fraud in his hands. If he did not have it in his hands he got the information the next day. The certificate was issued on the 30th November, and next day he received a letter from the Bankers' Association telling him that the thing was not right. Why did he not obtain a warrant for the arrest of Travers for perjury? He had the declaration sworn to by Travers in which Travers had given false information, he had the proof in his own hands that it was false-why did he not act and save the people of this country from the loss of thousands and thousands of dollars? A branch of this bank was opened in Athens, adjoining my constituency. Travers came there, selected one' of the most respectable farmer's sons in the constituency as manager because he knew that he had influence in that section of the country with the surrounding farmers. Travers said to him:	I want you to go
among the farmers and offer them 4 per cent on their deposits. The rule of the Bankers' Association only permits 3 per

cent, but you will have to cover the matter up in your books so that it will not show. Early last fall, after this branch had been doing business for some time, the accountant was short in his cash, and he and the manager were'both arrested. The manager was sentenced to three years in the penitentiary for falsifying his books. He is in the penitentiary now and Travers, who got him into this trouble, will be down with him, I presume, in a few days. There is a petition being circulated and signed in the constituency of the Minister of Railways and Canals and in the town in which the young man i3 well known asking the Minister of Justice to liberate him from the penitentiary. I hope the Minister of Railways and Canals will see that his colleague the Minister of Justice does justice to this young man and has him released, because what he did he did at the request-of the manager, Mr. Travers, in order that the bank might pay one per cent more than the other banks are paying.
The Minister of Finance issued that certificate contrary to law. The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said that we have a Bank Act. What is the good of having a Bank Act or of making a Bank Act if the government will not enforce it? We have a Bank Act now and if the Minister of Finance had done his duty and enforced the Bank Act this certificate never would have been granted. What is the nse of talking-are not the government morally if not legally responsible for every dollar that has been allowed to be taken from the people of this country by this rotten institution which they brought into existence? Now, they refuse to give a Royal Commission to investigate the facts. Why do they refuse a Royal Commission? Is it not patent on the face of it that some of their friends would be exposed if a Royal Commission were granted? The only excuse they can have for not granting the request of my hon. friend from Halton is that some of their friends will be exposed and they would rather that the whole country should suffer than that some of their friends should be exposed in the matter.
I will support the motion of my hon. friend from Halton, in the first place, for the reason that I think we should have a Royal Commission. That commission should investigate all the circumstances and facts surrounding this bank, and the fact that it was allowed to do business by this government. The Prime Minister, the Finance Minister, the Minister of Customs, have often repeated in my hearing in this House that they belonged to a business government. The Prime Minister brags that his is a business government. The people of Canada have elected this parliament, the members of the government are the trustees of the people, they are in the same position towards the people as is a board of direot-Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).
ors towards any incorporated company. If any board of directors had acted for their company as the members of this government have acted for the people, the stockholders would soon turn them out, and I think that the people of this country, if for no other reason than the incapacity and laxity of the government in allowing this fraudulent institution to be foisted on them, will say to these ministers-: You have not discharged your duty faithfully, and we are now going to elect a new board of directors at the first opportunity. I, therefore, support the motion of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) calling for an investigation. If we should have that investigation and find that the government made a mistake, that they were careless in their administration, that they were regardless of the interests they were bound to protect, then they are morally responsible for the losses sustained by the depositors in this bank. It will then be the duty of the people of this country, through their representatives in this parliament, to declare that this country is big enough and able enough to stand the losses which the people's trustees have brought upon so many innocent people. The facts stated by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) cannot be disputed; and on those facts being proved, as they cannot fail to be, by a Royal Commission, it will be the duty of this parliament to pass legislation liberating the stockholders from their double liability. They will suffer enough by losing what they have paid in already and should not, under the circumstances, _ be compelled to pay this double liability. These are my views. It is the duty of the Finance Minister to withdraw his opposition to this motion and allow a Royal Commission to be appointed so that we may find out who are the guilty parties. The hon. minister says that he was not to blame, that he had nothing against the promoters of this bank after Mr. Leighton McCarthy had withdrawn his charges. But he had in his- hand a letter from the Bankers' Association telling him that there were irregularities, that things were not correct, and he should immediately have had Travers arrested, and that would have put a stop to the bank doing any further business. But when he did not have Travers arrested then, he should, four months later, when he was informed by one of the banks that this thing was not right, that these notes were being discounted, have had Travers arrested then for making false returns. He did not, however, do this because no doubt he was' afraid of exposing some of his friends. Should the commission be granted which my hon. friend calls for, we shall have all these transactions, which are now hidden, brought to light, and the parties re-

sponsible brought to punishment, but other, wise we shall be helpless.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (East Lambton).: Like many of those who have addressed the House, I have a branch of this unfortunate bank established in the town of Arkona in the county I represent. In that branch there were deposits to the extent of $43,000 besides a large number of stockholders. In common with other members of this House I deeply regret the unfortunate condition of affairs which has come about in connection with this institution, and the whole matter is a live question among the people of my constituency and one worthy surely of the consideration of the government. We have had the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) telling us that the Finance Minister had no evidence against the promoters of this bank, after Mr. Leighton McCarthy had withdrawn his charges. Well, I am satisfied that if my hon. friend had investigated a little further he would have found that the Bankers' Association sent a letter to the Finance Minister calling his attention to the fact that there had been irregularities and urging on him the necessity of an investigation before granting the certificate. My hon. friend said also that the people in the country should have put their money into the savings bank. I am satisfied, however, that those of us who are in touch with the banking system throughout the country realize how absurd it would be to ask the people to send their money to a savings bank instead of depositing it in a bank in their own immediate vicinity, and I sincerely hope that when the time comes to discuss a new Bank Act, provision will be made for government inspection, not only of the branches of banks, but also of the central organization, because that is where the trickery and rascality was carried on in the Farmers' Bank. It was in the central office of that bank that Travers conducted his operations, and had that institution received a thorough government inspection, there is no doubt we would not have had the unfortunate collapse we are now discussing. .
The hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) said he would approve of the appointment of a commission if the court does not do its duty. But my hon. friend knows, and the Minister of Finance knows full well, that it is practically impossible for the police court of Ontario to carry on any serious investigation. The Minister of Finance knows that when Mr. Laidlaw placed his case before the Prime Minister in his apartments in the House of Commons, he distinctly and emphatically declared that there was not one dollar with which to caTry on an investigation after the preferred claims had been paid by the liquidators.
He also urged upon the Finance Minister and the Prime Minister on that occasion the necessity of making a thorough investigation into the doings of the different men who had transactions with that bank, and he assured the right hon. gentleman and his colleague that if such an investigation were ordered it would certainly bring to the bank a large amount of money for the benefit of its stockholders and depositors, because many men would be brought to justice who otherwise would go scot free.
The people of this country have always looked upon bank stocks as one of the safest kinds of investments and have always regarded their bank deposits as perfectly secure; and anything we can do in this parliament to strengthen that confidence, which is now so severely shaken, will certainly be a move in the right direction. I trust, therefore, mat the Minister of Finance will see that before this session closes, the people who do business with our banks will have sufficient protection in that regard.
My hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McLean) said that Travers was only a tool of others, and that the depositors believed they were protected by the laws of the land. Depositors in my riding, who had placed $43,000 on deposit in this Farmers' Bank in the town of Arkona, believed up to a short time ago that their money was absolutely protected by government inspection and control, and they are to-day surprised to find that they are likely to lose every dollar, because it is emphatically stated that the only asset the bank has, after the preferred claims have been paid, is the Keeley mine. And it has been shown by the men interested in the Keeley mine that the amount of money that is owing to the Farmers' Bank at the present time is very small, and that the creditors of the Farmers' Bank need expect to get very little out of that mine.	_
What harm, may I ask the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) and the first minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would there be in granting a commission to investigate this whole affair? And will it not be a source of satisfaction to those who have deposited such a large sum of money in this bank, and to the stockholders as well, to know, that this matter has been thoroughly investigated, and that the men who are guilty of any rascally conduct in connection with the incorporation or operation of this bank have been brought to justice? There is no reason why they should not be exposed. Do the government deny this investigation because they are afraid that the reputations of some men might be spoiled? I am satisfied that if the government consult the wishes of the people who are interested in this affair, and of the financial institutions of the Dominion they will con-



duct the investigation that my hon. friend from Halton (Mr, Henderson) has asked for. If you do not grant that investigation, depend upon it, the people will come to the conclusion that something is radically wrong, and that the government is shielding somebody. The thorough investigation of this question will assist us in framing a law under which, we may hope, the repetition of any such transactions as these will be impossible in this Dominion. The hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) said, in regard to this certificate, that it was granted in good faith, and that in granting it the Minister of Finance believed that he was doing right. On the facts before us, we cannot come to any conclusion but that the Finance Minister was deceived by Mr. Travers and the other men who brought this matter to his attention. And not only he, but the people who bought the stock or deposited their money in this bank also were deceived. But, remember, the only men who are to suffer loss in this matter are the depositors and shareholders of the bank; the government, apparently, are not going to lose any money. Nor are, they ready to spend a reasonable amount of money so that the men who were instrumental in wrecking this institution could be brought to justice. The liquidators, as I have said, have no money to carry on an investigation, nor have they power to incur indebtedness to raise money for such a purpose. And why should we saddle such an expense upon the poor people who have been so seriously injured already? I only wish that I felt free to speak of a number of those in my own district; but I will refer only to one case. I have in mind an old couple, each about 80 years of age, who were induced to put down their names for ten shares in this bank. I think they had only half enough to pay for these shares; and to-day we find that, under the double liability, they are compelled to sacrifice their home. And these are not by any means the only ones who are made to suffer by the rascally work that has been carried on by Mr. Travers, and by the action-. might I say?-of the Finance Minister in granting this certificate. For, when Mr. McCarthy, time and again, called his attention to the fact that these men were trying to get this certificate under false pretenses, and that they were perjuring themselves to that end, it was his duty and the duty of the Treasury Board to make a thorough investigation into the whole question. This Royal Commission should be granted. Since 1905, 11 banks have quit the field of active business; five have been absorbed by other banks: one is now in process of liquidation; and five have failed. The Farmers' Bank is the only case in which the depositors have had1 a great amount of funds tied up. In other cases, Mr. ARMSTRONG.
the depositors have generally received within a small percentage of their money; but in this case it looks as if practically every dollar the depositors have placed in this bank throughout the Dominion will be a direct loss to them. The people have been led to believe that deposits especially were safe in the banking institutions of our country. I do not wish to take up more time, as there are many others to follow? My object is merely to emphasize the statement made by the. hon. member for Halton, and to say that I intend to support the resolution. My reasons are these: That Mr. Travers was not entitled to a certificate, because the sum of $500,000 had not been bona fide subscribed, and $250,000 had not been bona fide paid thereon. That the Minister of Finance had notice that the provisions of the Bank Act had not been complied with, and he did not make the thorough investigation he should have made into the facts connected with the issue of the certificate. That the president of the Bankers' Association urged upon the Minister of Finance the necessity of investigating this question; and this and the numerous private interviews that were held with the hon. member for Halton and others in regard to this important matter were surely worthy of consideration. That the minister had conclusive evidence, by the admission of Mr. Travers, that he had committed perjury even before the certificate was issued. For these reasons, I heartily support the resolution of the hon. membeT for Halton.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN (Regina).: Here the Deputy Minister of Finance informs the general manager that opposition lias been raised to the issue of the certi-fieate. A little later on, there is another letter from the Deputy Minister of Finance, November 21 in which he writes to the manager of the Farmers' Bank and says:
Referring to your letter of the 23rd October, making a deposit under section 18 of the Bank Act of the sum of $250,000, I have no doubt that you will be applying very shortly for a certificate under section 14 to commence business. In the papers to be submitted to the Board in support of the application there is a list of bona fide subscribers of capital stock of the bank showing subscriptions to the extent of $500,000. Would you be so good as to have added to this list, for submission to the Board, a statement showing the actual amount of cash paid up by each subscriber.
Now there, I contend, was ai certain amount of precaution taken by the Finance Department in asking to be supplied with a list of subscribers, the amount of stock subscribed by eaoh, and the amount of cash paid up. There is no question that precaution was taken there. Now the supporters of this resolution have endeavoured to make a great deal out of the protest put in against the issuing of the certificate, by Mr. Leighton McCarthy, on behalf of certain subscribers to the bank.


Mr. LALOR.: Was there any effort on the part of the Treasury Board to find out the bona tides of these subscription lists?


William Melville Martin: There was absolutely no evidence before the Department of Finance to show that every one of these shareholders was not absolutely bona fide and that every dollar of that subscription was not satisfactory.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Did not Mr. McCarthy's letter cast doubt on it?


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend knows that Mr. McCarthy's letter was subsequently withdrawn. The supporters of this resolution have endeavoured to make a great deal of the fact that a writ was issued and a copy of the writ or the special endorsement was on the files of the Department of Finance. Every lawyer in the House knows that there is always a great deal of material put on a special endorsement of a writ, put in a statement of claim, to which no one pays any attention until some proof is submitted. What is an endorsement on a writ? Absolutely nothing as far as the case against the Department of Finance is concerned. The argument of hon. gentlemen opposite rests entirely, so far as this return shows on that specially endorsed writ filed with the department which was absolutely and unequivocally withdrawn by the letter sent subsequently by the solicitor. What does the special endorsement show? Nothing m Mr. MARTIN (Regina).
connection with the $250,000 not being bona fide subscriptions. The claim in the special endorsement was on behalf of special shareholders who wanted their subscriptions set aside by reason of certain fraud and misrepresentation alleged against Travers and other agents who had been selling stock, the fraud and misrepresentation consisting of such statements as that agents, Travers amongst them, I presume, had stated to prospective subscribers that So and So had subscribed $10,000 stock to this bank whereas they had subscribed only $3,000, and also allegations to the effect that certain men, among them Major Beattie, member for London, had agreed to act as directors when they had refused to be associated with the hank. What in that claim shows anything wrong with the deposit of $250,000 with the government?
I would have no hesitation in supporting a. request or resolution asking a Royal Commission to investigate the affairs of this bank if I could see what could be accomplished by it. But how would you get the money back to the poor depositors by holding a post mortem inquiry into the affairs of the bank?


Francis Ramsey Lalor: We will find out who influenced the Treasury Board.


William Melville Martin: My hon. friend will have plenty of time to make a statement afterwards. I know my hon. friend is full of suspicion like many members on that side. I would have no hesitation in supporting this resolution if any one could tell me what good it would do to the shareholders or depositors. No good can be done by holding a post mortem examination into the affairs of the bank. I would be perfectly willing to support a resolution for an investigation into the affairs of all banks in Canada in the same way as we had a Royal Commission some years ago to investigate the dealings of the insurance companies in Canada. For instance, I would like to know some things about other banks. -I would like information as to how the Bank of Montreal came to lose somewhere between $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 in Mexico some time ago and whether they lost that money by illegitimate speculation with the funds deposited in that bank. I would also like some information with respect to the dealings of the Bank of Commerce with the Canada Furniture Company. It is generally rumoured among men with whom I associate that the Canada Furniture Company is practically supported by the Bank of Commerce. If that is the case the depositors of the Bank of Commerce have practically no assurance that their funds are being properly dealt with. I would also like to know how it is that the Canadian banks gather in the rhoney from the people of this country at a small rate of interest and immediately send it to New

York on short call loans and get large rates of interest, and what security they have for the money they lend to the stock speculators on Wall street.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend know anything of the truth of the statement he has made with reference to the Bank of Commerce and the Canada Furniture Company.


William Melville Martin: I do not state that as a fact, I simply give it as a rumour, citing it as an instance to show that it might be in the interest of the country to have some investigation into the methods of the banks in dealing with the people's money. In 1907, in Western Canada, it was impossible even for a farmer worth from $10,000 to $20,000 or a reputable business man to get the smallest loan in Regina, and the reason given there was that all the money the banks had available was on short call loans in Wall street, in New York, and at that time in Western Canada we could not get sufficient money from the banks to move our crops to the eastern market.	[DOT]
To my mind, and I have followed the evidence of what has taken place with reference to this bank in the Ontario police courts, all the information the public can get towards punishing the criminals at the head of the institution can be and is being acquired at Toronto. Perhaps my hon. friends from Peel (Mr. Blain) from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and from Algoma (Mr. Boyce) who are so suspicious in connection with this matter can tell the House and the people how it was that the Attorney General's department of the Ontario government had all the information about the failure of the Farmers' Bank 24 days before making a solitary move to get hold of Dr. Beattie Nesbitt, the arch-criminal of all the promoters of the bank. I would ask them if some one did not give Dr. Beattie Nesbitt some warning to get out of the country. To show the sincerity of the Ontario government in their desire to capture Dr. Beattie Nesbitt I would point out that they have offered the magnificent reward of $200 for the production of his live body.
If the Farmers' Bank teaches this parliament any lesson it is that in the revision of the Bank Act some measure should be adopted providing for the public inspection of banks. The depositors in all our banks must be protected. This is one of the most important matters we can deal with, to see that our financial institutions are on a sound basis and when the Bank Act comes before the Banking and Commerce Committee of this House, I hope that some measure of public inspection will find its way into the Act and become the law of Canada.


Mr. J. J. DONNELLY (South Bruce).: The facts so far made public in connection
with the organization and management of the Farmers' Bank have done much to weaken the confidence of the public in the stability of the banking institutions of this country. It appears to me that a thorough investigation by a Royal Commission such as is suggested by this amendment into all the operations in connection with this bank would assist us in locating the weak points in our Banking Act and in so amending that Act as to prevent the recurrence of what has happened to the stockholders and depositors of the Farmers' Bank. The fact that a bank has a Dominion charter is taken by many people to indicate that it not only has a right to transact public business but that it is subject to such supervision by the Dominion government that it may be fairly assumed to be- in good financial standing. Now, section 158 of the Bank Act practically wipes out all the private banks of this country. That, section reads-
Every person assuming or using the titlo of bank, banking company, banking house, banking association or banking institution without being authorized so to do by this Act or some other Act in force in that behalf, is guilty of an offence against this Act.
The object of that legislation was to protect the public by rendering it necessary for them to do practically all their banking with chartered banks. If the fact that a bank has a Dominion charter and is authorized to do business by a certificate issued by the Treasury Board is no guarantee of the financial standing of that bank, why was this legislation passed which practically gave all the chartered banks a monopoly of the banking business of this country? In view of that, it was clearly the duty of the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board to take every precaution before issuing a certificate to the Farmers Bank. Now, just a word in reference to the name ' Farmers' Bank.' The persons who promoted this bank were not farmers. I listened yesterday to the Minister of Finance reading over a list of some fifteen names of persons who, according to the prospectus issued by the bank, were willing to act as directors were they elected as such, and among that fifteen there was only one farmer, so that about the only right, the promoters of this bank had to be called farmers was that possibly in incorporating it they were placing themselves in a position to farm the public. However, I suppose their object in so calling it was to gain the goodwill of the farming community. The discussion so far has led me to believe that the Minister oi Finance and the Treasury Board did not exercise reasonable precaution before issuing the certificate to the Farmers' Bank. We have the statement of the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that he warned the Minister of Finance before the certificate was issued; we have the letter of Mr. McCarthy,

warning the Minister of Finance that the promoters of this bank were endeavouring to evade the provision of the Bank Act which said that before a certificate shall be issued, at least $500,000 of stock must be actually subscribed for, and at least $250,000 of that money paid into the hands of the Minister of Finance. We have also a subsequent letter of Mr. McCarthy, in which he gives more detail, and he says:
I have received information that the alleged subscribers for shares paid a large sum of money in cash and have signed notes for other large sums of money, and that the persons professing to act in the name of the bank have transferred notes and received the proceeds, and that a deposit either has been made or will be made of the cash received and the proceeds of these notes, or sufficient amount to make up $250,000.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that when the Minister of Finance had this information before him he should have made -some effort to verify it, but, the Minister of Finance takes the ground that Mr. McCarthy later on withdrew his objection. As a matter of fact, that is not the case. Mr. McCarthy was acting for some half dozen stockholders in the Farmers' Bank who were his clients, and he made his objection solely for the purpose of protecting them. Apparently the promoters of the bank became -aware of that fact and they settled with Mr. McCarthy's clients, and he -as their solicitor had no further authority to press the matter. But the fact still remains that the minister had the information that this evasion of the Bank Act was being perpetrated, and, Sir, all the other shareholders of the bank were just as much interested iin the charges made against the promoters of the bank as were Mr. McCarthy's clients. Mr. McCarthy succeeded in protecting his clients but the Minister of Finance failed to protect his clients, the public, whose representative he was in that case. I say, Sir, that it was the duty of the Minister of Finance to make a thorough investigation in view of these repeated warnings, but in place of doing so what do you think he did but apply to the manager of the bank who was seeking the certificate, the man of all men who would be most anxious that the truth should not- be known. And, the Minister of Finance accepts this man's testimony, sworn testimony if you m-ay call it so, against the statement -set forth in Mr. McCarthy's letter, against the warning he had reoeived from Mr. Henderson and others, and he issued -this certificate. The First Minister tells u-s that the Finance Department -and the Minister of Finance were deceived. Well, if they w-ere deceived it is their own fault because they had every opportunity to investigate, an-d discover whether the charges made and the warnings given them were founded on fact. But, Mr. DONNELLY.
there appears to -have been peculiarly undue h-aste in the issuing -of this certificate. There is a great deal of correspondence about it dated the 30th November, 1906. We first have a letter from Mr. Fielding to Mr. Travers regretting that engagements the previous day arising out of the budget prevented him meeting Mr. Travers, and we have -a letter from Mr. Travers to Mr. Fielding, saying:
In reply to your letter of the 30th November, I have to say that in the case of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, the provisional directors did not raise the money in the way mentioned by you. You will find the statement put in by me absolutely correct as to the amount of stock subscribed and the-amount paid up.
We have another letter of the same date from the Deputy Minister of Finance to Mr. Travers -and we have also a letter of the same date-although not received on the same date addressed to the Deputy Minister of Finance >and- signed by Sir Edw|ard Cl-ouston, amd that letter I shall read:
Montreal, November 30, 1906.
T. C. Boville, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Farmers' Bank of Canada.
Dear Sir,-In connection with the application of the Farmers' Bank of Canada for the usual certificate from the Treasury Board, I have reason to believe that the money lodged, or to be lodged, at Ottawa as stock subscriptions, cannot be regarded as paid-up capital, and that a large proportion of the amount necessary to the obtaining of a certificate is a loan made upon the promise of its payment when, returned by your department.
Permit me to request that, if only for the protection of the public, the Treasury Board will exercise its right to refuse to issue a certificate if it thinks best so to do, until a thorough investigation has been made into the circumstances stated herein.


E. S. CLOUSTON,
[Stage Direction]
*	President.
It is a peculiar coincidence that there should have been so many letters and such undue haste on that particular date. Would it not be, Mr. Speaker, a fair inference that all this haste, this rush, was caused by the fact that the promoters of the bank became aware that Sir Edward Clouston was sending this or a similar letter to tile Department of Finance? It has been argued that even if this certificate was obtained by fraud the bank might have gone on and proved a success. That is possible, but we must not forget that had this certificate not been issued these parties would never have been in a position to go out and make the appeal to the people of the country that this chartered bank had to make in order to secure deposits. The story of the organization and management of the Farmers' Bank is a story of crime and inefficiency, it is a blot upon the finan-

cial reputation of this country, and no effort should be spared to place the responsibility where it belongs. Let us have a full and free investigation and base our further action upon the results of that investigation.
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. Speaker. I have listened with a great deal of interest to the facts and circumstances in connection with the unfortunate bank known throughout Canada as the Farmers' Bank. I do not think that any hon. gentleman in this House, particularly those whose constituencies are directly affected by this unfortunate failure, have any reason to offer any apology to this House for occupying time upon this important question. After having carefully examined the return that has been brought down by the government and after listening to the case as presented by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, I am not at all surprised that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is disinclined to grant the prayer of the resolution. The man who is being charged vith serious omissions and derelictions of duty does not display as a rule any enthusiasm for his trial to proceed, and there is no doubt that, if a Royal Commission were appointed in connection with this bank, virtually and in fact the Finance Department would be on trial. Consequently we are not surprised to see that the Minister of Finance is not disposed to grant a Royal Commission as asked for by my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson). The history of the Farmers' Bank is certainly an extraordinary one. The Act incorporating the bank was passed on the 18th July, 1904, and subsequently there were two Acts extending the charter, the first for two years, within which a certificate might be granted, and the second extending the time for six months. The Minister of Finance himself stated that he entertained grave fears concerning the success of this bank on the ground of the difficulty in raising funds with which to commence the operations of the bank. I say this, Mr. Speaker, should have placed him upon his guard and should have caused him to see that henceforth and from that time onward all the formalities as required by the Bank Act were adhered to. The certificate was granted on November 30, 1906, and the bank suspended on December 19, 1910. Within about four years the bank depleted its whole capital, ruined thousands and thousands of depositors and altogether dissipated over a million dollars of money. The curator, Mr. Clarkson, made an interim statement of the affairs of the bank, a synopsis of which I propose to give to the House.


LIABILITIES.
[Stage Direction]
Amounts owing to depositors and holders of drafts at various points where branches were situated	$1,281,774 91
Preferred claims	 569,987 07
Capital stock	 584,500 00

[Stage Direction]
Dominion of Canada notes, specie, balance from the banks,, cash in hand,
&c	$140,709	23
Deposit with government. 20,250	00
Stocks and bonds	 113,895	00
Surplus in trust and Guarantee Company's
hand	
81,688	05Current loans, &c	
241,434	84
597,977 12
Deficit	$1,838,284 80
Stocks and. bonds, &o	 535,000 00
As against this the curator has the bank's claim against the Keeley mine	$1,303,284 86
This leaves a net deficit to be met by the asset known as the Keeley mine of $1,303,000. The statement has been made just lately that the Keeley mine is indebted to the Farmers' Bank in the sum of $150,000 or $200,000 only. Consequently it will mean a net deficit, after the obligation to the Farmers' Bank is met by the Keeley mine, of over a million dollars. The results and consequences of the operations of the Farmers' Bank have been most serious. I think it is the most disastrous financial failure in the history of the country. It is the worst tragedy in the annals of banking. The shareholders and depositors are not the comparatively rich people to be found in mercantile circles. They, do not reside in cities and towns, and, as the notion is, make a comparatively easy living, but they are poor labouring people in many cases distributed throughout the length and breadth of the province. The savings of a lifetime have been swept away, poverty, ruin and desolation, and, in many cases, actual hunger, face those who have lost ali their means in the financial disaster known as the failure of the Farmers' Bank.
The question naturally arises, on whom is the responsibility for this failure to be fastened? Of course we all know that the loss has resulted from the operations of the bank, but the bank could not have started operations without the sanction and license- of the department, and hence the question naturally follows what facts and circumstances were known to the Finance Department or the minister who is responsible for issuing that certificate, and which should have prevented this bank from going into operation, and which should hav.e prevented the Minister of Finance from issuing the certificate. I submit that no person can read the record without being convinced beyond peradventure that an ab-
[Stage Direction]
solutely complete case has been made out against the Minister of Finance and his department. The facts fix on the Minister of Finance a perfect knowledge that a fraud was being perpetrated on behalf of the promoters of the bank. A series of most interesting interviews took place before the certificate was issued between my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) and the hon. Minister of Finance. Before the certificate was issued my hon. friend told him that a great number of his constituents were interested in the promotion of this bank, that he felt alarmed for its success, and he asked the minister to withhold the cer-* tificate.
What was the answer of the minister? He said: I will delay the issue of the certificate as long as possible. But the facts and circumstances show that instead of withholding the certificate as long as possible, he displayed all kinds of anxiety to get it out of the hands of the Treasury Board into the hands of Travers. After the certificate was granted, we had the hon. member from Halton (Mr. Henderson), going to the Finance Minister and again expressing his anxiety in connection with the operations of the Farmers' Bank. What was the action of the hon. minister? He said: Mir. Henderson, you have no occasion to be alarmed, you are not ifrnancijally interested in the bank, and besides you have discharged your full duty. You warned the department. I submit that there could be nothing verbally stronger than the warning which my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) gave the Finance Minister .on that occasion. I was somewhat surprised to hear the minister say that he had no recollection of that interview, and that, so far as he remembered, such a conversation did not take place. He did not say that if it had taken place and the warning had been given, he would have refused to give the certificate, because he would then have been confronted with the argument that the documents on file in his department were stronger by far than any verbal warning the hon. member for Halton had given. What were these documents? They are in the return brought down and printed by the government, but as these letters have been put on 'Hansard ' already, it is my intention to do no more than give a very brief recapitulation of the various warnings given the Finance Minister.
We find Mr. Leighton McCarthy, who was then a member of this House, and who, although elected as an independent, voted for the government on every occasion,, giving the strongest possible warning to the Finance Minister. We say Mr. McCarthy who was elected to protect, not merely any possible client he might secure in the way of legal practice, but the people Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
at large, who was elected not only to make the laws but to see that the laws of the country were being observed, and who had great influence with the government, we find him writing on October 8, 1906, to the Minister of Finance, before the certificate was granted, and in that letter he made this statement:
I beg to assure you that grave conditions have arisen which will require careful consideration before the Treasury Board grant any certificate for the organization of this bank. X, therefore, ask you to be good enough to stay any action which might be taken until I have had an opportunity of discussing this with you.
Not having heard from the department far three days, Mr. McCarthy, in his anxiety to protect his own clients, wrote the minister on October 11, three days later, as follows:
Please wire me assurance in reference to stay of certificate of Treasury Board mentioned in my letter of Monday night.
He got a reply on October 11, from the Minister of Finance as follows:
No application yet received for the certificate referred to. Please forward your representations immediately and they will be considered when application comes.
As a matter of fact, the report shows that these representations of Mr. McCarthy were never considered by the Treasury Board. On October 11, we have a letter signed by the Finance Minister himself to Mr. Leighton McCarthy:
I wired you to-day that no application had been made by the promoters for the Treasury Board certificate, and suggested that you send forward at once any representations which you may wish to make, to which we shall give all due consideration.
W. S. FIELDING, Minister of Finance.
There was assurance from the Finance Minister that any representations regarding the organization and the formalities connected with the inception of the bank would receive due consideration. Yet we have it on the words of the Finance Minister that because the complaint of Mr. McCarthy had been withdrawn and because he asked to have his papers returned, these letters of Mr. McCarthy's and the writ of summons setting out misrepresentation, deceit and fraud in connection with the whole transaction, had never been submitted to the Treasury Board. Then on October 19, 1906, Mr. McCarthy wrote the Finance Minister as follows:
iMy Dear Mr. Fielding,-I beg to inclose the special endorsement upon a writ of summons in the High Court of Justice for Ontario.
And he goes on to refer to the misrepresentations and other grounds which may

be disclosed upon examination of tlie alleged subscriptions vto shares, and hd says:
I have received information that the alleged subscribers for shares paid a large sum of money in cash and have signed notes for other large sums of money, and that the persons professing to act in the name of the bankliave transferred notes and received the proceeds

	.	[DOT]
This was in violation of the Bank Act and should have voided any application for a certificate.
-and that a deposit either has been made or will be made of the cash received and the proceeds of these notes, or a sufficient amount to make up $250,000.
Then we find that Mr. Boville, the Deputy Minister of Finance, four days, afterwards, writes Mr. McCarthy as follows:
I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, to Mr. Fielding's address, respecting the Farmers' Bank of Canada. When application is made by the Farmers' Bank to the Treasury Board for a certificate to enable them to commence business, the representations contained in your letter with its inclosure will be laid before the Board.
Consequently we have the statement of the Minister of Finance himself and of his deputy that when an application for a certificate shall be received the representations made by Mr. McCarthy would be laid before the board and all these facts and circumstances connected with the fraudulent promotion of the bank would be submitted to the Treasury Board in order that it might deal with them before granting a certificate. ,
On the same day the letter was written, Travers sent down a deposit of $250,000. On October 24, the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Boville, notified Travers that there was opposition filed in the department to his being granted a certificate. Then on October 31, the deputy minister wrote Mr. McCarthy again:
Dear Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 19th instant, addressed to Mr. Fielding, on the subject of the Farmers' Bank of Canada and the issue of a certificate to that bank to commence business under section 15 of the Bank Act, I notice recently a reference in the newspapers for a judgment given by Judge Anglin in a suit relating to this matter. In view of the decision rendered, I shall be obliged if you will let me know if you still desire the protest contained in your letter to be brought before the Treasury Board upon an application of the Farmers' Bank for a certificate to be considered.

[Stage Direction]
Deputy Minister of Finance.
There had been no word from Mr. McCarthy to show any desire on hi3 part to withdraw his objections to the certificate, yet we find the deputy minister writing to him and all but suggesting that he should withdraw all objections. All the facts land circumstances show that the Finance Department displayed a great deal of anxiety, not to safeguard the interests of the shareholders and depositors or the general public, but to get the certificate into the hands of Tiravers so that he might commence operations under the name of the Farmers' Bank.
Then we find on November 2, 1906, a letter from Mr. McCarthy stating that his clients had been settled with and withdrawing his objection; and because of that letter the Minister of Finance s_ays_ h(* was entitled to proceed as if no objections had been made. But the facts set out in the writ of summons, a copy of which was in the hands of the Minister of Finance and on file in his department, showed^ most serious accusations. It is not my intention to read them in full, but I desire to set out briefly what they meant.
The charges made in this writ were:
(a.) That the subscriptions were procured through deceit, fraud and misrepresentation;
(b.) The particulars of the fraud are stated. We cite one example, namely, that John Sproat, one of the plaintiffs, intended to subscribe for $1,000, and his application was wrongfully entered at $10,000;
(e.) That the directors mentioned in the prospectus have neither subscribed for shares, nor consented to act as directors;
(d.) That agents who procured subscriptions for shares had taken promissory notes on account of subscriptions, which were payable to the provisional directors, and that they were endeavouring to discount these notes in order to make up the deposit of $250,000.
(e.) That a large sum of money paid oh account of capital had been unlawfully deducted for commissions;
(f.) That the money and promissory notes taken from subscribers were impressed with a trust under the Bank Act for all the subscribers;
(g.) An affidavit of verification was filed, and notice of motion served and an injunction claimed to restrain the further publication of a notice calling a meeting, and to restrain the directors from making any application to the Treasury Board for a certificate to open the bank.
Now, can any reasonable man who peruses the records on file say that these charges should have been disregarded when the application for certificate was being considered? I ask, was the department concerned only about Mr. McCarthy's clients? What about the hundreds of other poor shareholders and depositors? When the government delayed the certificate in order to get Mr. McCarthy's clients out of the hole, did they discharge their full duty towards the public and towards the shareholders and depositors throughout the length and breadth of the land? Had they still no duty , to protect others from fraud
[Stage Direction]
and crime? I submit that a case more complete and unanswerable could not have been made out than that made out by the hon. member for Halton who moved this resolution. Then, we have a letter which is very significant and which has been commented upon. Tne Department of Finance, in order to shift the responsibility, asks the advice of the Minister of Justice. This is a frequently used device in the various departments of the government when they desire to shirk responsibility. We find the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) himself, when he was defending. the Newmarket canal, shifting responsibility to the engineers,-he said he had the engineer's report that the enterprise was feasible and relied upon that report. And the Minister of Public Works tries to shift responsibility to the Minister of Justice when he wants to put in an elevator in a privately owned building the owner of which agreed in the lease to put in the elevator himself. So, we find the same device resorted to on this occasion-the Department of Justice is asked for an opinion. That rose, so to speak, had a thorn in it. The opinion given by the Department of Justice, said:
In reply, I beg to state that the statements in the statutory declaration of Mr. Walter R. Travers are sufficient, if they are accepted.
This throws back again upon the Finance Department the onus of deciding upon the merits of the case, but says that so far as the form of the application is concerned, that was all right. It was not necessary to refer the question to the Justice Department at all, but evidently the Justice Department had the same suspicion that the Finance Department had that everything was not right in connection with the promotion of this bank, and the Minister of Justice and his department were determined not to be made the scapegoat for the Department of Finance. At the same time, we had all these warnings from the hon. member for Halton and from the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) who, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) told us last night, went to the Minister of Finance and warned him against issuing the certificate that would allow this bank to commence business, as well as Mr. McCarthy's letter with the, serious charges therein contained. Beyond and above that we have the " far more important letter that is in the hands of the Finance Department, from the president of the Bankers' Association, Sir Edward Clouston, dated on the identical day on which the certificate is said to have been issued. I submit, as has been stated by other speakers, that this was the time for the Finance Department to act. They must have known, from the warnings they had received, and from this letter of Sir Ed-' Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
ward Clouston, that the affidavit of W. R. Travers filed in order to secure the certificate was false and that the man who was to be manager of the bank had been guilty of perjury. The bank at that time had not opened its doors or received a dollar of deposits. That was the time for the Finance Department to act. The Minister of Finance, when defending his course yesterday, asked the question: 'What could I have done? I submit that to ask that question is to have it answered.. All he had to do was to wire Mr. Travers that the certificate had to be returned, and, if it was not returned, to issue a warrant for his arrest. Or, he could have issued a warning to the public through the press not to transact business with the bank, and the bank could not have opened its doors. It would have been an infinitely easy matter for the Finance Department to have prevented the Farmers' Bank transacting any business. In addition to all this, the bank had only been in operation three or four months at the outside when there was a most important communication received from tire manager^ of the Milton branch of the bank. Feeling concerned about the irregularity of discounting subscribers' notes, this gentleman wrote to the Finance Minister the letter which is published at page 29, of the Return, as follows:
The Farmers' Bank of Canada, Milton, April 7, 1907.
T, C. Boville, Esq.,
Deputy Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Will you kindly give me your opinion as to the following: Our general manager sends to the different branches lists of notes given in payment of our capital stock. These notes he makes the managers put through as discounts, crediting the amount to H.O. This is figured in the government return as paid-up capital and circulation issued to that amount. If I read the Bank Act correotly, section 76, he is asking us to do what is not right. As I do nyt wish to do anything contrary to the law, I should be much obliged if you give me the ruling on it. With many apologies for troubling you.

[Stage Direction]
Manager.
Now, it is extraordinary that, though this letter confirms beyond any doubt the allegations contained in Mr. McCarthy's writ and the statements made in Sir Edward Clouston's letter and proved the falseness of the affidavit made and filed by Mr. Travers with the department to secure this certificate, yet the department did not even condescend to notice it for a matter of two weeks. I submit that, if the Finance Minister had appreciated the position he was in as trustee for the people, he would have taken action upon receipt of that letter. As a matter of fact, as I have said, they ignored that important communication for two weeks and then wrote in this way:

Finance Department, Ottawa, May 1, 1907.
G. VanKoughnet, Esq.,
68 Howard Avenue,
Toronto.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 17th ultimo.
I must apologize for the delay in replying. Parliamentary business at this time in the session takes precedence over other duties.
While it is not deemed expedient to enter into correspondence at this stage, the matter referred to by you is of sufficient importance to warrant further inquiry. This will shortly be made. I should like to have a copy of any of the notes.

[Stage Direction]
Deputy Minister of Finance.
Is routine parliamentary work so much more important than the interest of the public?
Now is it conceivable that the Deputy Minister of Finance would answer an important communication in that manner? Why was it not expedient to enter into communication? Was it not their bounden duty to take cognizance of an important communication of that kind, and to take some action? The bank, as a matter of fact, had only been in operation a very few months. If they had taken immediate action on that occasion, and had issued either a warrant against Travers and had him arrested1, or had issued a Royal Commission, or even given notice to the press calling public attention to the fact that the bank was conceived in sin and horn in iniquity, and that the public should not deal with the bank, that would have been an effective way to protect the interests of the people. But there was no reply to that important communication for upwards of two weeks. Then, on December 7, 1908, we find the secretary of the Bankers.' Association reporting that a deposit receipt amounting to $150,000 was being offered for sale in the New York markets, and still the Finance Minister takes no action. The Minister of Finance says he only heard rumours, or some gossip regarding the irregularities. Now it seems to me that the statement of the minister hardly accords with the facts. Surely the conversations he had with the member for Halton (Mr. Henderson), and with the member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier), the allegations contained in the writs, these important letters warning the department against issuing the certificate- surely all these things were not mere gossip. I say that no person could regard these serious allegations, these serious statements of hon. members of this House in regard to the condition of that bank, as mere gossip and rumour. Before the certificate was granted the department had received the strongest warnings; immediately after the certificate was granted they received more warnings. Why then did the department not act? Was it powerless under the Bank
Act to recall or cancel the certificate? If it was, then the Bank Act should be amended. But even after the department had issued the certificate enabling this bank to transact business, it was not, to use a legal expression, it was not functus officio, it still had some power. Was it paralysed that it could not act? Was it speechless that it could not warn the public against the operations of the bank? That the certificate had been secured by fraud and perjury. Only a word or a letter at that critical stage would have been sufficient to save the depositors and shareholders from loss and ruin. The only redeeming feature about the failure of the Farmers' Bank, in my opinion, is that if it had to occur, it occurred at a most opportune time, because the Bank Act is about to be revised; and if the failure of the Farmers' Bank and of other banks have done anything, they have emphasized though at an awful cost to the shareholders aijd depositors the many defects in the Bank Act, and the incapacity of the Finance Department. I submit that the government as represented by the Finance Department is morally responsible for all the losses that have occurred in connection with this institution. They knew that the notes of the subscribers to the stock were being discounted in order to raise the deposit for the government. They thus knew that the deposit was being illegally raised, they knew a writ had been issued charging the officers with fraud and forgery, they knew that a perjured affidavit was on file in the department, and that the writ containing these serious allegations set out in the writ of summons were filed with the department, also they knew that the action was settled, that the plaintiffs who Were expressly mentioned in the writ had been settled with and had withdrawn their action. I submit that the Finance Department should not have turned a deaf ear to all the warnings they received in connection with the inception of this bank. The bank's charter was a mere dead letter, was a mere corpse, until galvanized into life by the granting of that certificate, and I submit that the department should not have allowed an unscrupulous promoter to use a government creation to bring to the people serious loss, and ruin, and desolation. A banking institution with a central office in a large city, and with branches throughout the length and breadth of the province, is like a big octopus stretching out its tentacles into every part of the province. In this case it gathered in the savings and earnings, of the poor people throughout the province, and brought them into its maw in order to engage in speculation and criminal operations.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I say this in all seriousness, that there are three men who are directly and primarily responsible for the
[Stage Direction]
inception of the bank, and the loss that has been inflicted on innocent people. If the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr Stratton), and his institution, the Trust and Guarantee Company, had not loaned money to the subscribers of the stock upon their notes, and thus been guilty of a fraud upon the Bank Act, the promoters never would have been able to raise the money, they would never have been able to make up the deposit, and consequently the bank would never have opened its doors. I submit that the hon. member for West Peterborough-I am sorry he is not in his seat to-night-as the elected representative of [DOT]the people, a man who is supposed not only to make laws, but to observe them, it was his duty to warn the government that these notes were being discounted. It is said that that very cheque that went from the Trust and Guarantee Company to the Bank of Montreal contained the signature of the hon. member for West Peterborough as its president, and on the face of that cheque it is mentioned that the cheque is to be used as part of the deposit that is made to the government in order to enable the bank to start operations. Now, Sir, it has been asked what the member for West Peterborough made out of the transaction? I do not know whether he made anything personally out of the transaction; but either he or the Trust and Guarantee Company secured thousands of shares of stock in the Keeley mine. They received a large rate of interest, and a large cash bonus besides. Then the next gentleman who appears on the scene was the Liberal whip of the Reform party, he is the next member who comes into the limelight in connection with the organization of the bank. The Liberal whip introduced Mr. Travers to the Minister of Finance, and used his influence to secure the certificate. Mr. Travers, in his sworn statement in the police court in Toronto, stated that Mr. Calvert received a loan of $5,000. Mr. Calvert says it was $3,000, and it was perfectly legitimate, and in the ordinary course of business. If that money was secured in the ordinary course of business, then I ask why it was charged up to commissions, and was not put through the banks in the ordinary shape of a loan. The Minister of Finance asked what a Royal Commission would find out that is not already disclosed. It would be interesting for the public to know, it would be interesting to this House to know, and T am sure the shareholders and depositors desire to know when Mr. Calvert received his loan, and when he paid it back.
Mr. CARVELL.: I will answer the hon. gentleman if he wants to know-on the 9th of July, 1909, three years after the bank received its certificate. I have the original note and all the documents.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Then perhaps the hon. member will proceed to answer the question why it was charged up to commissions, if it was a loan in the ordinary sense?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think it was.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is the sworn statement of the manager of the bank.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The original note has the words marked on it ' Loan, W. R. T.'


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. member (Mr. Carvell) will perhaps agree that many of these doubts and suspicions would be cleared and the atmosphere clarified if we had a Royal Commission. Mr. Calvert could go into the box and explain the circumstances. The hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Stratton) could explain many things. This is a most serious and grave matter. Upwards of a million dollars have been lost in four years. The money has disappeared, the courts cannot find out where it has gone. Is it not the duty of the government to appoint a Royal Commission and ascertain how such a tremendous loss occurred in such a short space of time?
I would ask the hon. member for Car-leton (Mr. Carvell) to explain another matter. Mr. Calvert as chief Liberal whip had peculiar influence on the ministerial side of the House and applications were made to him. It is not usual when doing business with a department of the government to ask for a letter of introduction from the government whip, to do so is in this case, a very suspicious circumstance. Not only did Mr. Calvert exercise his influence with the Finance Department in connection with the passing this certificate through the Treasury Board, but he exercised his influence with the Customs Department on behalf of Mr. Travers. I moved for a return the other day in connection with a pleasure yacht which Travers had transferred from the register at Detroit to Brock-ville. Mr. Calvert seems to have been under some obligation and Mr. Travers wrote to him, August 18th, 1909, just when everybody was clamouring for an investigation, when the insurance department of New York State was asking for an investigation into the affairs of the bank. Mr. Travers was doing everything he could to stave off that investigation. Instead of writing direct to the Customs Department we find him writing to Mr. Calvert as follows:
W. S. Calvert, Esq., M.P.,
Strathroy, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Referring to my conversation with you regarding the entering with the Customs Department my yacht ' Wanda,J will you kindly make an application in my behalf to accomplish the same. It is a pleasure yacht for the use of my family only, and is now at Maitland, Ontario. It was a present

to me from Mr. F. C. Whitney, of Detroit. It is sixteen years old and I doubt very mu oh if it would bring .$1,000 if offered by auction. If I cannot have it appraised at a low figure I shall have to return the boat as I cannot afford any such luxury.
It enables my family to buy all their supplies at Brockville, and I am sure the people there would be sorry to see me return the boat.	,
I am sorry to trouble you in the matter, but will be very much obliged if you will be so kind as to see what can be done for me in the matter.
Yours very truly.
(Sgd.) W. R. TRAVERS.
That is about a month after the loan to Mr. Calvert. Travers writes to him asking him to get his boat passed at a low valuation. Mr. Calvert writes to Mr. McDougald, Commissioner of Customs, on the 19th of August, after having a personal conversation with that gentleman. His letter reads:
Dear Mr. McDougald,-I inclose letter from Mr. W. R. Travers, general manager, the Farmers' Bank, Toronto. As I informed you the other day, unless this old boat can be admitted for a 'nominal sum, say valuation of SI,000 or so, Mr. Travers will return it as he advises me, it is not worth- much to anybody, and was given to him as stated in his letter.
You will, therefore, have your appraiser take a look at it and let me know what can be done. I believe he had it painted this summer and it looks clean, so I am informed. I think if you can pass it at above sum of valuation it will stay in Canadian waters, and if not, then I guess he will return it to the donor.
Yours very truly,	.
(Sgd.) W. S. CALVERT.
So you see Mr. Calvert the Liberal whip had personally interviewed the Commissioner of Customs with a view to getting the boat through the Customs at a low valua tion. and actually suggested the valuation. If the Minister of Customs were here f would ask if that is the way the Customs Department is managed. This transaction came to light by accident, and I would ask how many entries are made through the Customs Department on the advice of the Liberal whip. It is an extraordinary circumstance and the Prime Minister should take cognizance of the matter. Mr. Farrow, assistant Commissioner of Customs, replied as follows:
File 68283.	Ottawa, August 24, 1909.
IV. S. Calvert, Esq.,
Strathroy, Out.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 19th instant, with enclosure from Mr. W. R. Travers, general'manager, the Farmers' Bank of Canada, Toronto, respecting the value for duty of the yacht * Wanda.'
One of the Dominion customs appraisers will visit Brockville in course of a week or ten days and examine and appraise the yacht for duty purposes.
Then we have a letter from Mr. Farrow to the Collector of Customs at Brockville.
I understood that it was the duty of the collector to make these appraisements himself, but in this case a special appraiser was sent down. Mr. Farrow's letter reads:
File 68283.	Ottawa, August 24, 1909.
The Collector of Customs,
Brockville, Out.
Sir,-In a week or ten days Mr. Dominion Appraiser Boughner will visit your port to examine and appraise the yacht ' Wanda,' owned by Mr. W. R. Travers, general manager, the Farmers' Bank of Canada, Toronto.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, (Sgd.) R. R. FARROW, Asst. Commissioner of Customs.
The valuation is interesting. I am informed that the boilers and engine alone for scrap iron would ibe worth several thousand dollars. It is a most expensive yacht, and it is valued on the suggestion of Mr. Calvert at the low sum of $1,600. Mr. Calvert suggested $1,000 or so, and the Customs Department being in an accommodating mood split the difference and made it $1,600. That matter should be taken cognizance of by the leader of the government. Mr. Calvert had been the instrument in securing the passing of the Farmers' Bank certificate; he was the instrument in having the yacht ' Wanda ' passed the customs at one-twentieth of its true value. Why did not Mr. Travers deal direct with the Customs Department instead of using the Liberal whip to secure the valuation of a boat worth thousands and thousands of dollars at $1,600. The Customs Department through the influence of the Liberal whip was defrauded out of hundreds of dollars in duty.
It is worthy of note in passing that Mr. Calvert is now on the Board of the Transcontinental Railway Commission dealing with the expenditure of millions and millions of dollars of the people's money for the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific. I ask the leader of the government if Mr. Calvert should be allowed to retain his position upon that board, or should there not be an investigation into his conduct in connection with these various matters. If he received a loan from Mr. Travers by reason of the influence he used either with the Finance Minister or with the Minister of Customs is it not reasonable to assume that he is open to receive loans, if you designate them as loans, from the contractors engaged in the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific? Is it not a matter of fair comment to say that all this is worthy of the closest investigation, and that is one of the reasons why we earnestly press that a Royal Commission of investigation be appointed. Then there was interested in the granting of the certificate the member for

Peterborough (Mr. Stratton) whose trust and guarantee company, of which he is the master mind, and which he directs and controls, and which would not proceed in a transaction of this kind without his consent, knowledge and direction, is responsible for assisting them in getting illegally a ioan in order to raise the necessary de-' posit to place with the government before the certificate could be issued. I say that Mr. Calvert, who was then Liberal whip, was also to blame and directly responsible for getting this certificate through the Treasury Board. The next hon. member who was directly and primarily responsible for the loss attendant upon the Farmers' Bank is the Minister of Finance himself. Impelled by these unseen influences and in the face of all these warnings, the Minister of Finance cannot escape the responsibility. And yet the Minister of Finance does not show any desire to assist the poor unfortunates who lost their money as shareholders or depositors by appointing a Royal Commission. Is it because forsooth that he or his department, or some of his political friends might be publicly censured for their share in starting this wild concern upon its riotous career? The shareholders have unanimously expressed a desire at their meeting in Toronto for a Royal Commission, and one of their arguments was that a Royal Commission would not be hampered by the strict rules of evidence/ and by the strict rules of procedure that obtain in a court of law. There have been one million dollars squandered in the last four years., That money has gone somewhere and the depositors and shareholders and the general public want to know where that money has gone. All the parties who had any share in connection with the promotion and flotation of the Farmers' Bank can, if the Royal Commission be appointed, be put on oath, and all the facts elicited. That Royal Commission would assist the curator to ascertain the facts, and it might probably secure information which would enable the poor people to recover some of their money. I do not wish to go into the personal aspect of the relations between the Trust and Guarantee Company and the Farmers' Bank, but I believe that if the officers of the Trust and Guarantee Company were placed in the witness box before a Royal Commission it would be found that their loans to the Farmers' Bank were illegal and the securities would have to be returned to the curator of the Farmers' Bank and so a large amount of money would be available to relieve the depositors and shareholders from paTt of the loss they have suffered. I am sure the members of the House will agree with me that the defence -of the Minister of Finance in this matter was about the weakest case he has ever made in this < Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
House. He told us that the incorporation of the bank was not objected to by the opposition. Why should it? Presumably the men were respectable individuals, and no one would object to the incorporation under ordinary circumstances, and besides it was not Mr. Travers who was asking for the incorporation, it was the provisional directors. Let it be remembered however, that it was Mr. Travers alone who was asking for the certificate. The point was made by the Minister of Finance that the notes that were actually discounted by the subscribers were eventually paid and hence the bank was not wrecked on account of lack of capital. But I submit the answer to that is quite'clear, and it is that the bank had been granted a certificate to do business when it was in a crippled condition and the promoters of the bank were forced into speculation and illegal operations in order to try and retrieve the fortunes of the bank, and when the minister says those notes were eventually paid and consequently no capital lost to the bank, I submit that statement is completely answered by the fact that because of the crippled condition of the bank at its birth the manager was forced to engage in illegal speculation which brought loss and ruin to the innocent shareholders and depositors. The Minister of Finance also spoke of the high character Mr. Travers had at that time, but reasonable inquiry on the part of the minister would have disclosed that Mr. Travers had no substantial standing in the community in which he lived. It did not take the hon. member for London (Mr. Beattie) 24 hours to find out that he would have nothing whatever to do with Mr. Travers. On a Monday morning Mr. Travers'- agent came to the member for London, and asked him to be a provisional director and subscriber for stock, but the member for London refused and he went straight into the first branch bank he came to and made inquiries about Mr. Travers, and he decided on the information he then obtained to have nothing to do with the institution. How very easy it would have been for the Minister of Finance to do as the member for London did, and thus prevent the loss, which subsequently fell so heavily upon the shareholders and depositors. I can only explain the opposition of the Minister of Finance to the granting of a Royal Commission of investigation on the ground that he believes that there is something which might come out which would pr-'ve to be detrimental to his department, or detrimental to the other members who were connected with the promotion of the bank and the granting of a certificate. If the government refuses a Royal Commission the government must accept the full responsibility for its course. The people of this Dominion, whether financially interested in

the Farmers' Bank or not will condemn the refusal of the government to grant a Royal Commission in order to have this whole sad affair thoroughly investigated.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I
would not speak on this question were it not for the evident attempt on the part of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) to make political capital out of this most unfortunate affair. We on this side agree with our hon. friends opposite that a great wrong has been done to many people in the province of Ontario, and we sympathize with the people who lost their money just as sincerely as they do. We have an impression that if it were only to protect the poor people who have lost their money in this transaction we would not have had two days of the valuable time of this House taken up in the discussion of this matter unless they hoped to make political capital out of it. I intend to discuss the matter for a short time along this line. My hon. friends have for two or three monthsr in fact, ever since the failure of this bank, by insinuation, innuendo and finally by direct statement, attempted to convince the people of this country that the Liberal party in some way or other were responsible for this unfortunate failure. We had hardly assembled until an attempt was made to prove that the Premier himself was in some way connected with it and had received a contribution from Travers, the manager of the bank, in the form of the first bill that was issued. That was exploded by the Premier reading the letter that he had sent to Travers, and we heard nothing more about it. Next we had an attack by the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce), in a notice of motion which he gave to this House on the 23rd of January, in which he stated:
I beg to give notice that to-morrow I will move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, to wit, the receipt by ministers of the Crown of gifts of money in the form of testimonials and of the reported contribution to such testimonials or testimonial of a sum of money by one William R. Travers, late general manager of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, now in liquidation, said Travers having been convicted and being now under sentence of six years' imprisonment for: having falsified returns to the government and for theft of the moneys of the bank.
My hon. friend was not able to prove this insinuation, and all he could do was to quote headlines from such papers as the St. John 'Standard' and the Saskatoon ' Capital.' Next we had a number of notices of motion and questions on the Order Paper by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), and finally we have a debate which has been continued for the last two days. I do not intend at this late hour to go into the details of the case. It is all so simple, it is so easy for hon. gentlemen opposite
to be wise after the act, and it is so difficult for people to foresee all these things that I am surprised that my hon. friend from North Ontario would make the ridiculous and wild statements which he has made here to-night, to the effect that the loss which has been entailed upon these poor people can be directly laid to the fault of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). Why does he not go back further than that? He must admit that there was only a hundred thousand dollars out of the total of $250,000 of capital stock which was not actually subscribed. That is only $100,000, and what has become of the $1,250,000? Of course, we know it has been lost due to speculation. That is public property and has been for months. My hon. friends come back and say that the Minister of Finance is directly responsible. Some of them go so far as to say that he is directly guilty of the loss of this monev. Why does not the hon. member for North Ontario go back further and say that the House of Commons is responsible? If the House of Commons had not incorporated the bank it would not have been possible to have stolen this $1,250,000. But, I am getting away from the point that I want to discuss. All the facts of this case have been so thoroughly discussed and placed on ' Hansard ' that I would only be repeating if I were to undertake to discuss them at length. The fact is before the House that the affidavit of Travers bore the names of the very respectable gentlemen who were the first directors of the bank. I would like to ask my hon. friends if there is one of them who would have considered that Lieutenant-Colonel R. McLennan, of Cornwall, Lieutenant-Colonel James Munro, Mr. Allan Eaton and Mr. Robert Noble, not to mention their bosom friend at that time, one Dr. Beatty Nesbitt, were such characters that it was the duty of the minister to have sent detectives up and down the country to look into their antecedents, their previous history and their records, before he should grant that charter? There is not a man sitting opposite who would not have done exactly what was done with the documents in their possession. It is true that the minister did receive an intimation from Leighton McCarthy that there was trouble about a certain sum of money before the certificate was issued, but he also received notice from Mr. McCarthy that his clients, having received their money in full, there was no further trouble. Mr. McCarthy asked the minister to return to him the documents and papers in connection with the matter. Then the certificate was issued, the bank commenced doing business and unfortunately stole from the people of this country something like $1,250,000. When the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) was addressing this House last evening, he made use of these words:
54e3

We have been told-I do not remember whether in this House or outside of it-that the person who was chief whip in the Liberal party in this House at that time introduced Travers to the Finance Minister. It has been established that, shortly afterwards, that chief whip made a loan from this bank-stated by some to amount to $5,000, but, I believe, stated by himself at $3,000, and that loan was charged up to commissions. Something occurred we have not learned yet.
The Finance Minister never would have acted as he did upon the facts we have and no more; there are other facts we have not got yet. The people of this country have a right to know the whole of these facts.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friends say 4 hear, hear.' I say ' hear, hear,' because I will give you the whole of the facts.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: All of them?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. I think that even the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Boyce) will admit that, when I have given him all the facts that are set forth in the document in my hands. This was followed by an article which appears in the Ottawa press of this afternoon and which is as follows :
Mr. Crothers of West Elgin declared that at the meeting of the Treasury Board, at w hich the certificate was granted, there were only three present, and not a quorum. 'Sir Richard Cartwright was not present or the certificate wouldn't have been issued,' said he.
The manager of the bank was introduced by the then chief Liberal whip, and we find that the chief whip a few days afterwards obtained a loan of $3,000 or $5,000 from the bank, which was afterwards charged to commissions.
My hon. friend from North Ontario reiterated that statement. He used the _ word ' commission.' I do not know what is the source of that word ' commission ' but I must say that in the absence of some evidence to the contrary it must have originated in the imagination of some hon. gentlemen opposite who are anxious to make political capital out of this unfortunate transaction. Now, we have had this information for the last two months. It remained for the hon. member for North Ontario to-night to come out flat-footed, bold and open and make the charge which he has made against a former whip, and now a member of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. I think it would have paid my hon. friend from North Ontario to have made some inquiries into the facts of this transaction as far as that gentleman was concerned, before making the violent and vicious attack which he has made upon him to-night without the least foundation in fact and without having made the least attempt to verify the charges and insinuations that he was making. If my Mr. CARVELL.
hon. friend from North Ontario is-I will not say mean enough, because that, I presume w'ould be unparliamentary-but my hon. friend from North Ontario in making the charges which he has made against a' former member of this House, and who now occupies an important position on the Transcontinental Railway Commission, has not done himself justice, let alone making those statements without first trying to find out some of the facts with reference to the matter. If my hon. friend from North Ontario were half as anxious to do justice in this case as to make a vicious, unwarranted, unmanly attack upon a man occupying an important position


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. CARVELL-He would have taken some means to have verified this information.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I think the word ' unmanly ' is not parliamentary.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will take it back, and I will call it the most manly act which the hon. gentleman has done that I have known since he has held a seat in this House. I propose now to give to the House the whole transaction between Mr. Calvert and the Farmers' Bank, and I have here a statement which I shall read and put on ' Hansard.' I have the original notes,' the original letters, all the documents in connection with this matter, which I propose to give the House.
In the first place the certificate was issued on the 30th November, 1906. Almost three years later, on the 9th July, 1909, Mr. Calvert borrowed from the bank the sum of $3,000 and gave his demand note for that , mount as follows:
Toronto, July 9, 1909.

On demand after date, I promise to pay to the order of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, three thousand dollars with interest at six per cent, at the Farmers' Bank of Canada.


W. S. CALVERT.
[Stage Direction]
On the lefthand corner of the note, in the handwriting of W. R. Travers, are these words: ' Loan W. R. T.' Then there is this stamp:	' F. B. of C., L. 160, Tor.,
Ont.'
Francis Ramsey Lalor: No endorser?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, sir.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: Is it usual for a bank to lend money without an endorser?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can only tell the hon. gentleman that I get money without an endorser.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I can tell the hon. gentleman

	.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Probably your credit is not as good as Mr. Calvert's. I tell my

lion, friend that I get money from the Bank of Montreal without an endorser. Now remember that that was on the 9th of July, 1909. On the 22nd of July, or only fifteen days afterwards, Mr. Calvert paid back on that note $750. The endorsement is as follows :	'$750 paid on account 22nd July,
1909, and that is initialed * H That went on until the 9th of August, 1909, three weeks later, when Mr. Calvert borrowed $200 more, which was paid him by means of a check, and that brought the principal of the note up to $2,450. That remained as it was until the 1st December, 1909, when the interest was added to that amount of $2,450, and that brought the total amount to $2,510.82. And on that date a new note was given as follows:


Mr. SMYTH.: Where did you get that information?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: From Mr. Calvert. I have the original documents here-no copies:
Toronto, Ont., Deo. 1, 1909.

On demand after date, I promise to pay to the order of Farmers' Bank of Canada, twenty-five hundred and ten dollars and eighty-two cents with interest at 6 per cent at the Farmers' Bank of Canada here.



[Stage Direction]
Mark, again, and I hope my hon. friends opposite will take a note of this. It is in Travers' own handwriting: 'Loan W.R.T.'
' Mr. SMYTH. How do you know?
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Because I have Travers' handwriting here, and I compared the two. That was on the 1st December, 1909. On the 3rd January, 1910, or one month and three days afterwards, Mr. Calvert paid on that note the sum of $1,000, and on the 30th of June, 1910, or about six months later, he paid another $1,000. The endorsements on the back of this note are as follows :
$1,000 paid on account, 3rd January, 1910- R
$1,000 paid on account, 13th June, 1910.
That brought the amount down to $568, and on the 30th June Mr. Calvert gave another note. But in order to make the matter complete, perhaps I should first read this letter dated June 16, 1910. On that date the following letter was addressed by Travers to Mr. Calvert:
The Farmers' Bank of Canada, General Manager's Office, Toronto, June 16, 1910.
W. S. Calvert, Esq.,
C/o the Commissioners of the Transcontinental Railway, Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Yours of the 14th instant received, inclosing not for $568. and I now have 173
the pleasure of returning your old notes cancelled.
July 9, 1909, $3,000.
December 1, 1909, $2,510.82.
The latter being a renewal of the former. Yours truly,


W. R. TRAVERS.
[Stage Direction]
General Manager.
That was followed by a note dated June 30, 1910, for $568. as follows:
Toronto, Ont., June 30, 1910.
[Stage Direction]
On demand after date, I promise to pay to the order of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, five hundred and sixty-eight dollars with interest at 6 per cent per annum until paid at the Farmers' Bank of Canada here, for value received.

[Stage Direction]
Again marked in the handwriting of W. R. Travers is the word ' renewal ' and also the letter ' L ', which I presume stands for loan, ' W. R. T.' There was no endorsement on that note, and it was finally handed over to the Trust and Mortgage Company, and on the 27th of December, 1910, Mr. Calvert received the following letter:
Toronto, Dec. 22, 1909.
W. S. Calvert, Esq.,
Cornnr. Transcontinental Railway,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Re Farmers' Bank. We beg to notify yon that we are the holders for value of your note as followsDate, June 30, 1910, for $568 and interest, due on demand.
This note is drawn in favour of the Farmers' Bank of Canada and by them endorsed to ns. Please provide for payment at maturity on presentation of the note.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
General Manager.
That was paid by Mr. Calvert on the 31st December, 1910, and at that time the amount was $585.04. Mr. Calvert has therefore paid the total amount of $3,200 which he borrowed, and $133.04 in interest, and the statement which I have here, and which I want to have on ' Hansard ', is as follows:
Farmers Bank certificate issued November
30, 1906.
Mr. Calvert borrowed on demand note for business-
July 9, 1909, demand note	 $3,000 00
July 22, 1909, paid on account.. ..	750 00
Balance	 $2,250 00
August 9, 1909, received by check.. 200 00
Balance due bank	 $2,450 00
January 2, 1910, paid on account. $1,000 00 *Tune 13, 1910, paid on account.. 1,000 00 December 31, 1910, paid on account 585 04
[Stage Direction]
Amount paid as interest	 $ 135 01
[Stage Direction]


There is the whole transaction so far as Mr. Calvert is concerned. I would like_ to ask my hon. friend-and I am not saying this for the purpose of annoying anybody- if it would not have been more manly on the part of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) to have gone to Mr. Calvert and have taken some means to find out the details of this transaction without advertising to the world that Mr. Calvert had received $3,000 from the Farmers' Bank for introducing Travers to the Minister of Finance in order that Travers might obtain the certificate? I leave it to the sense of justice and manhood of my hon. friends to say whether it would not have been more manly on the part of these hon. gentlemen to have taken that course, rather than cast these insinuations broadcast for the purpose of aspersing the character of a man who occupies an honourable position and who stands as high in the esteem of the public as any hon. member on that side. Would it not have been more manly to take that course than to try to besmirch his fair name with insulting insinuations and statements without verification? I can only say that if the Tories had been as anxious to see justice done in this case as they have been to bring Liberals into discredit, they would not have allowed Dr. Beattie Nesbitt to escape when he could have been arrested as well as not. I wish to lay these documents upon the table of the House for investigation by any hon. gentleman who wishes to look them over.
Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: I do not intend to offer any excuse for making some observations, even at this late hour, in connection with the failure of the Farmers' Bank and giving some reasons why I deem it my duty to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson). The evidence already offered before the House, both by the speeches which have been delivered and by the return which has been laid upon the table of the House, to my mind is sufficient to convince any hon. member of this House who is disposed to look at that evidence in a fair and impartial manner that this transaction is one of the most iniquitous and indefensible in the financial history of this country. I have the special reason for taking part in this debate that the transactions of this bank were carried on in two branches in the riding which I have the honour to represent, and I have personal knowledge of the misfortune, the loss, and the misery entailed upon some of the people of my riding through the notorious transactions of this bank. Why, Sir, during the past four or five weeks, we have seen most strenuous efforts put forth on the other side of this House by hon. members supporting Mr. CARVELL.
the government, and by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) especially, to convince the farmers of this country that that hon. gentleman took a special interest in their welfare and that he had carefully guarded and protected and advanced the interest of the farmer by the recent bargain he has made with the IJnited_ States. But I venture to say that by his conduct in connection with the granting of a certificate to operate the Farmers' Bank, in the course of its two years' operation, he has made it possible for that bank to rob the farmers of this country of more thousands of dollars than they will be able to make from the reciprocity transaction in their lifetime. I paid very close attention to the remarks offered by the hon. Finance Minister himself, and also to the speech of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir W7ilfrid Laurier) in answer to the charge made by the hon. member for Halton in support of his amendment now before you, and I must say that, never, during the ten years I have had the privilege of occupying a seat in this House, have I listened to a more lame defence-if it could be termed a defence at all-than has been offered on this occasion. It is not a defence; it is not even a reasonable excuse, for the conduct that has characterized the Treasury Department in this matter. As I view the evidence that has been offered before this House, there are certain facts that are admitted or are proven beyond any controversy; and upon these admitted or well-proven facts, it appears to me, there is no good reason why the motion of the hon. member for Halton should not be granted. The evidence has established, and no one would undertake to contradict it, that this bank has failed, has ignominiously failed, and that it has entailed loss and hardship upon some of the people of this country that no man can picture in words. That fact stands out clear and beyond dispute. A second fact is patent-that this failure has been caused by reason of the Bank Act not being in fact complied with, and by bad management. I do not think that any hon. member of this House would question that that is the fact. The third point that is made perfectly clear that the possibility of bad management and the possibility of evading the letter and spirit of the Bank Act was through failure to discover a fraud. These are the three facts that appear to me to be established beyond any question by the evidence that has been offered here.
These facts being admitted, the only question remaining for solution is: Where does the responsibility and blame rest? The Finance Minister says that he is not responsible; that he has been deceived. He admits that he has been deceived, but he lays the blame at the door of the manager of the bank, Mr. Travers. The people of

this country who have been defrauded out of their money, who trusted this bank, say that they have been defrauded just as the Finance Minister says that he was defrauded. But they say not that it was Mr. Travers who defrauded them, though he has been the direct means, but that it was the act, or want of action, on the part of the Minister of Finance that made it possible to rob them. And there is a fair, square issue between the hon. Finance Minister and the people who have been defrauded by the transactions of this bank. And, if there is one reason more than another why a royal commission should be appointed, and why a royal commission should be desired by the Finance Minister, it is that it will duly try that issue; and if, as _ he states, he is perfectly innocent and did his duty in connection with this matter, then the royal commission will establish that position for him and free him from any responsibility or any charge.
But if, on the other hand, the royal commission in its investigation of the affairs of this bank, its incorporation, and the granting of the certificate, should arrive at the conclusion that these people could not have been robbed hut for the carelessness and negligence of the Finance Minister,then I can understand why the minister would not want a royal commission to be appointed. Sir, in the answer of the Finance Minister to the various speeches that have been made in the support of the motion for a royal commission, the only reason ' given why this motion should not carry and a royal commission be appointed, so far as I can understand it, is that all the material facts to enable any one to pass a proper judgment upon this question, are now before this parliament. That, it seems to me, is begging the whole question. It has been declared upon the floor of this House during this debate that there is evidence, important and material evidence, to fasten the responsibility for this crime-I cannot call it anything else-to fasten"the responsibility for this matter where it properly belongs, that is not yet before this parliament or before the country. I am assured from a source that I deem to be perfectly reliable that in addition to the evidence offered by the leader of the opposition, there is more evidence, and perhaps more important evidence, evidence going to the very root of this transaction, evidence that worild be a help to the people who have lost their money, evidence to show where the money of which the people have been robbed has gone to. That is what the people of this country are anxious to find out. Everybody knows that they have been robbed, everybody knows the money has disappeared, everybody knows the money has gone somewhere, but the question is, wher" and the only answer is an echo. The
evidence will be forthcoming, I have no doubt, if this royal commission is granted, to establish where that money, or a very large proportion of it, has gone.


Mr. MILLER.: Does the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Halfon ask for an investigation that would show where the money went to? Does it not merely ask that the matter of issuing a certificate be inquired into?


Edward Guss Porter: I think if the hon member had read the resolution he would not have needed to ask the question at all. It. is plainly given in -the resolution itself.


Henry Horton Miller: I think mot.


Edward Guss Porter: I thoroughly believe that the evidence will show where a very large portion of this money has gone. I do not underake to say that any hon. member in this House, any one who has been mentioned, or has mot been mentioned, nor do I undertake to say who are those outside the House, who have received this money. But certain it is that somebody has it, and this royal commission would have th-e effect of unearthing that person or -those persons who have it, and enable the people to know what has become of their money.
Now the hon. the Finance Minister and the right hon. the Premier have urged as a reason for not granting this royal commission that the courts are already seized of this matter, and are -able to make a full and complete disclosure. I take direct issue with those two hon. gentlemen. The courts are only seized of the individual cases that are before them upon information of some individual, and the very moment in the investigation of these -particular cases that counsel on either side a-sks a question -that is not directly pertinent to the issue that is being tried, that moment the court will head off the investigation, and counsel will be told that that is not within -the purview of this court. Let me go further. If it is true that Mr. Travers practised a fraud upon the Finance Minister or upon the Treasury Board, and if the Fin-an-ce Minister and the Premier are anx-ious that that fraud should be investigated and everything iin connection with it made known then why has not the Finance Minister, or somebody in his department, laid an information in -con-n-ectioin with that fraud, and then the court could have gone on and investigated to the fullest extent. But nothing of that kind has been done, the courts are not -seized of that matter, and it is utterly impossible for them to make an investigation and -ascertain the facts.
Now it has been argued by different speakers on the government side of the House that a royal commission c-an do no mc-re than the courts are doing. Now what

can a royal commission do more than the courts of the land can do? Let me summarize. The courts of the land cannot determine whether fraud was practised upon the Finance Minister by Mr. Travers, or whether the Finance Minister, by his negligence and carelessness, practised a fraud upon the people of the country. The courts cannot determine that, but a royal commission cam. A royal commission can ascertain who received this money and where it has gone; the courts of justice cannot determine that, because there is no proceeding before them which would enable them to investigate to that extent. A royal commission can determine whether there is anything wrong with the machinery of the Bank Act by which corporations or individuals may obtain charters or whether the Bank Act is not sufficiently clear and strong to prevent such persons from practising fraud upon the Minister of Finance or upon the Treasury Board. But a royal commission having power to bring before it witnesses, documents and all the evidence that can be procured, will be conditioned to offer suggestions and advice in regard to the line of amendment of the Bank Act, that would be of material benefit., and a great advantage to the commission who axe considering the revision of the Bank Act. These are reasons why it appears to me that this royal commission should be granted. I can quite understand from the experience of the government with royal commissions why they should not^ court an investigation by such a tribunal if they can possibly avoid it. There was an investigation by a royal commission into a department of this government not so very long ago, and the results of that investigation were most disastrous to the good name of this government -and of that department. After all, the granting of a royal commis-sicn asked for by this motion would be very largely an investigation of another department of the government, the Department of Finance. If the facts already disclosed were aill the facts, they would seem to me to be an absolute justification for anybody to characterize the conduct of that department as being not only negligent but wilfully negligent in connection with this matter.
If that is so I can understand the Finance Minister not wanting an investigation such as is asked for here. In the time I have been in this House, I do not know of a single case where the Prime Minister has undertaken to defend a Minister of his Cabinet where he has been so lamentably weak as he was in his effort to defend the Minister of Finance. He could not offer a defence of that conduct, he did not pretend to defend what had been done, but he endeavoured to draw the attention of this Mr. PORTER.
House away from the real question at issue, and to send forth over the country the idea that this motion was such that it would not produce any good results or any results that would be of advantage to this parliament or to the country. He laboured the point, he went over it two or three times, reducing it down to a single point, and then whittling off that point by saying even if evidence was given on that point it would be of no advantage to parliament or to the country. He had no defence, the conduct of the Finance Minister and the Treasury Board was indefensible. If it were defensible, every member in this House knows that with the astuteness and ability of the Prime Minister he would have. offered a better defence than he did to-day. But the right hon. gentleman contented himself with the observations I have just referred to. The Finance Minister was good enough to say that he sympathized, he deeply sympathized with the unfortunate people who had lost their means in connection with the transactions of this bank. It is too late in the day for the Finance Minister to offer his sympathy. Sympathy is a good thing, it is a noble sentiment in any misfortune, but when the sympathy is offered by the very man who has made it possible to inflict the injury upon the person with whom he is sympathizing, the sympathy comes with very poor grace, it is gratuitous and will not be received with any kind of favour by those people who have been injured.
Speaking of the evidence of fraud that was in his possession, reference has been made to the fact that the letter of Mr. McCarthy was withdrawn or returned to him on the 7th day of November and that the meeting of .the Treasury Board at which this certificate was granted was not until November 30. Those two facts being proved, if Mr. McCarthy's letter and exhibit had been returned to him, then it was impossible that they should have been before the Treasury Board on the 30th of November. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) yesterday asked whether the endorsement on the writ and Mr. McCarthy's letter were before the Treasury Board and the answer, as I recollect it, was that no doubt the whole matter was generally discussed. The Finance Minister could not say at the moment what particular document or matter was discussed.
In the face of all that written evidence that he or his deputy had returned the documents to Mr. McCarthy on November 7, he knew perfectly well, or if he did not he should have known when he made that answer yesterday, that those documents were not and could not be before the Treas ury Board on November 30.
The Minister would have the House believe that he was very anxious that no step or proceeding should be taken in this

matter unless he was assured that everything was perfectly legal and right. He takes the precaution to send a letter to the Minister of Justice asking for his legal opinion on this question. This bank was applying for incorporation. It filed in connection with the application for a certificate what the Finance Minister thinks now ware necessary and sufficient documents. That was on one side, but the member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) had raised objection on the other side, and Mr. McCarthy had raised objections backed by a petition in writing by sending to the Minister a copy of the endorsement upon a writ giving all the particulars. There were the two positions. The bank with the evi dence in support of its application and the opponents of the application with the evidence in support of their objection. With all this in his possession what does the Finance Minister dc? He writes to the Minister of Justice for his lesal opinion, and he gets a reply from the deputy Minister. You will notice that this reply is dated November 28, 1906. Mr. McCarthy's documents had been withdrawn on the 7th. The letter of the Minister of Finance is of the same date. It will be observed that when the Finance Minister wrote to the Minister of Justice for a legal opinion he did not have and could not have the evidence that he had before in opposition to the application of this bank, yet he writes and incloses certain documents. The letter of the Deputy Minister of Justice shows clearly what these documents were He says:
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 28th instant, and of the inclosed papers, being the application from the Farmers' Bank of Canada for a certificate to commence business, under sections 13-17 of the Bank Act, and papers in support thereof.
Now, it is remarkable to say the least that with the evidence in support thereof, and with the evidence in opposition thereto, the Minister of Finance who is anxious to obtain a valuable opinion upon the whole case, withheld-because I cannot term it in any other way-withheld the evidence in opposition to the application and simply inclosed the evidence in favour of the application. That such was the case, and that, the Department of the Minister of Justice understood it perfectly well let me read the next sentence of his letter:
You ask me to advise you if on the papers submitted such certificate may legally issue.
Well, the deputy Minister of Justice had not a blessed thing before him, but the evidence in support of the application, and the Minister of Finance has declared to this House that these documents were the documents required by the Bank Act. and were sufficient for him and he sent these documents along to the Deputy Minister of Justice, and upon these papers submitted, which are all in favour of the application and are in compliance with the requirements of the Bank Act, he asked: Can I issue this certificate? What sort of an answer could he have expected, but the answer he got. The Deputy Minister of Justice wrote:
In reply, I have to state that the statements in the statutory declaration of Mr. Walter R. Travers are sufficient, if they are accepted.
Apparently the Deputy Minister of Justice had in some manner or other been ad vised or had heard of there being some evidence in opposition to this certificate being granted, and he very carefully guards his action, and his advice by reciting in his letter that upon the evidence submitted, if you believe that evidence he says to the Finance Minister, then you may issue the certificate. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is asking too much of any hon. member of this House, I think it is asking too much of the people of this country to believe that that written evidence discloses all the facts in connection with this transaction. I will not put it stronger, but I think I am perfectly justified in putting it thus strong: That there must be back of this, something that a royal commission would unearth, and which I think the people of this country are entitled to have uncovered, and the fullest disclosure made of it. The Minister of Finance said that it was not , possible now that any relief could be obtained; the certificate having been granted, the bank having gone into operation, these frauds had been perpetrated, the people had lost their money, and there was no redress. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if before he granted that certificate he considered what the consequence of improperly granting that certificate might be. If he did consider, it would have occurred to him at once that the very thing that has happened here might happen unless he exercised the care that in his position he should exercise, and unless he safeguarded the interests of the people of this country. And in view of the fact that he did not make such inquiry, that he did not exercise the power and authority1 he possessed, and that he entirely ignored or overlooked the rights of the people, I say to put it mildly, that the Minister of Finance for that alone deserves the censure of the people, at all events of those who have lost their money. Now, Mr. Speaker, I intended when speaking upon this matter to call attention to one or two particular cases which have arisen in the constituency I have the honour to represent. Inasmuch as so few illustrations of the wrong-doing of this bank have been so far offered to the House, I think I would be justified even at this late hour in mentioning one or two of these cases which

I know from my own personal knowledge. In one case a widow whose former husband was an employee on one of the railways was killed in a railway accident, and she was left with two small children, four years and six years old respectively, absolutely penniless. An action was brought on behalf of the widow to recover compensation from the railway company, and the litigation was successful, and the railway company paid $2,500 as compensation. A cheque from the railway company came to my office on a Saturday, and the widow was written to to come in for the cheque. She came in on Monday a little before three o'clock in the afternoon, and when I handed her the cheque I said: You ought to put this money in some bank where it would be safe until you find an opportunity of investing it. I advised her to put the money in the Bank of Montreal. Her answer was that the manager of the Farmers' Bank had heard in some way or other that she was getting this money, and he came to her house and asked her if she would not deposit it in the Farmers' Bank. She said she had promised him to do so, and that she must keep her word with him. I handed the cheque over a few minutes before three o'clock, and she carried it three blocks down the street to put it into the Farmers' Bank. The Farmers' Bank was closed for the day in less than fifteen minutes afterwards, and the doors never opened again, and the widow lost her money. And, Sir, all this misfortune was brought on her by the want of caution, to put it mildly, of the Treasury Board in granting that certificate to the Farmers' Bank. Let me give the case of two farmers for whose welfare the Minister of Finance is always so solicitous. These two neighbouring farmers in the township of Sydney had purchased their farms two or three years ago, paying a high price as the land there is very valuable. Last year the Canadian Northern Railway Company came along, and ran through these two farms, and expropriated the right of way, and in due course the compensation was paid to the farmers by the railway. The local solicitor for the Canadian Northern railway who is also the solicitor for the. Farmers' Bank, issued cheques to these farmers for $750 each upon the Farmers' Bank, and they took the cheques over to the bank, and it was then after banking hours, and the cash was locked up. They left the cheques there on deposit until the bank opened next morning when they were to come and get the money, but the next morning came and the farmers came, but the bank was closed and has never opened since, and the money they received as compensation for their land was stolen in this way.- In view of all these facts is there any possible justification or reason why the government ought not to grant the motion Mr. PORTER.
that has been made by my hon. friend from Halton? It surely cannot be on the ground of expense, it surely cannot be on the ground that the people of the country do not want it. What is the reason? If there is any good and bona fide reason, why it ought not to be granted, then, for heaven's sake, let somebody on the government side of the House get up and tell us what it is.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES (Victoria and Hal-iburton).: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the debate yesterday was not listened to by me; I. was absent but I have had the pleasure and privilege of reading the speeches of both sides and possibly I have obtained more good from that than if I had been present and listening. There is very little left for me to say. One of the points in connection with the matter is that the government seem to have given up their love for royal commissions. I cannot say what has come over the spirit of their dreams. They have always been very ardent supporters of royal commission until the present moment. Mr. Courtney, who has distinguished himself on one royal commission, I have not the slightest doubt, would be perfectly willing to act upon another royal commission to investigate matters in connection with the Farmers' Bank and possibly the scope of the inquiry might be enlarged so as to take in general matters in connection with the banking system of the country in view of the necessity of the new bank law which is to be brought in.
The county that I have the honour to represent was unfortunate in having three of these branches located in it, one at Dunsford, one at Kinmount and one at Lindsay. The depositors there have lost upwards of "$106,000. Therefore it is needless for me to say to this House and the country how deeply these localities are affected. I may say that _ it was in the town of Lindsay that the final collapse of the Farmers' Bank was brought about by the exposure made there during a trial which had been instigated by this man Travers. He secured the .arrest of three young gentlemen in connection with one of the banks for warning customers of the Farmers' Bank that in their opinion their money was not safe in that institution. He had these men arrested and after long preliminary proceedings the trial came on and the exposure was made showing that Travers was the real criminal instead of the three young gentlemen that were souerht to be implicated. It was as a result of that trial and the exposure which took place that the doors of the Farmers' Bank were closed.
In supporting the motion for this royal commission I do so on these grounds. The charter was obained in the ordinary

way; that counts for nothing. Following that was the issue of the certificate and if all the conditions prescribed by the Bank Act necessary for the issuing of the certificate were complied with, then the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the government have nothing to fear from the granting of a royal commission and, in furtherance of the same idea, the government are in no wise responsible for anything in connection with the Farmers' Bank. But, if the government did not take due precautions, if the government have been negligent, if the government have been more than negligent, if they have committed a blunder-and we are told tjiat a blunder is worse than a crime -then I say that it is the duty of the government not only to grant a royal commission, but, I go further and say that the people who were the victims of this failure have a very just claim against the treasury of this country for the loss that they have sustained. We find that the certificate was not properly obtained. More than that, the Minister of Finance admits that he was notified by Mr. McCarthy to investigate the information which had been furnished him. The Minister of Finance says that Mr. McCarthy withdrew his objection. Will the Minister of Finance say that Mr. McCarthy withdrew the facts of the case? What were the facts of the case? That notes were being given for subscriptions to stock and that subscriptions to stock had been raised in that way. These were the charges that were made to the Finance Minister. The mere fact that Mr. McCarthy had been settled with and that this settlement had removed his objection did not remove the facts of the case at all. In other vyords, Mr. McCarthy's statement shows that fraud was being perpetrated in a certain ease and it was the duty of the Minister of Finance to see if fraud was being perpetrated in other cases. He should have ordered an investigation into the matter. Had he done so the true condition of affairs would have been discovered, the certificate would not have been issued and these innocent people would not have been swindled. I shall not take up the time of the House further than just to present briefly this view of the case. It has been well argued all through. I support the motion of my hon. friend calling for a /royal commission in order that there may be a full investigation into the affairs of the bank with the view of ascertaining, as has been said, where these funds have been disposed of and how they have been disposed of and of ascertaining still further whether some of them may not be honestly and fairly reclaimed in order to lighten the burdens of the poor people
who are the victims in this transaction. I support it also in order that evidence may be obtained which will be of great assistance to us in moulding the new Bank Act, and still further I support it on the ground that I am satisfied that if a royal commission is granted the matter will be brought home so closely to the government and the negligence of the government m issuing this certificate will be so clearly shown that the people concerned will have a just claim against the government for the loss that they have sustained.	_
Reference has been made to the negligence of the Ontario government in not capturing Beattie Nesbitt. I may say as one who has more or less acquaintance with that gentleman that the moment I saw his name as president of the bank I warned every friend that I encountered to have nothing whatever to do with the institution. I do not see what is the cause of this government's being so solicitous about saving Beattie Nesbitt. They were not always so. Is there not something else behind this refusal to grant a royal commission, and if the government are true to their former objection to and suspicion of Beattie Nesbitt I should imagine that they would use their influence in order to secure this royal commission so that Beattie Nesbitt may be properly exposed. All the evidence that we have is from newspaper scraps, police court records and even the records of superior courts and localized references. A cohesive statement cannot possibly be obtained from such sources as these, and a commission is necessary in order to give the members of this House and the people of the country an opportunity of forming a correct con-elusion as to the facts in connection with the whole case. In other words, the evidence submitted thus far is simply scrappy. We have no systematic history, no systematic report, no systematic record of the matter at all. I shall not detain the .House farther as it is late. If the fraud perpetrated had been traced up and discovered at the beginning the certificate would not have been secured, the organization pf the bank would not have been permitted, and this loss would not have been inflicted upon the public. Let the government issue this royal commission. 1 maintain still further and I am prepared to stick to the position that the government is morally bound, if not legally, to recoup the people who have been swindled all over the country.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I am very reluctant to prolong this debate and would not think of doing so but for some observations made last night by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) and the hon. the leader of the

opposition (Mr. Borden). I do not intend to discuss at all the disposition which we ought to make of this motion by our votes. In that respect I have nothing to add to what has been said by my hon. colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. I think that they both have shown conclusively that no advantage can accrue to any one in this country by the carrying of the resolution moved. But with regard to the other subjects which have been discussed, and especially with reference to the charges made of inattention to duty or negligence on the part of the Treasury Board and particularly on the part of the Minister of Finance, I want to say a word. I speak with the more freedom on that subject as I am not, and never have been, a member of the Treasury Board. I do not know the way in which the business transacted by that board is carried on except to the extent to which, in common with other members of the government, I see the results of that business in the reports from that board to the Privy Council. But with reference to the manner in which this granting of a certificate to the Farmers' Bank was carried out and with reference to the circumstances, which, it is said, called for some additional investigation or inquiry by the Treasury Board and especially by the Minister of Finance, it seems to me that the reasoning which has been advanced by the hon. member for East Hastings and the hon. leader of the opposition was pressing the case against the Minister of Finance and against the Treasury Board far beyond anything which the facts would justify. I say nothing with reference to the unfortunate difference of recollection which exists between the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) and my hon. colleague, the Finance Minister, as to the substance of conversations which took place between them. But they were speaking, it is to be remembered, of occurrences which took place some four years and .more ago. . I think I am saying only what every man on this side would say with me, that there is no member of this House on either side who is held in more universal respect than my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson), and I am certain that every one who heard what he said or has read it in 'Hansard' is convinced that my hon. friend felt to be true every word he uttered. I certainly do not in the least degree doubt what he has said in that respect. I do not think it is possible to reconcile the statement of that hon. gentleman with that of the Minister of Finance. All I can say is that I give equal credence to what my hon. colleague has said and I believe that each of these hon. gentlemen spoke, to the very best of his recollection, the exact truth as he remembered the conversations in question. But it does not seem to me that we need, if Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
we were sitting as jurymen trying to decide what the facts may be, come to any conclusion in our own minds with regard to the difference of recollection which exists between these two hon. gentlemen, because if every warning which the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) says he gave the Minister of Finance actually took place, just as the words were repeated before this House, it does not carry the matter certainly -any farther, and in my judgment does not carry it as far as what afterwards came from Mr. Leighton McCarthy and the information given by the writ of summons, a copy of which was sent the Minister of Finance.
It is with reference, in the first place, to the contents of that writ of summons and the letters of Mr. McCarthy and the observations with regard to these circumstances which were made by my hon. friends the leader of the opposition and the hon. member for East Hastings, that I want to say a word. Most of us, perhaps every one of us, has some acquaintance with writs of summons and the endorsements thereon, and many of us-at any rate those of us who are lawyers-know something about the way in which such charges or allegations of fact are prepared. It is the business of the lawyer, when his client comes to him and instructs him to institute legal proceedings, to examine carefully the statements his client makes and put upon paper the legal result . or the summation of what his client has told him, in the form of legal phraseology, for endorsation on the back of the writ. When a writ of summons is issued, in Ontario at any rate, no verification of the statement made upon it is required from the person sueing or from the attorney by whom that writ of summons has been issued. So long as the allegations are not scandalous, irrelevant or impertinent in their character, the lawyer is at perfect liberty to frame his charges in exactly the language he may see fit to use, and I need not say that it is but ordinary prudence on the part of any practising solicitor, in preparing a writ of summons, to cover if possible all the ground that may by any chance be open to him and not leave untouched anything there may be even a hint or a hope of his being able to prove when the case comes to trial. I do not mean for a moment to say that no one should take otherwise than as serious the charges made in any legal document which may come to his notice, but I do want to impress upon every one that no one reading the lawyers allegations upon a writ of summons or other legal document is bound to accept those statements as being statements which necessarily will afterwards be established by proof, Let me give an illustration which may come home to most of us. There is probably no member of this House

who has not seen an election petition. Fortunate is the man who has not seen his own name figuring upon such a document. Now any one who has read the ordinary election petition, which is prepared by the petitioner's solicitor and which, bear in mind, is not allowed to be put on the files of the court until it is verified by the sworn statement under oath of the petitioner who seeks to unseat his successful antagonist-no one who has ever read the general allegations therein made of fraud and wrong-doing with which every election petition bristles, will fail to understand just how much information is to be had from such a document and how much confidence is to be placed in it.
The way in which an election petition is ordinarily prepared is by the solicitor-if he does not utilize some printed form that' has been given to him for the purposesitting down and taking up seriatim the clauses of the Controverted Elections Act and charging that the sitting member has, by himself or by his agents, with or without his own knowledge and actual consent, been guilty of breaches of each one of these sections. That is a much longer story than it would be if the decalogue were taken and a man were charged seriatim with having broken each and every one of the ten commandments. And just exactly as much dependence is to be placed upon what is called the ' special endorsement/ if you please, on the back of the ordinary writ of summons. I make no point of the circumstance that the allegations in the writ of summons are not verified by affidavit. I think that experience has demonstrated that the requirement of an affidavit verifying the statements in an election petition is the merest form and farce; and, although there is an affidavit there, none the less every election petition contains wholesale charges of fraud, charges of corrupt practices, charges, it may be, of perjury and personation for which, when the case comes to be investigated, even after, it may he, weeks of trial, it is demonstrated, there never was any shadow of foundation in fact. Now, when I look at the endorsement upon the writ of summons, a copy of which was sent to the Finance Minister in connection with this matter, I find in it, I think, just the same sort of wholesale declamation that is ordinarily to be found in the average election petition. It is all very well now, in the light of subsequent events, in the light of the knowledge which, years later, has become public-it is all very well now for any one to single out a few lines here and a few lines there in this long averment of wrong doing and fraud on the part of those organizing this hank, and say: Look at that; is not that a specific allegation which should have put any.. one reading it upon his guard and which was the most distinct possible warning to him
that this was all wrong? If the writ had been issued making one specific charge, I grant it would have been a circumstance to which considerable attention would have been drawn. But when there is, as there is here, literally a volume of general averment of fraud of every kind and description, I think the very wholesale nature of these charges would at once lead one to think, this is the kind of action in which, very probably, the plaintiffs have but little to go upon and are seeking by some possibility to find something illegal or wrong in the course of the organization of this proposed institution.


Edward Guss Porter: May I ask the Minister of Justice a question? Does he think Mr. Leighton McCarthy to be a lawyer who would endorse a writ as this writ is endorsed without having some evidence upon which he believed the charge to be established?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think I may answer what I understand to be the question of the hon. gentleman in the Irishman's fashion, by asking my hon. friend from West Hastings (Mr. Porter) if he never prepared a writ of summons in the course of his legal practice that he would not be willing to swear to the truth of? I say it is an every day matter in ordinary practice' for a solicitor to endeavour _ to cover every possible ground of objection which will support his case.


Edward Guss Porter: The minister has asked me a question, and I will answer him by saying :	' I never did to my knowledge,
prepare a writ to go out of my office, when I did not believe I had evidence to support the charge made. And I do not believe that Mr. McCarthy would do so either.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Under the rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, I am compelled to accept the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Porter's) statement. Now, I say, any [DOT]ordinary business man reading the allegations with which this writ of summons is replete, could come, I think, to no other conclusion than that here was an action in which, for some reason or other-probably for good reasons if you please-plaintiffs who had subscribed to certain shares of stock in this bank rued their act, wished to get out of it. and had gone to a lawyer to advise them and to issue a writ beginning a suit to relieve them from their responsibility. That is the purpose of the suit and what I should consider the material allegation in this long narrative of charges of every kind of illegality and fraud is the gtatement that the subscriptions of these particular individual plaintiffs were procured by misrepresentation and fraud. Now that is not, at all events, so uncommon a thing in ordinary business affairs as to excite much suspicion. I have known-

and I should be quite able on very short notice to show to any hon. gentleman interested-cases reported in the law books- where men who had subscribed for sums of greater or less size for the building of a church were afterwards sick of it, tried to get out of it, brought suit to be relieved, or defended suits that were brought against them to collect. It is not at all an uncommon thing for a man who has appended his name to some subscription list, whether for shares in a proposed company, for shares in a bank, or to an application for life insurance, to seek to get out of his contract, and, in so doing, to charge that there had been grave misrepresentations or frauds inducing him to give his name to the agent who had canvassed him. That is the nature, speaking in a general way, of this suit which was brought. They have gone on to specify particular misrepresentations which, whoever sought their subscription is said to have made to them, and they have also added what I have spoken of as these general charges of irregularity and infraction of the provisions of the Bank Act in different specified matters and in further matters that are not specified.
Well, that writ having been issued, and a copy of it having been given to the Minister of Finance, some days later the solicitor for the plaintiff tells the Minister of Finance: My client's claims are satisfied, I am not proceeding further with this suit, and I withdraw any objections which I have made to your acting in this matter of issuing the certificate to the Farmers' Bank, just as you would have done if I had never intervened in the case. But that is not all. This action is disposed of by the court, is formally dealt with by a judge of the court, his judgment is upon record and his judgment and the decision do-what? Not declaring that the allegations are established, not declaring even that there was any attempt to prosecute the action to a hearing, or to make good these charges of fraud, but on the contrary, showing on its face that the action is dropped, and being dropped, is dismissed out of court. Now, do not let me be misunderstood as seeking to convey the impression that the formal judgment of the court indicates at all that the charges have been disposed of. I am not pretending anything of that nature. The judgment speaks for itself, and is quite distinct. The action is formally dismissed because it is not being further prosecuted, *because no proof is being offered in support of the charges which have been made in the writ. And the reason for it all is made plain upon the face of the judgment, the reason for it is simply that these nine or ten subscribers, or whatever number they may be, have been relieved of their subscriptions, not that they have been Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
bought off, as it has been put in the course of this debate, not that they received hush money, not that they have done anything which is discreditable, but simply that some one has come forward and said:	I
will take your place, transfer your rights to me, I will buy your shares, I will pay, you back the money you have paid in, and I will relieve you of the matter out and out. That is all they wanted. They have brought the suit, they have gone to a lawyer only to be rid of their subscriptions, some one comes to them and says: Very well, you are not content with your proposed investment, I am; you have no confidence in this institution, I have; I will take your place, here is your money back. There was nothing immoral, nothing wrong or reprehensible in their saying:	Very well, that
ends it so far as we are concerned. No more is there anything wrong, or suspicious, or in any way reprehensible in the man who had handed them back their money and bought out their rights, saying:	For my
part, I am content, I do not want this suit to go any further. It may be I have no evidence of the truth of these averments, but whether I have or have not, I, having bought out those plaintiffs' rights, now standing in their shoes, and being content with the position of affairs, say that this suit is to stop, I am not going to invest any more of my money in it. And taking that position, going before the court and stating that it is not proposed to substantiate these averments, the court deals with the matter by declaring accordingly that the action is dismissed. Now, in that state of matters how can it be argued that the whole matter of this suit, and of whatever information, or warning, or ground for suspicion the statements in the writ beginning that suit might have caused to the mind of any reader, was not absolutely at an end, withdrawn, put an end to as completely as though it had never existed? If one wanted to dwell upon the letter of the thing, the suit is disposed of by the court dismissing it, that is the form it takes, that is the actuality and the substance of it. But in those circumstances I think the argument that is attempted to be made by the hon. member for East Hastings, and to a less' strong extent by the leader of the opposition, is one that is not well founded.
Now, I want to say one word upon the connection of the Department of Justice with this matter, in which some hon. gentlemen, and especially the hon. member for East Hastings, find ground for additional grave suspicions. Apparently it is thought to have been a suspicious circumstance that the Department of Finance should ever have referred to the Department of Justice in this matter. Well, I am very sure that hon. gentlemen opposite who have themselves been in charge of depart-

ments of government, would never seek to convey any such impression to the House. I will admit that when I first took charge of a department of government as Postmaster General, having as I thought, enough legal knowledge to attend to any legal difficulties which arose in connection with the business of that department, it seemed to me there was no sense in my referring to the Justice Department. I thought I could be my own lawyer, and I tried it for some little while, until.I found that was not the course of business. It is very well, I think, that it is so. Our statutes put upon the Minister of Justice the obligation, the duty, of advising other departments of government and no minister other than the Minister of Justice, though he may be a better lawyer than the Minister of Justice is, ought to be expected to take the responsibility of determining for himself legal questions when there is a proper official of the government appointed for that duty. It was the ordinary course of business for the Department of Finance to refer to the Department of Justice the question whether or not the papers which were presented in this matter were regular and in form, whether the requirements of the Bank Act seemed to have been sufficiently complied with on the face of these papers. That is just what the Department of Justice was asked for, and nothing else. There was nothing extraordinary, nothing out of the ordinary couuse of business, in the answer to the Finance Department in that respect being limited to the one question whether or not the papers which were presented in this case seemed to be regular, and whether or not, upon the face of them, the requirements of the Bank Act had been complied with. Exception seems to be taken by some hon. gentlemen to the wording of the answer which was made over the signature of the Department of Justice. I cannot remember at this moment whether the matter in any way came before me personally; I suppose very likely it did not. In the ordinary distribution of the daily business of the Department of Justice, it is only in the case of matters upon which there seems to be some advantage in a consultation between the deputy minister and myself, that I would know personally anything of a reference from another department of the government. This matter was largely of a formal character, requiring simply an examination of the provisions of the Bank Act, with the papers in question before the lawyer who made the examination, and the verification of the fact that the requirements of that statute had been met. The deputy Minister of Justice writes in reply what my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. North-rup) considers a very careful letter, as
though for some reason or other something on the face of the papers excited some suspicion in the mind of Mr. Newcombe, and he was guarding himself at the expense of the Finance Department, instead of doing his duty as he would have done if he had seen any reason in the world for calling attention to something specifically. He writes:	>
j ill-)
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 28th instant, and of the inclosed papers, being the application from the Farmers' Bank of Canada for a certificate to commence business under section 13-17 of the Bank Act, and papers in support thereof.
And then the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) breaks off the reading of the letter to make this observation:
He is very careful to repeat their question, he takes no responsibility.
The letter proceeds:
You ask me to advise you if on the papers submitted such certificate may legally issue.
That repetition of the question propounded every lawyer who has ever drawn an opinion for .a client or any other correspondent knows is simply the ordinary custom of the profession. I am astonished at my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup). It is the commonest thing in the world for the lawyer who is preparing an opinion to state on the face of his opinion, even although it is but a repetition in so many words of the letter, in which is asked the opinion, what that question is; and so Mr. Newcombe has, in this instance, pursued only the ordinary everyday practice which certainly prevails in his method of discharging the duties of his office. in taking the course which he did. He proceeds in reply:
I beg to state that the statements in the statutory declaration of Mr. Walter R. Travers are sufficient, if they are accepted, to show compliance with the statutory provisions, and that the evidence thus afforded is such as the Treasury Board may lawfully accept under the Act, and thereupon issue to the bank a certificate under section 14 of the Act.
The presence in that letter of the phrase ' if they are accepted,' is seized upon here as indicating in the mind of the writer some question of whether those statements ought to be accepted. I have not referred to Mr. Newcombe in the matter; I do not suppose that at this day he would have any recollection independently of the papers of the circumstance of writing the letter in, question. I speak of the words which he has used simply from my general knowledge of the way in which such legal opinions would be framed either in the Department of Justice or in the law office of any ordinary practitioner, and I say that to my mind there is nothing in the least degree remark-

able, nothing in the least degree worthy ot comment in the language which Mr. Newcombe has chosen in which to express his opinion. He was not pretending to pass (upon the truth of the statements in the papers that were submitted to him, he was not asked to do so, he was simply saying in so many words: That is for the Treasury Board, it is for the Treasury Board to say whether or not they will accept these jjapers as evidence sufficient to their minds upon which to act under the provisions of the Bank Act. The Bank Act does not require an affidavit, it requires simply that the board shall be satisfied by affidavit 'or otherwise' that all the requirements of this Act and of the special Act of incorporation of the bank have been complied with. It might well be that the board would be satisfied without any affidavit. They might be satisfied by the evidence of documents other than affidavits. They might conceivably be satisfied by statements verbally made, although I doubt if there has been any instance in actual practice in which the board have been satisfied without verification of details on affidavit or statutory declaration. But in this case what Mr. Newcombe wras saying was plainly, simply: I pass upon the legality of the papers, I give you my opinion that the requirements of the Act have been met so tar as the face of these papers is concerned. I say nothing one way or the other about the contents of the papers, as to that the Treasury Board is to be the judge. It may be that the board will not accept these papers as sufficient evidence under the statute; it may be that the board will cal] for affidavits from somebody else. This is from the general manager. It may be that they will ask something from the president, it may be that they will make further inquiries or it may be that they will not do so. Upon all that Mr. Newcombe was not purporting to express the slightest opinion one way or the other. The use of the expression ' if they are accepted ' simply indicates that he was not expressing any opinion one way or the other upon that point.
In reference to this whole matter-I do not mean by that what has taken place in this House yesterday and to-day, as much as the failure of this bank and the circumstances of fraud and of crime which have surrounded its operation-I can readily understand how any man, even if he were a man of very different make-up than I think my hon. friend the Finance Minister is, would feel greatly troubled under the heavy weight of responsibility, although what he did was done for the best in the ordinary course of business and in the q^ercise of his very best judgment under the circumstances as they appeared to him at that time. I can understand how, any man placed in the position in which he is now placed, after the event, when it is so easy Sir ALLEN AYLESWOKTH.
forevery one to be wise, and especially under such attacks as have been made upon him here in the course of this debate should go away with a feeling of great discomfort that perhaps if he had done something different, if he had acted in some other way than that in which he did, the fortunes and the property of many people might have been saved; but speaking for myself, at any rate, and I think speaking for the majority of the members of this House, I have only to say that I cannot see in the circumstances w'hich have been disclosed here anything in respect of which he should have any feeling of self-condemnation or anything upon which it can be properly said that he has in the very least degree forfeited the confidence which we as members of this House have always felt in him.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: While my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) in the speech which he has just closed was expounding what he believed to be the law upon this subject, I could not but think of the lines of Shakespeare :
In law what plea so tainted and corrupt,
But being seasoned with a gracious voice
Obscures the show of evil.
I have the utmost respect for the legal opinion of the Minister of Justice. At the bar of Ontario he was a shining light. He brought to bear upon the investigation of those cases with which he was entrusted high talents; but I am constrained to the opinion that since he has become Minister of Justice these great talents and that bright .intellect have been clouded and warped by contact with the political souabbles of the day. We have s-een time after time where the Minister of Justice has allowed his legal opinions and his legal judgment to be swayed by the political exigencies of the matter before him. And, Sir, there never was a case in which that is more clearly shown than in the frantic, laboured and almost hysterical effort of the Minister of Justice to evade the law, to get around the facts, in order if possible to put out a helping hand to aid the Minister of Finance in the desperate position in which be finds himself. Then again, the lines of Shakespeare in * Macbeth ' come to my mind in connection with the facts of this case as we have them now and which absolutely condemn the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board. Sir, they are_the bids that will not come ouit, and though the hands which bear the blots be washed and washed and washed, and though he cry: 'Out! out! damned spots!' the Minister of Justice cannot wash out these spots lay any such specious argument as he has presented to-night. The hour is late and I shall have to deal briefly with the facts

of the case, but I shall attempt to show the position which this country and this government has to face in cxmnection with this deplorable matter. Let me say at the outset that I must confess that in a matter of such great consequence to this country and of such great pith and moment to our commercial interests, I never saw displayed swch laxity, such lofty and supreme indifference on the part of the ministry as I have seen to-night,. For the most of the day and into the night when the Treasury Board and the ministry has been under scathing criticism and charged with the most serious neglect, we have been treated to empty benches opposite, and for the most of the time not one member of the Treasury Board has been in his place. That is the kind of lofty indifference that the government shows to grave accusations of this kind, accusations of a character that have galled the government so badly that not one member of it has been able to stand up in his place and offer even a semblance of defence to the charges. And, Sir, what is the question before the House!? Under our banking laws, which we all supposed were the most stable of any civilized country in the world, which we believed were a guarantee of good faith and soundness in our banking institutions,, there was constructed this financial ship called the Farmers' Bank, which was launched upon the stormy waters for trading purposes. But, S,ix, that ship could not leave port to embark upon its trade unless it had sailing orders, and the sailing orders for that commercial ship had to be given by the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board, and before the Minister of Finance aind the Treasury Board could issue letters of marque, the law provided that they had to be satisfied In every respect that the conditions of the law had been fulfilled and that that financial ship was seaworthy, well captained, well manned and provisioned, and fit to undertake the commercial voyage for which she was intended.	But,
Sir, what of the owner of a ship who sits in his comfortable counting house and sends to sea a vessel he knows to he unseaworthy, which goes down and carries with it human lives, and freight amounting to a million or two of dollars. What of his responsibility? I put this case to the Minister of Justice: If the Minister of Finance or the Treasury Board knew that the Farmers' Bank was not properly equipped to do business, that there was the merest suspicion of fraud in connection with it, >amd if the Minister of Finance allowed that bank to go before the people of Canada with the stamp of government approval, to open its doors a.nd to receive deposits, I ask the Minister of Justice if, by all law, and by all reason, and
by all common sense that can be applied, the Minister of Finance, and the Treasury Board and the government are, not responsible for all the evil that results from the issue of that certificate? And what is the principle involved? I may be wrong in my conception of what the certificate authorizing a bank to commence business means, but my belief is-and I invite the Minister of Finance to correct me if I iam wrong-that the issue of this certificate is the stamp of government approval upon the institution, which, the moment the certificate is granted is empowered to open its doors, and by virtue or that certificate and that certificate alone to say to Tom, Dick or Harry, Martha, Jane, or Mary:	You can put your whole
fortune in this bank, and it is as safe as in any chartered bank in Canada. The Minister of Finance does mot dissent from that proposition; he cannot dissent. The sign of a chartered bank in Canada, and the opening of its doors have always been, and they are to-day an invitation to him who passes on the street to come in and transact business without any fear of being robbed. Well, Sir, the Minister of Finance was entrusted with no small duty, and no small responsibility in connection with launching this bank upon the commercial sea. The Farmers' Bank received that certificate, the Farmers' Bank failed, the failure brought misery to thousands, and a grievous cry has gone up from the oeople, a cry that rends the heart of any one who feels, a cry that can only be satisfied by this government granting that which the cry demands, a full and thorough investigation into all the circumstances attending the issuance of the certificate to the Farmers' Bank
Is there any other answer that would suit the people? Can the people be held to be silenced, can the widow who has lost every cent in the world, and the man who is unable to work, absolutely shorn of his strength, unfit by age or illness to bestow his work upon anything that will be productive of results? Shall you make the answer to the children who are deprived of their bread by this lamentable failure, as the Minister of Finance has made answer, that it is- a formal matter, a very deplorable circumstance, but one which cannot be helped? Or, shall you tell them, in the language further of the Minister of Finance, that there is a police court in Toronto before which evidence is being given concerning criminal acts in connection with the affairs of this bank? No, Sir, I say a thousand times no. Public opinion will not be satisfied until the Crown says:	By virtue of the authority
that is vested in us, there is something wrong here, we will investigate in the most concise, in the most thorough manner, every

incident in connection with that bank, and we will at once issue a royal commission. The certificate granted to this bank was granted on the 30th day of November, 1906. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Justice has said there are certain circumstances in connection with it that call for a great deal of criticism, and a great deal of explanation at the hands of the ministry. Explanation as to it is absolutely wanting and a reply to the questions which have been propounded with respect to it is absolutely wanting. The facts and the letters in connection with the matter have been so fully gone into and placed upon ' Hansard ' that I am not going to refer to them except cursorily. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice attaches no importance and argues that no importance is to be attached to the writ of summons which was filed by Mr. Leighton McCarthy. Well there again his statements bear a show of reasoning. We know that writs of summons in themselves are not documents which, outside of any other evidence, amount to very much as evidence of facts. But I will not refer for a moment to the writ of summons. I will refer to the letter that accompanied the writ of summons, and ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Justice what they think of it. At page 3, Mr. McCarthy's letter of the 19th October, appears the following passage. This is Mr. McCarthy, an ex-member of this House, a government supporter, one who gave the Minister of Finance pretty loyal service for his party, and this is a gentleman whom the minister knew, whose word he could trust and whose sincerity he had no reason whatever to doubt:
I have received information that the alleged subscribers for shares paid a large sum of money in cash and have signed notes for other large sums of money, and that the persons professing to act in the name of the bank have transferred notes and received the proceeds, and that a deposit either has been made or will be made of the cash received and the proceeds of these notes, or sufficient amount to make up $250,000.
Apart from any writ of summons, there is a direct statement of fact throwing light on the whole transaction in writing and signed by a gentleman whose word the Minister of Finance could not deny, putting before him a charge which he could not overlook, and which the Minister of Finance never paid the slightest attention to, and disregarded. Leave out the writ of summons, says the Minister of Justice, but will the Minister of Justice leave out Mr. Leighton McCarthy? Did the Minister of Finance ever get from Mr. Leighton McCarthy a statement or explanation of that paragraph in his letter? Did the minister ever get Mr. McCarthy to disprove the grave charge to which he had appended his signature that this deposit Mr. BOYCE.
was made up out of borrowed money? Why is the Minister of Finance so silent on this subject? He has not one word to say, and he answers me with a smile. A smile! A smile ! This wreck involves the loss of millions of dollars of the money particularly of farmers, widows, old men and women, and when it is brought home to him that he received notice in writing from one of his own followers that the very conditions upon which alone he could issue this certificate had been falsified, the minister smiles!
Well, let us go a little further. One of my hon. friends behind me reminds me of the sympathy that the minister has always shown for the toiling masses as against the knights. I wonder how much money of the knights went into the Farmers' Bank, and what proportion of the money of the toiling masses as against that of the knights went into that bank? But, when it comes down to the actual, concrete question as to whether the money of the toiling masses has been fraudulently disposed of, has been stolen by virtue of a certificate over his signature, he laughs, he smiles from his place in the House and makes no explanation when I confront him with the absolute written notice that the minister had before him when the certificate was issued. I want to say with regard to the Minister of Justice that .there was a writ of summons, and that the writ of summons did make certain charges. What else was there, may I ask the Minister of Finance, accompanying that writ of summons? There was an affidavit sworn to in the high court by William Laidlaw, K.C., of Toronto, swearing to facts upon information, some of them on .personal information, some of them on personal knowledge, some upon information and belief as a result of personal interviews with some of the subscribers, that the subscriptions were false and fraudulent, and the Minister of Finance had before him this evidence, this sworn affidavit of Mr. Laidlaw testifying to these facts. Does the minister deny it? It is rather a serious condition of things when a man of such high standing as Mr. William Laidlaw, K.C., of Toronto, a lawyer well known throughout the length and breadth of Canada, and known to the Minister of Finance, pledges his own oath to-' the very facts contained in the writ of summons.
File that in the Department of Finance, put it under the nose of the minister, and it is absolutely laughed at as he laughs at the charge I now bring to his notice. That affidavit was filed before the certificate waj issued. It aocompanied a copy of the en-dorsation on the writ, and what does the Minister of Finance do? He carefully keeps that evidence from the Treasury Board. In order to bolster himself up for some reason or other, some sinister reason or other


because there is one, if not more than one, and it is bound to come out, royal commission or no royal commission-in order to justify himself he pretends to submit the correspondence to the Minister of Justice for his opinion. But in submitting that correspondence, he carefully removes from the file beforehand the writ of summons, the affidavit backing it up and everything else which would give the minister any suspicion that any one had made any objection to the granting of the certificate. Then the Minister of Finance stands up and justifies forsooth the issue of that certificate on the ground that he had submitted the whole matter to the Minister of Justice and got the opinion of the deputy minister that he could do so. The Minister of Justice differs with his colleague about the position into which the latter has got. The Minister of Finance told us that all he had to do was to look at the statutory declaration of Travers. But the Minister of Justice did not say anything of the kind, and he rather rapped his colleague over the knuckles. He quoted from the Act to show that the Treasury Board had to be satisfied by affidavit or otherwise. Well, the Finance Minister had the declaration of Travers, and he also had the affidavit and the letters from one of his former supporters in this House, absolutely disproving the allegations made in that declaration. Yet in spite of these, he issued that certificate and put the bank in the position of being able to prey upon the public. I must confess that I never heard of a minister of the Crown in a more unenviable position. But says the Minister of Justice, no importance is to be attached to this writ. He forgets, however, that there was a judgment following that writ. The action was settled, but how was it settled? It was not simply withdrawn but was settled by the defendants giving up those notes and documents which they had fraudulently obtained. Did he take any cognizance of this? Yes, he. did, because the Deputy Minister of Finance referred to it in one of his letters. He referred to Judge Anglin's judgment, and that judgment proved the existence of claims made in the writ of summons, proving that this was a fraudulent organization, proving that the deposit made with the government, which can only be made in money, was raised by way of loan, to the extent of $80,000 or mere, advanced by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Stratton), as President of the Trust and Guarantee Company. That the money was being illegally raised was proved by the very settlement of the action itself, if not proved by the previous affidavit and by the statements of Mr. McCarthy which were never withdrawn. The Minister of Justice did not help the Minister of Finance as muck as the latter thought he would. Instead of bringing comfort to the soul of the latter,
he must have brought anguish, because he put the whole responsibility upon the Treasury Board. Mr. Newcombe, the Deputy Minister of Justice, said that this declaration of Travers could be received if it was acceptable. Then I find that the Minister of Finance has a qualm of conscience, and does not accept the declaration. Why? There can only be one reason. He has got the declaration and he says that it is sufficient under the Act. In order to bolster that up he refers it to the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of Justice says: yes, it is enough if you believe it. But two days later what did he do? On that 30th of November he does not believe the declaration because he writes that most peculiar letter of the 30th of November to Mr. Travers. He wants something more than the declaration, and he is satisfied with the merest, shallowest pretense of a letter from Travers saying that the money was all contributed in cash and none borrowed. Taking the word of Travers putting himself in the hands of Travers, absolutely tieing himself to Travers when he has, at his hand so many other avenues of information to pursue. What could we have done if he had displayed that keenness and alertness which he is wont to display? I am not minimizing the acumen or ability of the minister. I regard him as shrewd and keen, and with a particularly polished acumen when ho has to deal with questions of political expediency. What could he have done? He knew Mr. Baidlaw, why did he not ask him to come to Ottawa and find out if he had sworn to what.was false? Why did he not send for Mr. McCarthy and question him about the statement of facts in his letter? Why did he not send for some of his other friends, such as the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Stratton), with whom I believe he was talking a good deal at that time about the certificate. Why did he not confer with him? Why did he not confer with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) who had warned him about these transactions? He had only to cross the floor of the House to question that hon. gentleman.
The Minister of Finance admitted that he had conversations at that time with the hon. member for Halton. This House of Commons was sitting on that day, that Friday, the 30th of November, 1906, and all the Minister of Finance had to do was to wralk across this floor and say to the hon. member for Halton that he was going to issue that certificate that day and ask whether he had anything further to tell him with reference to it. Why did not he do it? Did he see Mr. Osier? If not, why did not he speak to that hon. gentleman about the matter? There were many avenues open, but the Minister of Finance ignored them all and pursued his own way. And on that day, in the space of a very few

hours, all these transactions went through: first, the letter to Travers saying he would meet him at one o'clock or at five o'clock; second, the reply from Travers to the Minister of Finance; then the meeting-or alleged meeting -of the Treasury Board, and the minute of that meeting; then the drawing up of the certificate; then the return of the cheque for $250,000 less .the deposit of $5,000 as security for circulation; then the letter inclosing the cheque, the delivery of that letter and the obtaining of the receipt from .Travers for the $245,000; a very hurried transaction for the Finance Minister to engage in on a busy parliamentary day, especially when the facts of which he had had notice and the evidence in support of which he had before him, were so strongly indicative of something being wrong in connection with this matter.
Now, that certificate having been issued, Travers went away. Why was there so much need for haste on that day? Why was all this thing ' railroaded ' through on that day in so hurried and unceremonious a manner? Was there a suspicion that the Canadian Bankers' Association were on to the job and were coming down the very next day? Had the secretary of the Canadian Bankers' Association not telephoned the Minister of Finance that that letter was on the way that day?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Did the secretary of the Canadian Bankers' Association not telephone the minister about the transaction?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I simply say that I accept the words of the Minister of Finance that the secretary of the Canadian Bankers' Association did not telephone him that day that the letter was on the way. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, as I would say to a jury in connection with all the circumstances of this case: With substantial evidence, with fact 'linked, with fact making a chain that is absolutely complete by which knowledge is brought home to the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board of all the irregularities in connection with this transaction, the greatest suspicion arises from this haste by which all these things were done in one day which under ordinary circumstances would have taken weeks or at least a week, and done the very day when, in a city only three hours distant, and from which a letter could have been received that very day, a protest was prepared and sent from the Canadian Bankers' Association against the issue of this certificate. We have no evidence as to whether that letter, which is a very vital point in the case, was received on the 30th of November, 1906, or not. The minister has not given us any information about it. He has been taunted with that letter; and I say Mr. BOYCE.
there is a very strong suspicion that it was in the hands of the minister before Travers left for Toronto that night with the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Stratton). I say there was a strong suspicion that the minister thought he ought to get that certificate back. There was a strong suspicion that the minister tried to get it back and failed-tried to get it back and failed. Does the minister pretend to say, standing here as a responsible minister of the Crown, that, having delivered that certificate, and having received, either before that certificate was delivered or immediately after, the protest of the Association of Bankers which association is contemplated by the Act as auxiliary to the minister in his administration of the Bank Act, protesting against that certificate being given and asking that it be delayed-does he mean to say that, even though the certificate had been delivered, he was doing his duty to this.country and to the people who might be defrauded and cheated if he did not demand the certificate back? Did not he go and demand the certificate back?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then, I ask if ever there was witnessed in any deliberative body such a lamentable exhibition of feebleness of explanation as that which has been given by the Minister of Finance;-that he did, on this 30th of November, 1906, in the most hurried manner possible, deliver the certificate authorizing the Farmers' Bank to prey upon the farmers and the poor of this country, and on that night or the following morning-that night, I believe, before Travers left for Toronto, while the certificate was still in the capital-he received a written protest from the Canadian Bankers' Association, and yet he never went and demanded that certificate in order to prevent the people of this country being defrauded by it. What explanation can the minister or his government give of that? Does he pretend for a single instant that the power of this government is so miserably small, so inadequate, that, a certificate of that kind, having been obtained, to his knowledge, by fraud

Tie having had laid before him the protest that the most highly credible authority recognised by the Bank Act-he could not go down and replevin that certificate by the sheriff, or by fifty Dominion police if necessary? What did he do if not that? Did he do anything? Sir, he did nothing towards revoking, cancelling or suspending that certificate of the Farmers' Bank. That night the minister knew, from the most authoritative source possible, that it was an improper certificate to grant. That night he had power to revoke it, to cancel it, to suspend it, to recover it. That night, the full force of this government-if necessary, the full force of
551 (

parliament-because parliament was sitting -might have been used. That night, or two or three days afterwards if necessary, a special Act could have been passed cancelling that certificate or revoking the charter of the bank for fraud.
The minister knows that, but he did absolutely nothing towards cancelling that certificate. He, the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, and I suppose all the other ministers, will stand up in their places and by their vote against the motion will say that the Minister of Finance was entirely blameless when he did nothing whatever to protect the people of this country from the ruin and misery that followed his inaction. The minister will not deny that the issue of that certificate to the bank incorporated under the Act is a representation to the public that the government has put its seal of sanction upon that bank as a bank. I am sorry the Minister of Justice is not in his place; but I would ask the Minister of Finance whether the Minister of Justice assents to this proposition, that not only was it in the power of the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board, but it was their bounden duty, just as soon as representations were made after the issue of the certificate, to take proceedings forthwith, either to compel a return of the certificate, or to take such action as would render it inoperative. Does not the Minister of Finance think himself that after receiving from the Canadian Bankers' Association that protest, the certificate should not have been issued?
Now a word as to the contradiction between the Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Halton. The hon. member for Halton states that he spoke to the Minister of Finance, and that the Minister of Finance said to him that he had seen Travers, and that Travers had said that the money had been paid in cash. The Minister of Finance says, first, that there was no such conversation, secondly, he has no recollection of it; thirdly, when I asked him if his memory upon that point might not be treacherous, he said, yes, it might be. Now I put this to the Minister of Finance, is not the word of the member for Halton absolutely borne out by the exchange of letters between Travers and the minister on that date of November 30, 1906? Did the minister not, by that letter, put it up to Travers as to whether the money had been paid in cash or not, and did not Travers, by the letter which the minister got from him, deny, and say that the money was not paid in cash, and is that not the strongest corroboration of the word of the member for Halton? I think it is an entire vindication of the member for Halton. But the Minister of Finance takes umbrage at the member for
Halton repeating in this House what he the minister, thought was a private conversation. I do not think myself that anything relating to a matter of such importance as this ought to be treated as privileged. But the minister is not always -so keenly sensitive about private communications and their publication. Not long ago when the hon. member for York, N.B. (Mir. Crocket) wrote to the Minister of Finance a personal letter


William Stevens Fielding: No, the letter has not ' personal ' marked on it, it is an ordinary public letter.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The letter, according to the principles laid down by the minister in this House, (with regard to letters of that character, was personal, and was surrounded by that cloak of privacy which the minister has thrown about letters, at any rate, coming -from members on his side of the House. And what did the minister do with that letter? He handed it over to another member of this House who read it in the House and put it on ' Hansard.'


William Stevens Fielding: No, it was from the
clerk; it had been laid on the table.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Then I say the minister had no right, upon his own statement of the privileges that surround such a letter as that, to put that letter on the table without leave of the member himself.


William Stevens Fielding: Then I cannot put anybody's letter on the table without his
leave

scores of letters, without anybody's
leave?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Well, nothing was done after the certificate was issued authorizing the Farmers' Bank to transact business, nothing was done between the 30th of November and the 1st of January, 1907, except that the bank was preparing to do business. And during all that month the bank \yas gathering in money from the farmers, from widows, from aged men, and the government took no proceeding whatever to prevent fraud. Why, in a month Travers could have been prosecuted, and have been undergoing the sentence of a court for the fraud he had practised upon the Minister of Finance. A whole month went by, and nothing was done by the Treasury Board, although the facts were plain before them. The government did absolutely nothing, while that bank was getting into position to carry out the fraud they had so successfully inaugurated. The minister does not deny that the government were deceived. The Prime Minister last night repeated over and over again that the government was deceived. The knowledge of that deceit was brought_ home to the minister. It might be a disputed question as to whether it was brought to his knowledge before the



30th of November. But after that date, a month went by and the bank had commenced to do business. Does the minister say that during the whole of that month he was powerless, and could do nothing.
I have not heard the minister say that. I wonder whether the minister will say_ it now. Will the minister say that during that month, while the bank was preparing to do business upon a certificate fraudulently obtained, it was utterly impossible for him to do anything? The Minister of Finance went to the Minister of Justice and got some little authority in a letter upon which he built up authority to issue that certificate. But did he go to the Minister of Justice when he ascertained the real facts to find out if he could cancel that certificate? The correspondence does not show that he did and I say if he did not he was not a vigilant minister, the Treasury Board was derelict in its duty and the government of this country absolutely neglected that fostering care which it owed to the people of Canada. I do not charge that the minister assents to that proposition by his silence, but I do implore him, if he dissents from that proposition, to make it known as part of his defence because it is a cogent circumstance to those people who have been miserably robbed and cheated out of their all by the consequences of what he did. I hope, if only for his own sake, that he will get up and say that it is part of his defence, that during that time he could not for certain reasons take any steps to recover that certificate.
A word with regard to the warning received by the minister as it appears in his speech last night. The position taken by the minister is most extraordinary. Does he recollect that last night he took the ground: Why of course I was justified in dealing with these men, the proposed shareholders were well known men. He read a list at page 5422 of ' Hansard.' Then again when my hon. friend from London (Mr. Beattie) rose in his place the minister said at page 5423:


William Stevens Fielding: Of course, I am not seeking to make any point against my hon.. friend, but I am simply showing that when Mr. Travers came to the Finance Department he came under these excellent auspices.
Excellent auspices ! After having quoted from the list of names of proposed shareholders, in reply to the member for London who said:
I had no stock in the bank and they had no right to use my name.
The minister said:


William Stevens Fielding: I accept my hon. friend's statement without hesitation, but what I say is that all these names were those of highly respectable men and calculated to give Mr. Travers strength when he came to deal with Mr. BOYCE.
the government, and my hon. friend's name was among them, and it was one calculated to give the application some strength. I now come to the names of the provisional directors in that application. They are as follows :
Lt.-Col. R. McLennan of Cornwall, Ont.
Lt.-Col. Jas. Munroe, M.P., of Embro, Ont.
Allan Eaton, Esq., of Mount Nemo, Ont.
Robt. Noble, Esq., of Norval, Ont.
W. G. Sinclair, Esq., of Zimmerman, Ont.
A. Groves, Esq., M.D., of Fergus, Ont., and
N. M. Devean, Esq., W Beattie Nesbitt, M.D., and John Gilchrist, Esq., of Toronto, Ont.
All these gentlemen were at that time apparently the associates of Mr. Travers.
Mark you, Mr. Speaker,
Mr. Travers came to us buttressed.
Buttressed by these good names. That, Sir, is part of the hon. gentleman's defence in the House. How does it go before a jury of the Canadian people? The minister says that he was justified in depending on such names, yet some of these very men swore they have paid nothing for their shares and have not benefited by the operations of the bank.
Let me take the names in the statement before the minister and the affidavit of William Laidlaw, filed in his department. What does it say: William Noble was one gentleman who buttressed Travers, Noble whose name was entered in the prospectus as one of those who had consented to be a director, who had subscribed to shares to the amount of $10,000, whereas he had only subscribed to $3,000. Colonel Munro was represented as a subscriber for $10,000 whereas he had, in fact subscribed to the amount of only $1,000. Major Thomas Beattie who was represented by the prospectus to have consented to act as a director, had not subscribed for any shares and refused to be a director or to allow his name to be used in any way in connection with the bank, and it is alleged that the names of several persons were used by the directors who had not subscribed for any shares or given any authority for such publication. That is the way the minister buttressed himself up and buttressed Mr. Travers up. When the minister made that statement last night h^ made it in absolute forgetfulnes-s of the fact that in his department there was absolute evidence that these men disclaimed the interest in the bank which had been attributed to them in the prospectus. Did the minister know that? Was it not the minister's duty to look and see before he allowed Travers to be buttressed up by names of men who themselves disclaimed and complained about the fraud practised on them.
I ask the minister another question. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I ask this House whether in its judgment the Minister of Finance was just playing quite fair with

his colleagues on the Treasury Board when he was the only one responsible to the people of Canada for what took place in this matter, that on him alone will rest the responsibility for the issuing of that certificate. He has five colleagues on the Treasury Board, and in all this iniquitous transaction, with all these facts condemning it, he kept that information back from his colleagues on the Treasury Board, and yet seeks to place the 'responsibility on the Treasury Board. He did not go to the board and say: Colonel Monroe says this, Leighton McCarthy says this, Mr. Henderson of Halton tells me this, and the affidavit of William Laidlaw says this. Does the minister pretend to say that if he had done so his colleagues would have said: Go ahead and issue the certificate, never mind the affidavits, never mind what you have been told or anything contained in these affidavits or any other affidavits. I say it was not a fair position for the minister to take or to ask his colleagues and parliament to occupy in connection with this matter.
What was the nature of the transaction between Travers and the hon. gentleman? It is apparent to any reasonable mind that there was some reason why the Minister of Finance, disregarding all the evidence issued that certificate, and after the issue having ascertained it was fraudulently obtained, took no steps to withdraw it. One is led to the conclusion that there was some motive which actuated the minister, and if not some motive, some influence. Does not the minister think that the circumstances require investigation? The hon. gentleman from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that the Minister of Finance was not now as favourable to commissions as he used to be. He did not shrink from issuing a royal commission under the guise of an investigation into insurance companies, when the only object of it was to endeavour to drive from public life the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) one of the most brilliant minds in this Dominion. But when a royal commission is asked for now which it is believed will expose the absolute feebleness, if not worse of the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board, he dares not issue it. Dare he in the light of all the facts grant that royal commission? He dare not. I say it unhesitatingly to the minister across the floor upon my responsibility as a member of the House, that the minister shrinks from granting that commission for fear of the disclosures which may follow. The minister has had a better opportunity of knowing all the facts surrounding this matter than any other member of this House, and yet he comes to the House to make a defence which any 10 year old school boy could make. Surely the reasons which influence the Minister of Fin-1 174i
ance to hurry so much and to show himself so helpless in the issue of the certificate are worthy of being inquired into. What meetings did he have with the present member for West Peterborough (Mr. J. R. Stratton), and Mr. Travers?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not want to be constantly answering questions and interrupting, but on this occasion it would be unfair to the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Stratton) if I should not say that I never in my life had a word with the hon. member for West Peterborough on this subject.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I gladly accept the word of the Minister of Finance, and I will put the preposition in another way-when that certificate was delivered on that afternoon of the 30th of November, 1906, to whom was it delivered, does the minister know?


William Stevens Fielding: It was in the hands of my deputy, I presume he delivered it to Mr. Travers. Mr. Travers was here for the purpose of getting it, and I take it for granted it was delivered to him.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Will the minister, who is so fair about giving answers, answer another question? Did he have interviews with any one else in connection with Mr. Travers about this certificate?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot recall that I had. If my hon. friend will mention any particular person I will be able to answer more definitely; but I cannot recall any interview with any person on this subject except as stated in the House during the debate.	'


Arthur Cyril Boyce: One is irresistibly forced to the conclusion that there was some influence at work which forced the Minister of Finance to absolutely disregard the warnings he received, and which rendered him helpless to resist. And, after having found that the certificate was obtained by fraud, and not having taken steps to cancel it, does he not think that he should take the responsibility? Well, the certificate being issued the branches of the Farmers' Bank opened in different towns, the traps were laid, and the hard earned savings of the farmers wrested from' the soil by the sweat of their brow, poured into that bank. The money of the widow, the money of the aged, the money of the orphan, the money of the poor, went into that bank and the Minister of Finance knew it and took no action. The bank failed, and misery, ruin, and destitution followed. I say that the cry of the widow, the cry and the groan of the weary and the sick and the aged who have had their all swept awmy by this criminal negligence, is the cry that comes from the prov ince of Ontario and through the Dominion of Canada right up to this parliament and

into the interior chamber of the Finance Department. And that cry will continue, and the burden of the groan and of the destitution it carries with it will increase until the Minister of Finance and this government realize their responsibility and grant the investigation which justice demands. Look at the sort of defence which has been put up by hon. gentlemen opposite. Two supporters of the government whose constituents are affected by the failure of this bank say they are in sympathy with an investigation, ibut that because of the nature of the motion moved by the hon. member for Halton they are obliged to vote against it. There is practical synipathy from public men for you. And, there are two other defenders of the government, one from the Northwest and one from the far east and it'would seem as if the Minister of Finance had put up members whose constituents are not affected; at all events it looks suspiciously like it. But, no defence has been given to the charges, no reasonable excuse has been given for the refusal of this royal commission, and if the government desire to save themselves from the severest criticism that can possibly be laid at their doors, and relieve themselves from the reproach' and condemnation which must lay upon them, if full inquiry by royal commission be denied, they will, without hesitation and without any further parley, accept the motion of my hon. friend from Halton, grant the royal commission, and fully investigate this matter.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Henderson).
YEAS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barker,
Barnard,
Best,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Clare,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Daniel,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Foster,
Goodeve.
Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
J ameson,
Kidd,


Arthur Cyril Boyce: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31,	1911, which on
motion was referred to Committee of Supply.	*
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 1.50 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 17, 1911.
workers, who regard him as an extremely capable official. In his stead W. Shumaker has been placed, and the ire of the men was raised in consequence.
' It is not this case alone that has prompted the walkout/ said one of the men this morning to the ' Evening News/ ' For a long time there has been a steady importation of help from the American side, and as soon as the old employee has initiated them into the requirements of the different posts the Canadian is let out. Every Canadian at the plant now feels that his bread and butter is in jeopardy, and it was decided to make a demonstration of disapproval when Wilson was let out/	,
Shumaker was communicated with this morning over the 'phone and in reply to the question as to whether there had been a walkout, said: 'I am not aware that anything of the kind has taken place.' Asked if it would be incorrect to state publicly that a walkout had occurred, he replied that it would, which is in contradiction to the statements of the men who have left their work.
Inspector Armstrong, senior official of the Dominion immigration service at Sault Ste. Marie, stated this morning that there had been a number of persons applying to him within the past few days asking if overtures eonld not he made to the department at Ottawa with a view to insuring their positions, which they stated were being daily filled up with men imported from the American side.
Another despatch from the Sault under date March 14, states: