1923-03-26

['This is the bill which I mentioned some weeks ago as embodying a suggestion which was submitted to us by the Attorney General of Ontario.\nMotion agreed to and bill read the first time.']
Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: In accordance with an intimation given on Friday last, I desire to ask the unanimous consent of the House to the several steps that would be necessary for the passing of an Interim Supply Bill. If there be no objection, I move that the House do now proceed to Government Orders for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The House proceeded to consider certain resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Agriculture-experimental farms, $1,525,000.
['In accordance with an intimation given on Friday last, I desire to ask the unanimous consent of the House to the several steps that would be necessary for the passing of an Interim Supply Bill. If there be no objection, I move that the House do now proceed to Government Orders for that purpose.']
Sir HENRY DRAYTON (West York):: The unanimous consent given, as I understood it, was a consent that my hon. friend should get his interim supply, -but that he should confine it to interim supply, and not ask the House to go through the form of taking all the different estimates that have already been passed and of asking for concurrences.


William Stevens Fielding: The usual course is that we take all the estimates that have been dealt with and add one-sixth of the remainder. I think that is the invariable practice. If that is not so, I shall have to let the matter stand over until to-morrow and re-cast the resolution.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What we used to do, and what my hon. friend always took objection to, was to vote one-sixth, full right being reserved to object, later on, to any estimates that had not already been passed. We have to-day some important matters that, I think, should not lose their right of way for the purpose of concurring in everything that has been voted. I am perfectly willing to consent to all that we thought would be done, namely, that the government should have the necessary interim supply, and we consent to a resolution now going through for one-sixth, the usual supply, as interim supply, without prejudice to the opposition or anybody else who may wish to object to any individual item.


William Stevens Fielding: The difficulty is that we have already voted the whole amount of the estimate in a number of instances, and it is rather inconvenient to vote one-sixth of what

Businesss of the House
we have already voted six-sixths of. I do not think anybody's right is prejudiced by our concurring in any of these resolutions. I think, if my hon. friend will look into the matter, he will find that what I propose now is exactly what has been the custom.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We can take it as it was last year.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the papers ready for the motion in that form.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am quite content that the motion be put in that way now, or to-morrow, if my hon. friend so desires.


William Stevens Fielding: To-morrow will do.
Item stands.



[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Fielding, the House reverted to the order, "Motions."
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved:: That the name of Mr. Garland (Bow River) be substituted for that of Mr. Speakman as member of the standing committee on Mines and Minerals.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Warwick King: With the consent of the House I beg to move:
That when this House adjourns on Wednesday, the 28th instant, it stand adjourned until Monday, the %th of April.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MURDOCK:: I beg to lay on tlje Table papers requested by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) on Friday last, relative to representation at the meeting of the Geneva body of International Labour office on April 10, next.


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 102 to amend the Criminal Code.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: Explain.


Sir LOMER GOUIN:: The purpose of the bill is to prohibit the giving of information as to betting on horse races and fights.


Arthur Meighen: Will this be the only amendment to the Criminal Code which the government will introduce this session?


Mr. BUREAU:: That is for the government
to decide.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: How far does this proposal go?


Lomer Gouin: This is the bill which I mentioned some weeks ago as embodying a suggestion which was submitted to us by the Attorney General of Ontario.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Henry Lumley Drayton: As the question of the Easter adjournment has now been settled, I suppose my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) would like to announce to the House when he will bring down the budget. We should like to know whether it will be just after the recess, or when.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is quite right; I should certainly like to make the announcement he requests. But there are many things which I should like to do that are not immediately in my power.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister might assist hon. members to the extent of informing the House that he is not going to bring down the budget the first week after we re-assemble.


William Stevens Fielding: I think I may oblige my hon. friend so far as to say that he is correct in that assumption.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- RETIRING BONUSES

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WARD:: I desire to draw the attention of the government to a question which has been standing on the order paper in my name cince the 9th day of March. The question is one which I believe to be of national importance and I should like to have some assurance from the government as to when I may expect an answer.
Questions


Mr. GRAHAM:: What is the question?


William John Ward: The question is No. 2 on today's order paper, and relates to bonuses to retiring officials and directors of the Canadian National Railways. '


George Perry Graham: The answer will be brought down shortly.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick Wesley Graham.-Mr. Hunt.
Bill No. 87 (from the Senate), for the relief of Catherine Gunyo Chatterson Odell.-Mr. Macdonald (Pictou).
Bill No. 88 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marietta Isabel Wilson.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 89 (from the Senate), for the relief of Marian Eugenie MacCordick).-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 90 (from the Senate), for the relief of Elizabeth Frankland.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 91 (from the Senate), for the relief of Arnold Carrington Burke.-Mr. Church.

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

Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What was the total amount of dockages on all grain received at Port Arthur and Fort William by regular public terminal elevators for calendar year 1922 and for crop year ending August 31, 1922?
2.	What was the weekly average price paid the producer for dockages from public terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur from 1st September to 31st December, 1922?
3.	What was the total amount of dockages on all grain received at Fort William by the government elevator for calendar year 1922, and for crop year ending August 31, 1922?
4.	What were the weekly average prices paid the producer for dockages from government elevator, Fort William, from 1st September to 31st December, 1922?
5.	What was the total amount of revenue received by the government elevator at Fort William for screenings for crop year 1922?
6.	What is the information as applied to public terminal elevators and the government elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur:-(a) Total amount of wheat scalpings shipped from same; (b) total amount of oats scalpings shipped from same; (c) total amount of second recleaned scalpings shipped from same; (d) total amount of elevator scalpings shipped from same; (e) total amount of elevator screenings shipped from same; (f) total amount of second recleaned scalpings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators; (g) total amount of elevator screenings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators; (h) total amount of oats scalpings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators; (i) total amount of wheat scalpings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevator; (j) total amount of elevator scalpings received in crop 1922 at regular terminal elevators?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: This question has been on the order paper some time, and it may have to stand for a few days yet, as we have to send to the different outports where there are elevators to secure the returns. I am merely making this explanation for the information of the hon. member in whose name the question stands.
Question stands.


DRAWBACKS
Mr. FANSHER:: 1.	What was the value of the materials imported into Canada, during the last fiscal year, which entered into the manufacture of goods finally exported from Canada and on which a drawback was paid?
2.	What was the amount 'of duty paid on these materials?
3.	What was the amount of money returned to the importers in the way of rebates or drawbacks?
4.	What was the value of the materials imported into Canada, during the past fiscal year, for the manufacture of goods for home consumption upon which a drawback was paid ?
5.	What was the amount of duty paid on these materials ?
6.	What was the amount of money returned to the importers in the way of rebates or drawbacks?


Jacques Bureau: I have already asked the hon. member to state his question more precisely, because the only way in which we can know when what materials are imported for manufacturing purposes is when the drawback is asked for. I cannot answer the question as it stands on the order paper, because no declaration is made at the customs that any particular materials are imported for manufacturing purposes.


Mr. BLACK (Huron):: The hon. member is not in the House.


Jacques Bureau: He can see me if he cares to.
Question stands.


GRAIN-PORTS OF SHIPMENT
Hon. Mr. BAXTER:: 1.	What quantity of grain has been carried to Portland, Maine, for shipment since 1st November, 1922, and was brought to that port wholly or partly by Government railways?
2.	Of the total quantity how much is Canadian grown and how much American grown?
3.	How much grain has been carried to St. John, New Brunswick, since 1st November, 1922, by the Canadian National Railways for shipment?
4.	Of that quantity how much is Canadian grown and how much American grown ?
5.	How much grain has been carried to St. John, New Brunswick, since 1st November, 1922, by the Canadian Pacific Railway for shipment?
6.	Of that quantity how much is Canadian grown and how much American grown?
7.	How much grain has been carried to Halifax, Nova Scotia, since 1st November, 1922, by the Canadian National Railways for shipment?
8.	Of that quantity how much is Canadian grown and how much American grown?

Questions


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1. and 2. Receipts of Canadian grain at Portland, Maine, since November 1, 1922, via Canadian Government Railways.
			Bushels
Wheat.		.. .. 11,133,180	
Oats..			1,649,892
Barley.			612,955
Bye..			1,360,781
	Total.. ..	.. .. 14,756,808	
Receipts of American		Grain not available.	
3.			
	Canadian	U.S.	
Grain	Grain	TotalBushels	Bushels	Bushels'Wheat	. .. 957,085	55,107	1,012,192Oats	.. 585,282	585,282Barley	. .. 174,009	174,009Com	12,495	12,495Rye	299,680	299,680Total.. ..	.. 1,716,376	367,282	2,083,6584. Answered by No. 3.	5.	Canadian	U.S.	Grain	Grain	TotalBushels	Bushels	BushelsWheat.. ..	.. 8,635,368	102,994	8,738,362.. 1,764,921	1 764 921.. 647,692	647 692Com .. ..	628,686	628,686Rye	1,470,441	1,470,441Total ..	.. 11,047,981	2,202,121	13,250,1026.	Answered by No. 5.7.	Nil.8.	Nil.


SCARFE VARNISH WORKS
Mr. CHARTERS:: 1.	What purchases have been made since the present government came into power by the Canadian National Railway or by the Grand Trunk Railway from the Scarfe Varnish Works, Brantford, Ontario ?
2.	Were such purchases made after public competition? If so, in what cases?
3.	Is the president of this firm the Mr. Reginald Scarfe who is president of the Liberal Association [DOT]at Brantford, Ontario?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$14,203.
2.	All such purchases are made after public competition.
3.	No information; but, in any event, the holding of such a position by the president of the firm would neither help nor hinder the purchases which, quality established, are determined by considerations of price, not politics.


GRANVILLE ISLAND-TAX
Hon. Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the Dominion Government been approached by the city council of Vancouver regarding the taxation, by the city, of Granville island?
2.	If. so, has any decision been arrived aft find what is it?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: ,
1.	The city council of Vancouver has not directly approached the Dominion government respecting the taxation of Granville island. Representations have been made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries to the effect that Granville island should be taxed for the benefit of the city.
2.	Under consideration.


EXCURSION RAILWAY RATES
Mr. CHURCH:: ,
1.	Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation this session to amend the Railway Act so as to restore cheap, special rate excursion tickets (as was the custom before the war) on such special occasions as public holidays, week-ends, fall fairs, sporting contests, games and conferences?
2.	If the government does not propose such legislation this Session, in view of the special and many urgent requests for these special rates last session from numerous fall fair organizations, the Canadian National Exhibition and many sportsmen's organizations and agricultural societies in Canada, will the government or Minister of Railways use their good offices with the railway companies to restore this old and long established custom and practice as to special rates?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	It is not the intention of the government to introduce such legislation. This must be left to the initiative of the railways, subject to the supervision of the Railway Board in regard to discrimination, etc., as provided by the Railway Act.
2.	The government understands that the railways, in 1922, made the following arrangements for specially reduced fares, and is assured that the railways will carefully consider whether it is advisable to make any other special fares along the lines indicated in the question of the hon. member:
Effective July 10, 1922, the Canadian Railways voluntarily put the following reduced fares into effect:
Organized Excursions and Pilgrimages.-100 or more adult fares guaranteed-lowest oneway first class, fare and one-third for the round trip minimum fare 50 cents per adult ticket and 25 cents per child's ticket.
Celebrations, demonstrations, regattas and political meetings-lowest one-way first-class fare and one-half for the round trip-minimum fare 25 cents for adults or children.
Questions

Round trip party fares-10 or more adults travelling together on going trip-one-way first-class fare and one-half for the round trip.
Circuit tour party fares-10 or more adults travelling together for entire trip-seventy-five per cent or one-way first-class fare between stop over points.
Week end fares-two and one-half (2J) cents per mile. From industrial centres to country districts. Good going Saturday and Sunday; return limit Monday.
Larger Agricultural Exhibitions-Lowest one-way first-class fare and one-third for round trip; minimum fare for adults or children 25 cents; Territory-to be agreed upon between interested lines.
Smaller Agricultural Exhibitions and Fall Fairs-Lowest one-way first-class fare and one-third for round trip, minimum fare for adults or children 25 cents. Territory-from points where the lowest one-way first-class fare to place of exhibition does not exceed $3.
DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES-RUGS Mr. COOTE:
During each of the last three years, how many rugs have been purchased for departmental offices and what was the cost of same?	*


John Warwick King: In the fiscal year 1920-21, purchased 36 at a cost of $2,967.95; in 1921-22, 49 at a cost of $5,279.61, including rug for the Privy Council chamber; and in 1922-23, 44 at a cost of $4,113.36.
HON. MR. PUGSLEY, COMMISSIONER Mr. HANSON:
1.	Has the Hon. William Pugsley been appointed a commissioner to investigate Canadian claims against Germany and other former enemy countries arising out of the war?
2.	If so, when was he appointed, and what are the terms of his appointment, financial and otherwise?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	The Hon. William Pugsley was appointed by Order-in-Couneil dated the 13th March, 1923, a Commissioner under Part I of the Inquiries Act, to investigate and report upon all claims filed with the Department of the Secretary of State, as follows:
(a)	Claims of persons residing or carrying on business in Canada who have been subjected to loss and pecuniary damages arising through the destruction of life and property through the illegal warfare of the enemy, and
(b)	Claims for damages to which persons residing or carrying on business in Canada, have been subjected for breaches of contracts, which contracts were prevented from being carried out owing to the operation of 
the Statutory List of persons in neutral countries with whom such contracts were declared illegal;
for the purpose of determining whether such claims are within the categories referred to in the First Annex to Section I of Part VIII of the Treaty of Peace of Versailles, the fair amount of such claims, and to make such findings as may be of assistance to the government in determining which, if any, of such claims should be paid, and the extent of payment thereof.
Under the said Order-in-Council the said the Hon. William Pugsley was also appointed a Commissioner under the Inquiries Act for the purpose of considering and recommending to the Custodian of Enemy Property releases where the parties are necessitous, suffering and in hardship.
2. No terms of appointment, financial or otherwise have been arranged other than those set out in the Order in Council above referred to.


CHARTERED BANKS-FARMER SHAREHOLDERS
Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: 1.	How many of the shareholders of the chartered banks of Canada in each province of Canada in 1922 were farmers ?
2.	How many farmers in each province of the Dominion paid Dominion income tax in 1922?


William Stevens Fielding: I. Persons designated as farmers, ranchers and fruit growers in the returns of shareholders of chartered banks as at December 31, 1922,
numbered as follows:
Alberta	 216
British Columbia	 93
Manitoba	 830
New Brunswick	 65
Nova Scotia	 245
Ontario	 1,188
Prince Edward	Island	 38
Quebec	   465
Saskatchewan	 748
Total	 3,887
2.
Alberta	 1,638
British Columbia	 640
Manitoba	 3,458
New Brunswick	 48
Nova Scotia	 198
Ontario	 6,138
Prince Edward Island	 40
Quebec	 150
Saskatchewan	 6,560
Yukon	 3
Total	18,873

Questions
VANCOUVER TERMINAL ELEVATOR Mr. COOTE:
1.	What was the number of bushels of each kind of grain handled by the Terminal elevator at Vancouver in the year 1922?
2.	What were the total receipts and expenditures in connection with this elevator in the year 1922?
3.	What is the total storage capacity of this elevator?
4.	What was the cost of this elevator?
5.	When was it completed?


Hon. Mr. ROBB:: 1.	Stock on hand	TotalDec. 31, 1921	Receipts	HandlingsWheat	.. 822,930	12,085,158	12,908.088Oats	.. 410	33,004	33,414Barley .. ..	1,823	1,823Flax	.. nil	nil	nilRye	155,335	155,335Total.. ..	.. 823,340	12,275,320	13,098,6602. Total	receipts $171,273.02.	Total expenditure $73,868.59.	3. 1,250,000 bushels.	4. Capital	cost to January 1,	1923, $837,-
351.71.
5. November 30, 1916.


SOREL POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Did the position of postmaster at Sorel, Quebec, become vacant in the year 1922 by the death of the incumbent ?
2.	How many applications were received for the said position, and what were their names?
3.	Were not applications received from three returned soldiers ?
4.	If so, why was not the position given to one of them instead of going to J. Edouard Champoux, the present postmaster ?
5.	Is he not a brother-in-law of the sitting member for the county of Richelieu?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Eight, viz., R. Garceau, R.S., R. Villan-dre, R. S., B. Godin, R. S., J. E. Champoux, J. O. Duhamel, J. E. Rajotte, J. H. Lamothe, L. Forget.
3.	Yes.	'
4.	None of the three returned soldiers were considered qualified under the terms of the Civil Service Act and the Commission's regulations,-Garceau on account of his unfavourable standing in the community; Villandre had been non-resident in Sorel since May, 1920; and Godin had not the necessary education qualifications.
5.	No information.


JEAN BILODEAU
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Is Jean Bilodeau, captain on Dredge No. 12, located at Sorel, Quebec?
2.	If so, when wTas he appointed?
3.	Is this the same Jean Bilodeau who was chief engineer of the dredge Tarte, now known as dredge
No. 7, when one of the boilers exploded causing the death of three of the crew in or about the year 1906?
4.	Is it not a fact that at the time of the said explosion, the said Jean Bilodeau only held a fourth class certicate ?
5.	Does he hold a captain's certificate?
6.	If not, why has he been appointed to his present position?
7.	Is it not a fact that the said Jean Bilodeau is one of the chief organizers of the Liberal party in the city of Sorel, P.Q?
8.	Did dredge No. 12 sink while operating at Con-trecceur, Quebec, in or about the month of August, 1922, as a result of the gross negligence and incapacity of the said Jean Bilodeau, who was captain in charge at the time?
9.	What was the cost of refloating said dredge?


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. There is no record in the Department of Marine and Fisheries of the date on which he joined the ship channel service. He was chief engineer on Dredge No. 7 when the service was transferred from the Public Works department on March 11, 1904, and remained in that position until July 28th, 1909, when he was promoted to the position of Foreman of Machine Shop at Sorel. He remained in the latter position until April 24, 1914, when he was retired as the result of charges of political partizanship made against him. He was appointed to his present position on April 24, 1922. There was no boiler explosion in 1906 but there was an explosion in 1903 during which time he was chief engineer.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.
6.	A certificated master is not required on this class of vessel.
7.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries has no information.
8.	No.
9.	The dredge sunk at Sorel when not in operation. The cost of refloating was approximately 812,000.


PEAT INDUSTRY
Mr. BINETTE:: 1.	What amount, if any, did the government spend last year to help the peat industry in the county of Prescott?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to aid this Canadian industry so as to help the Canadian consumer to secure a substitute for foreign coal?


Hon. Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 
SERVICE TO MEDITERRANEAN
Mr. SPENCE:: Canada, being dependent for a large quantity of citrous fruits, olive oils, dates, figs, raisins, and similar products shipped from Mediterranean ports, has the government considered:-
1.	The establishment of a regular boat service between the Mediterranean ports and Canada?
2.	If so, when will such service commence, and at what intervals will they sail?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The management of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine state that the question of establishing a regular service between the Mediterranean ports and Canada has been very thoroughly considered, and it has been decided that the present is not an opportune time to inaugurate such a service.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ORDERS IN COUNCIL
Hon. Mr. MANION:: 1.	What number of orders m council were passed during the year ending December 31, 1921?
2.	What number of orders in council were passed during the year ending December 31, 1922?


Right Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Year 1921, 5,861.
2.	Year 1922, 5,621.
Mr. D. W. MORRISON


Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has Mr. D. W. Morrison been dismissed from
the position of Postmaster of St. Peters, Nova Scotia?	t .	.
2.	If so, what are the grounds of his dismissal?
3.	Was an investigation held before the dismissal
was made? If not, why not?	_
4.	Has the Civil Service Commission been instructed to advertise for applicants for the position?
5.	If so, will preference be given to returned soldiers?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM (for Postmaster General) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Active political partisanship.
3.	D. W. Morrison was appointed by Mr. Robert L. MacLellan as his agent during the federal elections of 1921, and acted as such.
4.	The position has been advertised.
5.	The vacancy will be filled in the best interests of the public service and consistent with the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


ST. JOHN RIVER WHARVES
Mr. JONES:: What, if anything, was said by the Minister of Public Works during an interview in February last with Premier Veniot, of New Brunswick, which would justify the latter in saying that he was persuaded that the federal government would take over the wharves on the St. John river as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 24th February last?


John Warwick King: Premier Veniot of New Brunswick did interview the Minister of Public Works relative to taking over the wharves on the St. John river, and was informed that the matter would receive serious consideration.


ONTARIO GOVERNMENT BANKS
Mr. HANSON:: 1.	Has the Department of Finance in any way recognized or authorized the banking operations of the province of Ontario?
2.	Is it true, as reported in the press, that the savings deposits now being taken by the Ontario government are costing that province over 7 per cent?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	The operations of the Ontario government, in receiving money on deposit, are conducted under the authority of a statute of the province. The Department of Finance of Canada has no connection with them in any way.
2.	The Department of Finance has no information concerning the cost of the operations in question.


HARBOUR COLD STORAGE
Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	Is the Harbour cold storage a national institution?
2.	To what extent is it financed by the government and at what rate of interest ?
3.	What are the net results (profit and loss) on the operating expenses of this storage for its first year's operations ?
4.	How will deficits be met, and in event of loss will harbour dues be increased to meet same?
5.	Are the rates charged by the harbour commission lower than other public cold storages charged previous to opening the harbour commission's plant?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to subsidize cold storage to ,be operated by co-operative associations in various parts of the country with the idea of having a chain of storages in the country to supply the harbour cold storage and thus have all under government control ?
7.	Would there be any discrimination against private individuals or corporations who might desire a subsidy for a cold storage plant, or is it intended to assist only rural communities that are organized?
8.	Has any provision been made for the continuance of a subsidized cold storage in case of disorganization of the co-operative societies?
9.	In the event of public cold storages being closed as a result of competition is there likely to be any increase in the rates charged by the harbour commission ?


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any corporation or organization called the harbour cold storage. I surmise, however, that the hon. gentleman refers to the Montreal cold storage. If this is so I will have the required answer prepared.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.

Questions


WELLAND SHIP CANAL
Mr. THOMPSON:: 1.	Have all the sections of the Welland Ship Canal been placed under contract ?
2.	During the fiscal year 1922-23 have the contractors operated their respective contracts at a rate that will ensure the completion of the project within the various contract stipulations? If not, why not?
3.	Has the engineer in charge a pre-arranged schedule of operation for the contractors? If so, why does he not compel the contractors to fulfil it?
4.	What will the interest charges be, on the Welland Ship Canal, on borrowed capital for the ensuing year?
5.	Why is the work not operated more vigorously, and why should the government pay unnecessary interest on uncompleted work?
6.	How many men were employed on each of the contracts during January?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes; contractors made such progress as will permit them to complete their contracts within times stipulated in their respective contracts.
3.	Engineers' schedules are limited in their application by the terms of contracts, which terms contractors are compelled to fulfil.
4.	The amounts expended by the Dominion of Canada in the construction of the Welland Ship Canal were not provided by specific borrowing and no interest has been charged.
5.	The vigour of operations is determined by consideration of all factors affecting ultimate maximum economy. Undue expedition in the conduct of such construction work would result in losses from inefficiency of operations greatly in excess of the saving effected on interest account.
6.	Daily average for month of January, 1923: Sections Nos. 1 and 2, 284; sections Nos. 3 and 4, 336; section No. 5, 154; construction railway, 72, not allocated between sections 1 and 2 and 3 and 4.


MARA, P.O.
Mr. MacKELVIE:: 1.	What is the name of the present postmaster for Mara, British Columbia?
2.	When was he appointed?
3.	For what length of term?
4.	Is he under bonds?
5.	If so, in what amount and who are the bondsmen?
6.	Is there an assistant postmaster employed by the Post Office department at Mara?
7.	If so, what is his name and amount of salary paid him?
8.	Who has the contract to carry His Majesty's mail from the railway station to the post office?
9.	What is the present cost to the government for this work per month?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Cyril E. Rosoman.
2.	9th May, 1921	.
3.	Indefinite.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by 4.
5. No.
7.	Answered by 6.
8.	The estate of the late Mary E. Rosoman.
9.	$12.50.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. HANSON:: For a copy of all papers, writings, telegrams, orders in council, affidavits or documents of any kind relating to the dismissal of Mr. D. W. Morrison from the position of postmaster of St. Peters, Nova Scotia, including all communications to and from Mr. W. E. McLellan, acting district superintendent of the Post Office department for the province of Nova Scotia.


MRS. NOLIN
Mr. BOURASSA:: For a copy of all papers, correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions, requests and other documents, exchanged between the Post Office department and any persons, from the year 1911 to date in regard to the resignation of Mrs. J, Nolin, postmistress of St. David, County of Levis.


MR. U. BELANGER
Mr. PELLETIER:: For a copy of all letters, papers, reports and other documents, regarding the dismissal of U. Belanger, station agent at Padoue, county of Matane, in 1922.


MR. A. C. BELANGER
François Jean Pelletier: For a copy of all letters, papers, reports and other documents, regarding the dismissal of A. C. Belanger, night station agent at St. Moise, Matane countv in 1922.


MR. JOSEPH LEBLANC
Mr. LEGER:: For a copy of all letters, papers, telegram, correspondence and other documents, in the possession of the government, exchanged between Mr. Walter Fisher, Chief Fishery Inspector, Eastern Division, Halifax, Nova Scotia; T. W. Crocker, Fishery Inspector, Newcastle, New Brunswick, and Joseph Le Blanc of Richi-bucto Village, and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in reference to the seizure and confiscation of the Joseph Le Blanc fishing boat, so called, for illegal fishing, in the year 1922, at Richibucto Cape, New Brunswick. Also a copy of the order given by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the release of said confiscated boat to the said Joseph Le Blanc.


FRENCH TRANSLATION AND PRINTING
Mr. VIEN:: For a return showing a statement of:-
1. All annual and supplementary reports of the department of the public service which, since the appointment of the" Editorial Committee (October 4th, 1917) to date, have been printed in the English language, and which have not, at the time or later, been translated into the French language, or which, having been translated, have not been printed;	'
Bankruptcy

2.	All pamphlets and miscellaneous book work which have been printed in the English language, during the same period to date, and which have not, at the time or later, been translated into the French language, or which, having been translated, have not been printed;
3.	All the orders or rulings issued by either the Editorial Committee or the departments, under which such translation has not been effected, or under which, after translation, the printing of the said documents has not taken place.


EQUALIZATION OF RAILWAY RATES
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last when I moved my resolution on the equalization of freight rates it stood over for the purpose of enabling you, Sir, to look into the question of whether it was in order. I then asked that the motion should be given right of way to-day, and I understood that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) acceded to my request. At least, he stated that subject to your decision my motion would be given priority. He also stated that he would consult with members of his own party who had resolutions on the order paper ahead of mine with a view of securing that right of way.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection of what I said when my hon. friend asked that the priority of his motion might be preserved is that I intimated the government would do whatever lay within its power to meet his wishes, seeing that he was dropping his motion for the time being to suit your, convenience, Sir, to enable you to look up certain references. Of course, the government's power in a matter of this kind is limited by the consent of the House. If the House is agreeable to giving the hon. gentleman precedence, the government is perfectly willing he should have it.
Mr. CLARK; I think my right hon. friend has apparently forgotten that after I had spoken to the motion, being in some doubt as to what interpretation might be placed upon the words I used, I immediately crossed the floor and explained to him that I intended to ask that my motion should be given right of way over all other motions, and should be taken up to-day. I also requested that the other motions, which stood in my way should be proceeded with last Wednesday. _ The first motion now on the order paper is one of those which I then referred to.


John Warwick King: I think my hon. friend did come over and speak to me, and I said I would see what could be done. But

he will be the first to admit that I could not make any promise which would bind the entire House. I have spoken to other hon. members who have resolutions ahead, but they maintain that it is their right to insist on their motions being called in their regular order. I am afraid, therefore, that unless they are willing to withdraw from that position at this moment, my power in the matter is limited.


BANKRUPTCY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. PIERRE F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the fact that the Bankruptcy Act, 1919, and amendments thereto, does not obtain the results expected, and is the source of complaints from various industries and trades, it is desirable that the said law should be amended or abrogated.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last year I had on the order paper a resolution similar to this but I did not press it because I was given to understand that substantial amendments would be introduced to the Bankruptcy Act. The amendments, however, which were bought down in the last lap of the session, were of not much importance; they did net cover many of the points discussed and did not appear at any rate to be such as to afford relief.
All over the country to-day, especially in the province of Quebec, the present law and its application is criticized. Its enforcement during the last three years has been sufficient to prove to the general public that the law is not as good as it was thought it would be, not even as good as the old system which formerly prevailed under the abandonment of property provisions in our province and the Winding-up Act. Everybody will understand that the bankruptcy law is of the highest importance; it has a great influence on the economic and commercial life of the country, and even, I would add, on its morality. When our present law was passed one of its objects was to provide that when a person became insolvent his wealth and property should belong to his creditors and be distributed among them equitably; that a debtor was to be liberated if he were not proved guilty of any fraud, and that the costs were to be reduced to a minimum. That is what we were told when the provisions of the present law were introduced in the House in 1919 and that had been the object of previous laws respecting bankruptcy in this country. Since its enforcement, however, the present law seems to have

Bankruptcy
opened the door to fraud and speculation. It has been injurious to the credit of individuals and commercial firms and in large measure has contributed to the financial depression that at present exists in this country. There is a good deal of feeling against the law, not only in the province of Quebec but also in other parts of the Dominion. And just here I cannot do better, Mr. Speaker, than to cite to the House some remarks made by Mr. Colby, then member for Stanstead, when the law of 18S0 was repealed. He said:
The idea of protecting the honest and unfortunate debtor was a humane and proper idea, but in England, in the United States and in Canada, where endeavours have been made to protect the honest and unfortunate trader, the door had been unfortunately opened to fraud, demoralization, recklessness, and evils so numerous that it became necessary in the public interest, that these facilities should be done away with.
This seems to have been the case in connection with the present law. I believe also that the promoters of the law, who were desirous of having uniform legislation on the subject- and I am told that the idea originated in the western provinces, the Canadian Credit Men's Association being its chief promoter-have had fault to find with it since it went into force. Mr. Detchon, the general manager of that association, is reported as having said recently that the law is favourable to the dishonest trader who makes use of the same to get rid of his indebtedness and in a certain way to keep the greatest part of his money to the detriment of his creditors. In the province of Quebec numerous trustees have been appointed under this law, and their aim and object has been to show people financially embarrassed the way to get out of their difficulties. We have seen circulars issued to people of the trades and industries and to others, asking them to call meetings of their officers or trustees for the purpose of discussing methods of overcoming their financial difficulties of the moment and of trying to get rid of their debt and turning over a new leaf. These people have sent notices out and have employed canvassers not only in the cities but in the country districts as well. We have seen many of them in the province of Quebec going to honest farmers in certain communities who are in some little financial difficulty and offering to fix things up for them. They tell these farmers that if they will let them look after their affairs they will put them under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act so that they may have freedom from all their creditors. I am told that a great many people in the rural districts have been lured by these canvassers who told them that their financial difficulties would be relieved, and
the result has been that they have run into further difficulties. Sometimes they have succeeded in paying only 10, 15 or 20 per cent and have not been any better off after they failed; in fact, their position has been worse.
The present law provides facilities to enable the debtor to go to a trustee, open all his affairs to him, and ask him to make a settlement. In my opinion too much freedom is thus allowed to the debtor who is not so scrupulous, because he can go to a trustee and by preparing a -statement of his affairs from two to six months ahead he can make a showing which, while substantially according to the facts, is not fully accurate and may thus make an attempt to get away with something.
I may be told that there is a provision in the law under which such a trustee may be removed. It is true that a trustee may be removed for cause after a meeting of creditors called for the purpose. But it is usually the case that when a man goes to the trouble of getting a trustee to look after his affairs for him he has beforehand sought the opinion of some of the largest creditors and obtained their consent to the arrangement on the understanding that those creditors will get off not too badly and that they will be paid a certain amount of their claim. 'Then when an attempt is made to put out the trustees who have been so chosen, the creditors who have not been consulted find themselves in the dark; they are without support, and thus there cannot be secured the number of creditors necessary to bring about the removal of the trustees. This is one of the bad features of the law. In Montreal and in the rural districts as well people have failed who would have been able to meet their indebtedness with a little effort ; they could have found a remedy for their financial difficulties without taking a course that would leave their creditors with nothing.
The cost of operations under the present law is too great. One of the objects of the [DOT] law, as was stated on its introduction, was to reduce the costs of legal services and of trustees. I had a case in court where the creditors had taken proceedings against a debtor, obtained judgment and the property was in the hands of the sheriff to be sold. The cost amounted to about $300. Just a day or so before the date fixed for the sale, the trustee went to the debtor and explained the situation to him. The debtor immediately made an assignment, took the benefit of the law, and the costs were useless. Now the assets of the estate have been wound up, and the costs will have to be paid by the creditors for proceedings against the debtor, although the proceedings were of no avail. The creditors will lose the costs they have paid.
[Stage Direction]
Bankruptcy
[Stage Direction]
We had another case in which the assets of an insolvent debtor realized the sum of $680, and the fees for the proceedings and for the legal advice of the trustees amounted to $527; the balance went to the privileged creditors and the ordinary creditors went away with nothing. Another case was that of Le Union Co-operation des Fcrmiers de St. Leon-le-Grand. The proceeds in that case amounted to $3,943.40, and the cost and disbursements amounted to $2,056.44, leaving a dividend of 8J per cent to the creditors. Today in most of the small cases the costs absorb nearly the whole amount realized, and the ordinary creditors receive hardly anything. So that we are not much more advanced than we were under the old law. Then we have the bill of costs also of the lawyers, and in this case I am not speaking for myself, and I am not trying to unduly protect the lawyer, because some comments were made in this House a few weeks ago that lawyers were crowding the people hard. This law was made to try to prevent abuses. I had occasion to examine bills of cost myself and I find that the bills of cost are just as heavy as before.
Under the old law, in the superior court of the province of Quebec, it would cost us for a petition from $16 to $20-not more than $20-and now the costs under an order amount to $60, $85 or $90. Last year I had occasion to present a petition to a trustee to declare a dividend, and the costs amounted to $85. It is the same case everywhere, and the trustees themselves and the registrar are authorized by this law to charge for each and every single thing they do, and if any hon. member who has a moment to spare would kindly look at the tariff, which is to be found at the end of the sections, he would find that the bailiff, the trustees, the employees and all the assistants of the trustees, are well and favourably protected, much more than they were under the old law, The Winding-up Act and the Judicial Abandonment of Property Act as administered in Quebec before this law was in force.
There is another objection to this law. The law allowed the trader to fail, and by allowing the trader to fail, it has ruined in my opinion the credit of a great many other persons. We saw last year a great many people who would have been able, under other circumstances, to withstand the commercial and industrial depression and meet their liabilities and claims of their creditors, if it had not been for the bankruptcy law which is in force. We have seen many cases where the merchant would have been able to borrow from the 
bank or from individuals to carry on and obtain the necessary amount of money to settle his affairs, but he could not borrow this money on account of the bankruptcy law, because the people would say to him, "We have no guarantee, if we advance you a certain amount of money, that in a few days from now, with the help of some trustees or other creditors, you will not assign, and we will be left in the cold and will have no recourse under the law." Many of these merchants have gone to the banks and tried to borrow money and the banks have refused to lend them money because they were afraid they might assign and the bank would not be protected. Another objection is that a hypothec or mortgage created within three months preceding the insolvency is declared void, and that the creditor under the mortgage or hypothec has not the right to recover, according to the rank of the hypothec. The result is that in our province of Quebec, in farming districts, farmers who have become embarrassed under the old law would have been able to obtain money on their farming property, have found the door closed to them on account of this very same law, because the people did not trust them and they were afraid that the hypothec they would obtain on their property would be declared null and void. Since the law has been in force we have seen many merchants and others refusing to give credit to traders' or other persons on account of this law. The industrial people, trades people, the business men and the manufacturers are all opposed to the law, and it is a strange thing that those who were pressing for this law in 1919 are all now in favour of the proposition that it should be either abrogated or amended in a way to protect the interest of the merchant, the manufacturer and the industrial people.
At a certain meeting of La Chambre de Commerce in Montreal, which is a French institution similar to the Board of- Trade in Ontario, a resolution was passed declaring that La Chambre de Commerce was opposed to the law, and stating that even with the amendments passed at the last session of parliament the law was too wide and more advantageous to the bankrupt.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do I understand the hon. member to say that a mortgage registered within three months prior to an assignment act is invalid, even if it were a bona fide mortgage, and no mala tides?

Bankruptcy


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I will come to that point. We have in our civil code article 2023 which says that a mortgage registered within thirty days of the insolvency of the debtor, if it is notoriously known that the man is insolvent, is no good. We have also article 2090 which prevents the registration of any mortgage or privilege on the movable property of the debtor within 30 days immediately preceding the insolvency.
Then I say if we have these provisions in our law to protect us and protect the creditors against the insolvent debtors, or the traders who might be in bad circumstances, I do not see why we should have gone to the trouble of enacting in this new law other articles which have made it worse for us, which are cumbersome, and are in a certain way overlapping the law of the province of Quebec.


Mr. LADNER:: Does the bankruptcy law not distinguish between actual money advanced in exchange for a mortgage and the other class where the mortgage is given for a past due debt?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer that question now. I do not think the law makes any distinction as to that, at any rate not that I can remember. I know the law, and it is very complicated and pretty hard to understand. There are lawyers, and many trustees of long standing, in the province of Quebec who are not able to understand it. They find, too, that in many cases, there are contradictions in the law.


Mr. JACOBS:: The hon. gentleman will admit there are some lawyers who understand it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: My hon. friend no doubt understands the law as he has made a special study of it, just as he has in the case of the Immigration Act. I say that the law, as it is at present framed is not in the interest of the business community and should either be amended or repealed. I am not alone in that belief. I have cited the opinions of the Chambre de Commerce of Montreal and I hope I may be permitted to read a few extracts of what we see every day in the newspapers of our province. When I opened my newspaper some time ago I saw the heading "Bankruptcy Law Operation Flayed." That was the heading over the report of a certain organization, the Old Colony Club, which was meeting at the Windsor hotel in Montreal and trying to find some way out of the existing difficulties either by the improvement of the present law or by its abrogation. A head-'
line in another newspaper was worded "Bankruptcy Act Not Understood." It may be that that is what my hon. friend was drawing my attention to a moment ago. This had reference to a meeting of the local Rotary Club of Montreal at which efforts were made to discover some amendments to the law which it was thought would remedy the existing conditions in the country. The heading over another newspaper article reads "Bankruptcy Law Needs Amendment." So you see that people, not only in the city of Montreal but in other districts of the province, are getting busy and endeavouring to devise some means of amending this law.
I have here also an article which was published in the Montreal Gazette about the time of the opening of the present session, and I quote from that article the folllowing:
The results have been, apparently, advantageous, but not to the creditors. The present law does not differ in principle from its short-lived predecessor of 1875-80; The fault with the old law was attributed to administrative weaknesses, and the new statute was professedly designed to remedy these defects.
And then further on:
The principal objection to the existing law in Canada, as expressed from time to time, is that it does not adequately safeguard the interests of the creditors and of legitimate business, in short, that it makes insolvency profitable to the debtor. It has been criticized further upon the score of expense and upon the ground that it is cumbersome, and the amendments made last year were intended to improve it in these respects.
These amendments did not affect the principle of the law, and do not, apparently, meet the main objection, namely, that the statute encourages bankruptcy. Such an objection, if substantiated, is sufficient to condemn the act, as, obviously, the purpose of the law is frustrated in the result alleged. The case may not be as bad as it is represented to be, but the volume and character of the criticisms denote a fundamental flaw somewhere in the system, and the matter is of sufficient importance to engage the attention of the government and of parliament.
It is for this reason that I am now moving this resolution, in the hope that hon. members will co-operate with me and impress upon the Minister of Justice the importance of making certain desired amendments to the law.
Another effect which this law has had is that it has practically abolished articles 853 and 892 of our code of civil procedure, regarding the abandonment of property, which were in force for fifteen years before they were thus practically superseded and which gave entire satisfaction. Article 891 declares that a debtor is liberated from 4 p.m. debt only up to the extent of the amount that his creditors receive from the proceeds of the sale of his assets. On the other hand section 58 of the new Bankruptcy law states that a bankrupt
Bankruptcy

person may ask and obtain his release if he had not been proven guilty of any fraud, there being however, certain conditions which must be complied with. It is easy to imagine all the abuses that might possibly flow from such a law. Instead of forcing the bankrupt trader to fulfil his obligations and respect his dealings with his creditors, to my mind, this provision encourages the trader to incur further liabilities. There is also the opportunity of indulging in speculation by giving to the unscrupulous trader a chance, after having made some bad bargain, or of indulging in some imprudent dealings, to get free by making a settlement of some kind on easy terms with his creditors. Sometimes creditors, even though they may have sufficient time, are not interested enough in the settlement of their claims. Very often they do not look with sufficient care into these cases when they are brought to their attention, or when they receive a notice to approve or disapprove of an agreement or a settlement. It is too much the custom of such people to say, "I have made a certain amount of money out of this man, I have had certain transactions with him and in most cases he has paid me well; I shall lose a certain amount in the present case but I will let it go at that." In other cases the creditors are discouraged and do not want to spend more time and money in what they look upon as an uncertainty. The consequence is the bankrupt is liberated when he should not be freed at all. Under the old law in our province, which law is still in force, respecting the judicial abandonment of property, only a man who was in danger of arrest on a capias or a trader in a bad financial condition could assign. To-day, under this Dominion law, any person, whether he is a trader or not, can assign. Under article 853 of the provincial law only a debtor who was liable to be arrested, or a trader who had ceased his payments, could make an assignment. To-day, under this Dominion law, any man can do so whether he is a trader, a real estate operator, an engineer, or even a trustee; and I am told that in certain cities there are men acting as trustees who have made compromises with their creditors and who are operating under an extension of time. I am told that such men as these have, unfortunately, been given the administration of certain estates in the district in which they reside. The position of these men might have escaped the notice of the department because of their being highly rcommended. I am, however, informed on good authority that there are such cases and it is hardly necessary to say that such IMr. Casgrain.]
men should not be occupying the position of trustees.
Another objection that I see to the present law is,this: articles 1,999 and 2,005 of our civil code which were made for the protection of the landlord have been, to a certain extent, abrogated and the landlord has not the privilege which he enjoyed under the old law. Under section 52 of the present law the landlord is only granted three months' rental previous to the insolvency. A trustee can occupy the premises from month to month at the same rental, or at a certain rental fixed by the court. The trustee also has the privilege to cancel the lease at any time during the year, and the result is that in many cases the landlord suffers great loss and great inconvenience.
Sections 29 and 48 of the present law also seem to me to be objectionable because they do away with certain features of the clauses of the marriage contract which have been the basis and the mainstay of the family life and of the marital rights as between husband and wife.
Another objection to the law I find in article 85, which deals with the permission given to a company to assign. According to article 85, a company may assign if it is duly represented, and this other paragraph of the law states that a firm has a right to assign by one of its members. I am informed that in Montreal, in the case of Byers and Craig, one of the partners of the firm put the firm into liquidation and judgment was rendered on that point that, according to the article, as it was drafted, there was no other course than to maintain the action of the partner which was supposed to be binding on behalf of the firm. This article should be amended in such a way as to protect a member of a firm who might be put into trouble and lose a good deal of the money he had invested in the firm, if any other member could put the firm into insolvency. The trouble was that when this law was made, it was made to cover and protect creditors in other parts of the country than Quebec which do not seem to have the same provisions that we have in our civil code and code of procedure, and it is for this reason that we see many articles in the law and many things in the rules and regulations which seem to be overlapping and which cause so m,uch trouble, as has been the experience since the law has been in force.
Many insolvencies have occurred recently in Quebec. If you open a newspaper or pass through any of the streets of our cities, what do you see? "Bankruptcy" or "sale judicially authorized." We see this in Montreal, especi-

Bankruptcy
ally. This is due, I believe to the fact that the law renders it too easy to the debtor to avail himself of its provisions. If we consider the many insolvencies that have taken place, we find that most of the insolvencies- at any rate I am so informed as regards the district of Montreal-have been voluntary and that the- debtors themselves have gone to the trustees and arranged their affairs with them and a few of their creditors to try to get away with the matter. We are presented sometimes with a compromise or a certain agreement reached with a number of creditors who have the largest claims, and as I said at the beginning of my remarks, it is pretty hard to upset them. Formerly, it was only the trader who could assign, because he needed credit and he was in business; but to-day any person who is a debtor can make - an assignment. We have also in the law a provision that a debtor can assign, not only in his district, but in other places, and I have seen many cases where debtors of rural districts have assigned in the district of Montreal. One of my hon. friends was pointing out to me that one debtor in the district of Joliette had assigned in another district entirely different from his own. This complicates matters and compels creditors to follow up their debtors to other districts than those in which they ought to assign, as was the case under the old law thereby increasing expenses.
To find out if the results of this law have been good, I think I can do no better than to give to the House the figures of the numerous cases which have originated since the law came into force. The figures are as follows for Canada:
Number of	,
insolvent
Date	cases	Assets	Liabilities1916	
590	$ 5,000,000	$ 9,000,0001917	
370	4,000,000	5,000,0001918	
873	11,251,341	14,502,4771919	
755	10,741,441	16,256,2501920	
1,878	18,569,516	26,474,3011921	
2,451	57,158,597	73,299,111
1922, for first
six months..	1,899	24,372,548	32,423,961
For the first nine months of 1922, I am informed, there are 2,729 cases, and of those 1,083, or 40 per cent, are in Quebec. Of those 1,083 cases, I am informed that 300 were farmers in our good old province of Quebec, who had found a way to fail, a thing unknown formerly in the rural districts in our good province of Quebec which has had the reputation of being honest and paying its debts


Mr. MICHAUD:: Does the hon. member
mean to say that there were no bankruptcies
amongst farmers until the Bankruptcy Act came into force?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There might have been some cases of bankruptcy, people who were assigning; but there were not bo many. Under the old law the farmer, if he was carrying on a trade or business, could assign; but if a farmer simply was cultivating the land, he could not assign. Under the present law, he cannot be forced into bankruptcy; but he can himself make an assignment, and that is what is being done in many cases.


Mr. MORIN:: Could his property be sold by the sheriff if he failed to meet his liabilities?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: Like everyone
else.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes.


Mr. SHAW:: Would my hon. friend deny to farmers the right of seeking relief under the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, the right he accords to others?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No. But before we had that law, farmers who were embarrassed were able to meet their liabilities and pull themselves through. Since the law has been in force, there seems to be a microbe or epidemic which has taken a few of those people, who have assigned at the instance of other people who are not so scrupulous as they ought to be. For instance some of the trustees go out into the rural districts and impress upon those people what the relief is under the law; that they ought to apply it to themselves, and that if they would put their affairs into the hands of the trustees, those trustees would settle all their difficulties for them. Under the old law, they had the relief of borrowing money on good terms in those rural districts where such facilities exist. On account of this new bankruptcy law, the people are afraid to do business with them, because they fear they may be left in the dark.


Mr. BOYS:: What was the law in Quebec as regards bankruptcy? Is there no act by w-hich a resident of Quebec can voluntarily assign?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We have, under the law of Quebec, as I quoted before, articles 853 to 892, whereby a firm or a person who is a trader under his own name or firm name, could make a judicial abandonment of his property or be forced to assign where he owed morp than 8200. Then we had for in-
Bankruptcy

corporafed companies the .provisions general to the Dominion of Canada of the Winding-up Act.


William Alves Boys: My hon. friend has given
figures of five or six years. I think he gave the figure of assignments in Quebec in 1921, as 2,451. Were those all assignments of merchants?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am not in a position to answer that question, but I may say that in a great number of these cases the people voluntarily assigned, which goes to show that under the new law they are more eager to seek relief, for the reason that they can obtain their freedom more easily than was formerly possible. Under the old law they were liberated only to the extent that their estate could pay; now they are fully liberated, under the provisions of articles 58 to 60, if their estate can bring fifty cents in the dollar. Under these circumstances they are more eager to seek relief, and that is why since 1919 up to the present time we have seen a great many more insolvency cases and bankrupt estates in the province of Quebec than we have known before.
When one sees all these insolvency cases occurring and so many bankrupts seeking relief, one is reminded of the old custom that prevailed in France, where conditions are of course different to-day. In the old days in France the insolvent was forced to wear a green bonnet until such time as all his debts had been discharged to the satisfaction of his creditors. But when we see how easily debtors can now have their affairs settled, and with what little trouble they can get out of their difficulties, I think that in a few years we may have to establish a new order of decoration. These people are so successful in escaping from their responsibilities that, I am led to believe, we may deem it advisable to give them titles. The principal difficulty of the new law seems to lie in the facility- greater than under the law as it previously stood-with which a man can obtain relief from the consequences of failure, and the greater ability he has now to free himself. As I pointed out a moment ago, this condition induces a great many people to seek relief, and is also a strong incentive to dishonesty, because I am fairly certain that a great many of these people must arrange with the trustees and some of the largest creditors before being able to settle their affairs as satisfactorily as they seem to be able to do.
The present state of things also undermines credit, because people are afraid to advance money to any tradesman for the reason that they fear he may fail and then be able to {Mr. Casgrain.l
avail himself of the provisions of the law at any time. Another objection to the law as it stands is the fact that the costs of liquidation are much too high. The law was intended to make all legislation uniform, but in my opinion, as things stand now, it only tends to make the evil uniform. I would also point out that this law encroaches on our provincial law, on our civil code and procedure. And one of the last, but by no means the least serious, of the objections I have to it is that it has been responsible for the appointment of too many trustees. When the law was first enacted we were given to understand that only about fifty trustees would be appointed for the district and city of Montreal, and that there would be some trustees located in other districts. I am told that in Montreal there are over 165, indeed, nearly 200 trustees to-day. Nearly everybody . could be appointed a trustee under this system, but at present I understand that the gates have been closed and that it is not so easy to have trustees appointed. Very good reasons must be advanced and more security given. The trustees under this law are supposed to give a bond in regard to their administration, but I am informed that many of them give no bond except when they have in view the settlement of an estate. When that is the case they go and give the bond.
As I said before, it has been pointed out that in some of the big cities a few persons have been acting as trustees notwithstanding that they have availed themselves of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and are themselves under compromise. In this respect I would suggest that the government adopt the course that was followed last year by the provincial government of our province. It was discovered that, in the case of a number of persons who were acting as commissioners of the superior court, there were certain abuses in some districts. The government discharged them all by process of an act which was passed at the last session, and only those were reappointed who could show that they were sufficiently qualified for the position. I believe that it would be well to-day if all trustees were removed by this government and if only those were reappointed who could give the best guarantee and recommendation. At any rate, I would not appoint as many as have been appointed in the past. All these men have to earn their living, and this is one of the reasons why we have seen so many of them going into the rural districts and inducing people to avail themselves of the law.


An hon. MEMBER:: Are they appointed by the Civil Service Commission?

Bankruptcy


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, they are not under the Civil Service Commission, their appointment lies only with the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State. Trustees are appointed by order in council. That is good.
It is my opinion that the bankruptcy law, with its many amendments and rules and regulations, is altogether too voluminous and complicated. We have a law that covers 72 pages and is embraced in 98 articles, and rules and regulations and every year since its , enactment it has been amended. Indeed, it was amended even before it was put into force, because after the act had been passed in this Chamber it was discovered, upon consultation with some of the best lawyers, that it contained serious errors and omissions. The amendments that have been passed, together with the regulations and forms, are very cumbersome and complicated, and the law consequently does not afford that measure of relief which the people had expected. The forms which it is required to comply with are also for the most part useless and costly, and I venture the opinion that the rules of procedure contain too much red tape, so that creditors will never realize their wish of seeing estates wound up with any degree of expedition unless these rules and regulations are made somewhat more practicable.
I might refer to another feature of the law. I am told that last year certain amendments were enacted by which a trustee is bound to make a return of the affairs of the insolvent debtor for the last year and the year previous to the insolvency. In most cases this has worked very unsatisfactorily both from the point of view of the trustee and, as well, from that of the creditors, more especially of privileged creditors. In one case of which I have personal knowledge a trustee had prepared all his dividend sheets and he received a notification from the Income Tax department not to pay any privileged creditors or any others before the Income Tax office had adjudged what amount was to be paid by the trustee on account of the returns not made and the taxes not paid by the insolvent debtor, depriving thereby the privileged creditors, as well as the lawyers, the trustee and other persons similarly interested in the estate of the payment of their just claims and fees. And in most of these cases, from the books that are kept by the insolvent debtor, it is absolutely impossible for the trustees to prepare such returns.
When we consult the statutes we find that not only once has this parliament tried to legislate in the matter of bankruptcy. But each time it has been unlucky. We find that
in 1839 a Bankruptcy Act was passed, only to be repealed in 1843, and six years later replaced by another statute. In 1863 Sir John Abbott introduced a bankruptcy bill which became law in 1864 and was amended from time to time. In 1874 under the Mackenzie administration a further bankruptcy bill was enacted, but six years later it was repealed. Judge Fortin, who later became a judge of the superior court of the district of Montreal, when a member of this House introduced a bill applicable to bankruptcy proceedings throughout the Dominion. With the assistance of some of the ablest lawyers of Montreal he drafted what it was hoped would bring relief to both debtors and creditors but the government of the day did not view the measure favourably, having in mind the unsatisfactory results obtained under the old law, and the bill failed to pass the House of Commons.
If we examine the defects of our old bankruptcy laws we shall find them practically the same as those which mar the Bankruptcy Act of 1919. On this point I wish to quote the views of Judge Desire Girouard contained in a book which he published on the bankruptcy law qf 1864. He then advanced the following objections to that statute:
Firstly, it is prejudicial to commerce, because it opens new doors to fraud, affords to the bankrupt new means of deception. What is to be expected from a law which, from the first to the thirteenth clause, and from the first to the hundred and thirty-first paragraph, favours almost always the insolvent and not the creditor? Be it remarked, this assertion is not gratuitous ; had we no other proof of it than the fact of all the advertisements and notices of failures, which have crowded, since the coming into force of the statute, the columns of our newspapers, our position would be fully established. But again, when we glance at the provisions of the act, the mode, voluntary as well as compulsory, of winding up the affairs of the insolvent ; when it is observed that the bankrupt has himself the control of the important delays of the announcement of his failure and the divesting himself of his estate; that he can still with impunity defeat the law and defraud his creditors, obtain, in spite of the latter, a judicial discharge; when it is clear that the hope of such discharge will be for the debtor a powerful motive to induce him to dimmish his assets, and afterwards to declare himself in a state of bankruptcy, in order to come out of it enriched with the spoils of the mass; when, we say, we consider all these complications and formalities, which here, as always, serve the debtor and not the creditor; when we remember, in fine, all these delays and costs of liquidation, without forgetting the expenses of the insolvent in obtaining his discharge and attending the meetings of creditors, for the arrangement of his own affairs, it is easy to see, we say again, that the fact, the evidence of which we invoked, it but the rigorous consequence of the law, the inevitable result of the provisions . of the act.
But it is not only because the act favours the interests of the insolvent to the detriment of his creditors that it is fatal to the commerce of the country, but because, like every other bankrupt law, it will injure our credit abroad.
Bankruptcy

And in support of his argument he quotes the following article from the Revue de Legislation written expressly for the benefit of Canada in 1846 when the bankruptcy law of 1843 was in operation:
"The internal commerce of the country," says the anonymous writer, "ought to be sober, prudent and limited; the bankrupt laws in assuring beforehand the discharge from debts, will render it improvident, hazardous, and rash; first cause of mistrust. The facility of freeing himself from embarrassments and of avoiding his struggle always uncertain, will on the very first difficulty paralyze the energy and determination of the trader; for why struggle to pay debts, when it is so easy not to have any? This is a second cause of mistrust. When the labour and talents of the insolvent were the settled guarantee of his creditors, it was for their interest to make this labour and these talents available: and thence all these aids and encouragements which never failed to the unfortunate, and which assisted him to overcome difficulties and to regain lost ground. Bankrupt laws have put an end to this state of things, and hence a third source of mistrust.'
Finally, we think we do not stretch the truth in affirming that a large number of merchants, if not the greater number, would be satisfied with few amendments and simple additions to the existing laws, for the sole purpose of defining and punishing fraud and giving to the cession de biens its proper and necessary effects.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that either in the province of Quebec or in the Dominion generally do we need such a law as we find in the Bankruptcy Act of 1919. It is veiy hard to frame a law which shall be satisafctory of application in a new country, and we find that it was not until 1886 and 1898 that England and the United States respectively, both much older countries than ours, considered such a course necessary or desirable. We are a country in the making, and we have bo many new elements mixing with our population, so many foreign immigrants who are not educated to our standard of ethics and morality, and our territory is so vast, that it is very difficult to draft a general law of bank-rupcy to protect the opposing interests of creditors and. debtors and ensure a just and economical distribution of insolvent estates. If in the province of Quebec the resentment against the Bankruptcy Act is stronger than in other provinces, it may be due to the fact that, especially in the district of Montreal, we have a very large proportion of foreigners who sometimes are inclined to seek freedom from their indebtedness in a way that our native population would not consider for a moment. I am told that in the province of Ontario this law has not been so adversely criticised. The reason for this may be that there is one-third less population of foreign origin in Ontario than there is in the province of Quebec, particularly in the city of Montreal.

Under this law a further objectionable feature is that large credit corporations are enabled to wield too much influence. For instance, we see big corporations such as the Credit Business Men's Association and other trustee companies engaging in the liquidation of insolvent estates more than was the case under the old law. I do not say that this state of affairs is altogether bad, but I do Bay that these companies having better means of administering the estates of insolvents it is very difficult for individual trustees whc , are not so well organized to secure a fai [DOT] share of business, and this may be the reason why so many of these men go into outlying districts and try to induce people to assign.
Our present bankruptcy law has for the most part proven a boon and a benefit to the foreign element who have recently come to this country from Europe. They arrive here with neither a business nor any other reputation to lose and have no scruples about adopting questionable practices to rid themselves of their financial obligations.
The Bankruptcy Act of 1919 was introduced to secure a more equitable, speedy and economical distribution of a debtor's property and to prevent the excessive abuses and endless expenses which attend bankruptcy proceedings under the old system. But I believe the act was conceived in a hurry and was ill digested. In fact, it was one of those laws wished on us, like the Board of Commerce and other legislation passed by the Union government. which we later found encroached upon the rights of Quebec and the other provinces.
It saw the light, I am informed, in an obscure law office in Winnipeg, was fostered here by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) and finally adopted by the government of the day in despair. It has proved like our other bankruptcy acts, anti-social and anti-economic. It has done bo much harm and so little good that I submit it ought to be consigned to the pigeon-hole to take its place with the Board of Commerce Act and other defunct laws passed by the Union government.
The old Winding-up Act and the provisions respecting the abandonment of property in our code of civil procedure in Quebec are, I submit, sufficient to meet all present purposes and to give general satisfaction to the public. A few amendments may be necessary, but that being done I think everybody would be satisfied. Above all, what we need in a law of this kind, if it has come to stay, is plain and simple language, not the equivocal language which predominates

Bankruptcy
in the present act and which is the cause of much trouble and difficulty. It has been found under this law that in many cases the rights given to the province of Quebec under the civil code and the code of procedure had to be maintained before the courts through the submission of proof that notwithstanding this federal act we had the right to avail ourselves of certain provisions existing in our own laws. A gentleman who was in his lifetime a great lawyer in Montreal, Mr. C. H. Stephens, expressed the view that the code of procedure and the provisions respecting the judicial abandonment of property that we had in the province of Quebec were sufficient to meet all the needs of the people of that province. Speaking of the impossibility of removing from the minds of the people of certain provinces the idea that it is unjust and cruel to take the assets of a debtor and not liberate him from his liabilities, he said:
To expose the groundlessness of this idea, it ought perhaps to be sufficient to point out that for 15 years, this province has, so far at least as its local interests are concerned, got on better with the half a dozen articles inserted in our Code of Procedure, than under the most elaborate of the insolvent acts which were previously in force.
He pointed out that under our provincial law, a system for distributing insolvent estates, there has been less litigation, less costs and a total absence of that demoralizing influence which constituted the great predominating evil of the acts passed before the present law came into force.
I believe the remarks I have made are sufficient to show that the laws of this parliament in the matter of bankruptcy have not met with favour of the public at large. These laws were introduced with the idea of remedying the existing evils, but in each case it has been found after a few years of operation of the law that the best results were not being obtained. In fact, these bankruptcy laws have been a nuisance; they have been the source of much trouble in our province, and we have been forced to spend large sums to ensure the maintenance of our rights under the civil code and the code of civil procedure. I would also point out that when we had no bankruptcy act we got along just as well as, if not better than, we do under the present system.
Let us see what some of the best legal minds in the province of Quebec have to say about this law. There was a debate in the legislative assembly last year and the previous year, when a resolution was adopted in this form:
"The legislature of the province of Quebec regret that the Bankruptcy Act as amended invites dishonesty
and fraud and causes serious trouble to both trade and industrjr, which is of a nature to ruin credit, and it requests the federal government to repeal the act."
Hon. Mr. Perrault, Minister of Lands and Colonization for the province of Quebec, speaking in a debate last year, stated that the law had only opened the door to fraud and speculation; that it should not be amended but should be repealed. Hon. Mr. Galipeault, provincial Minister of Public Works, speaking on the occasion of the opening of the courts in the city of Quebec in September last, stated:
"The Canadian Bar, it is said, was responsible for the adoption of the new Bankruptcy Act by endorsing it after this project had been before the federal House for some time. If this is true, the association might have been more fortunate in its first move. The province of Quebec, which had the advantage of having its own bankruptcy law, which was less expensive and more easily operated will not be the only one to suffer from a law so rapidly studied, and which is so defective and means spoliation in many cases.
"For all those who are attached to our civil laws, constant care and watch is necessary to prevent any encroachment on our privileges.
"The tendency to centralize and unify legislation is becoming more and more visible since a few years, and there seems to be an admitted attempt to encroach on provincial rights and attack our civil laws.
The present Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) expressed the same opinion a few years ago in addressing a convention of the Canadian Bar Association at the Ritz-Carlton in Montreal. He expressed the hope that when they recommended amendments to the different legislatures and to the federal parliament they should not ask for uniformity of laws which would be prejudicial to the laws of the province of Quebec. Hon. L. A. Tasch-ereau, Premier of Quebec, has also expressed his opinion with regard to the present law. I shall have to quote it in French, because I have the extract of his speech from reports published in the French newlspapers. Mr. Taschereau said:
The government has sanctioned the repeal of the act, Mr. Taschereau said, and now we shall have it examined by our most eminent legal authorities, and, should it be found to be ultra vires, we shall ask to have it referred to the Supreme Court so as to have it declared unconstitutional. The government think that the act has not proved satisfactory and it is willing to do its utmost so as to have it declared unconstitutional.
If bankrupts occur in rural districts, further states the Prime Minister, it is neither due to taxes, nor to the erecting of schools and building of roads, but evidently to the Bankruptcy Act. The rural country was deluged with soliciting agents who induced the farmers to go into bankruptcy and many were taken in. The Act has been disastrous to the credit of farmers and as long as it exists we shall find the same results which, at present, we are encountering. The Premier reiterates that the government will take all the means possible to have this unjust law repealed.
With reference to the maintaining of our rights under the civil code and the code of
Bankruptcy

procedure in our province, a case was decided last fall before the court of appeal, a case in which the Riordon Company was interested, the Danford case. A certain creditor claimed the right to exercise a certain privilege; the question was taken before the court of appeal, and in rendering their decision the judges said:
The legislators during the short period of life of the act have so amended it that it is scarcely recognizable in its present form. It may be that before the Supreme Court could pass upon the question, further amendments would be made, either making clear what is evidently ambiguous or destroying entirely all rights of the privileged creditor.
That is the judgment of the court of King's Bench. I am told that the question is now before the Supreme Court of Canada, but judgment has not yet been rendered. We have also, Mr. Speaker, not an expression of opinion, but some remarks made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) himself when he had occasion to speak last year at a meeting of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. At that time one gentleman made a speech regarding the weak points of the law and the difficulties occasioned by it, and this is what the Minister of Justice is reported as saying. on that occasion-I quote in French:
I cannot but thank, said Sir Lomer Gouin, Mr. Deslongchamps for his interesting remarks on the Bankruptcy Act. I had already heard complaints in regard to this legislation, but this is the first time I have listened to such a clear statement of the grievances with which you have to put up. I am aware that bankruptcy laws have been adopted by the government, and some provinces, and, I also know that some have been repealed when they were found impracticable. I cannot express an opinion on what has been said by Mr. Deslongchamps, but what I may say without hesitation, is that manufacturers for whom this act was passed have made representation to the government that the act lends itself to abuse and that it is not in the interest of trade and the community at large, and, they may rest assured that the government will do its duty and give them justice.
On another occasion we have the report of Mr. Lambert, who was the president of La Chambre de Commerce of Montreal, who was reported as having had an interview also and discussing these matters with the Minister of Justice. I will read the following clipping with regard to the interview:
He also reported on an interview accorded himself and other members of the chambre de commerce by Hon. Sir Lomer Gouin, when the bankruptcy law had been discussed. Eleven amendments, recently approved by the Chambre had been submitted to the Minister of Justice and Sir Lomer Gouin had told them that he would do all in his power to see that a drastic change would be made as soon as possible. He had gone further, continued Mr. Lambert for he had declared that if the law was not repealed it would undoubtedly disappear anyhow, as it had been found most unsatisfactory for everybody concerned.

I have here amendments submitted by La Chambre de Commerce of Montreal, which are eleven in all. I think the Minister of Justice must have had copies of these amendments because I believe they were submitted to the government. They point out certain modifications which would likely be made, in order to improve the present law, if it is not repealed, along the lines I have suggested this afternoon. I will not weary the House reading these amendments, or reading different letters which I have received from numerous manufacturers, industrial and other people in my district in the province of Quebec. I am glad to know we have at the head of the Department of Justice the minister who now occupies that position (Sir Lomer Gouin). He was leader in the province of Quebec for many years, has made good laws a,nd brought prosperity to the province. I admit that this law might have some good effects, but it was not satisfactory on all points, and needs amendments, if amendments can possibly be made. If too many amendments would render the law ambiguous, as pointed out in the judgment of the court of appeal, I think it better to repeal the law entirely, and get the best legal minds in this country, those who have had the best experience, to frame up a new law which would give satisfaction to the province of Quebec and to the Dominion at large.
On the other hand, if the law is to remain as it stands, and if we have not time this session or other sessions to enact a new law, it might be provided that this law should not apply in the province of Quebec. A few years ago we had a law similar, which was of widespread application, the Lord's Day Act, but when that act was passed a provision was made that every province in the Dominion which would pass a similar law, or which had a law in existence before the passing of that act, would be exempted from the operation of that Dominion law. I want to see the rights of the province of Quebec protected, and I would like to see our civil code and civil procedure maintained in integrity.
I hope the Minister of Justice will do his best to remedy the present existing conditions as regards the province of Quebec.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: As one of those who had something to do with the Bankruptcy Act now under discussion, when that act was passed through this House two or three years ago, perhaps it would not be out of place for me to offer a few remarks in regard to the motion now before the House. It so happened that I

Bankruptcy
had the honour of occupying the office of Solicitor General of Canada at the time when the Bankruptcy Act in its initial stages came before parliament. I believe in the first instance my hon. friend for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) introduced the bill into this House; that bill was subsequently taken over by the government as a government measure and entrusted to myself as its manager in its course through parliament, and in that way I became fairly familiar with the provisions of the act and with its general application. I do not know, from the wording of the present motion, whether it is the desire of my hon. friend who has brought this matter to the attention of the House whether in his opinion the act should be actually repealed, or merely amended. There is a great difference between the two proposals. I submit to my hon. friend that the principle of a uniform bankruptcy law for the Dominion of Canada is a proper principle. It is possible, and it is also probable, that many of the details of the present act might well be amended, but I submit that we in Canada should have one uniform bankruptcy law to be applicable throughout the whole Dominion of Canada. What was the position in Canada prior to the passage of this act. We had nine provinces in Canada, each having provincial legislation which was virtually bankruptcy legislation although the several provincial governments had no constitutional power to pass such laws, they came as close to the constitutional limit as it was possible for them to come in their respective provinces, and in the nine provinces of Canada these laws exhibited very great variety and entirely lacked uniformity. There was great difficulty in finding out just what the law of this, that or the other province was. The House will agree that trade and commerce is essentially a national question, just as much a national question as our railways, or our banking v system. It is just as important to have a law pertaining to our trade and commerce uniform in regard to bankruptcy as it is to have uniformity in regard to railway law or in regard to the laws of banking and commerce. One difficulty arose almost from day to day by reason of the large amount of interprovincial trade that is done in this country. The difficulty was this. A man in Nova Scotia sold goods to a man in Manitoba, the man in Manitoba became unable to pay for his goods; and the question was, what was the man in Nova Scotia to do to cbllect his bill? He did not know the Manitoba law, it might differ very materially from the law of Nova Scotia. The same thing might happen
in regard to British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Alberta or Ontario, because the laws of all these provinces varied, and in some instances varied very materially. There was no uniformity, and there was a vast amount of uncertainty and of ignorance in regard to the exact situation even in our country. What about the foreign trade of the Dominion? We were doing an enormous trade with the United States and with Great Britain and with a great many other countries and it happened that of all the civilized trading countries in the world Canada and China were the only two that did not have a modem and uniform bankruptcy law. Complaints came to Canada from time to time from representative commercial bodies of other countries, from representatives of boards of trade and chambers of commerce in other countries, as well as from exporters of goods from other countries to Canada complaining of the unsatisfactory state of the bankruptcy law of this country. Foreign firms were in some instances averse to extending mercantile credit to Canadian merchants by reason of the uncertainty which prevailed in regard to bankruptcy legislation in Canada.
The only legislative authority in Canada having constitutional power to pass a bankruptcy law is the Dominion parliament. This is settled by the express terms of the British North America Act. And the question arose whether this parliament should attempt to remedy the difficulty and pass a uniform law in regard to bankruptcy and insolvency throughout the whole Dominion, or whether we should permit nine attempts to create bankruptcy legislation in the various' provinces of the Dominion none of which had any strict constitutional right to pass such enactments. Parliament took the view that it was proper to have a uniform law upon the subject. The framers of the British North America Act in 1867 thought the Dominion parliament was the proper legislative body to deal with such a question, and power was given expressly to this parliament to do so. This parliament in 1875 passed such an act. That act was only in operation in Canada some five or six years at the most and then, in the judgment of parliament, it was repealed. It was held that the administration of that act had not proved satisfactory; and if one will read the debates in parliament at that time he will see that the chief complaint against the administration of the act of 1875 was the charge that the trustees or, as they called them in those days, the official assignees in insolvency, were incompetent men. also that they were irresponsible men, that.
1.502
Bankruptcy

time and time again the estates of a debtor had gone into the hands of an assignee and that was the last heard of it-the assignee through himself and his friends, managed to eat up the whole of the estate; there was nothing left for the creditors. That was the chief ground of complaint against the act of 1875. The act was repealed. We had no bankruptcy act in Canada from the year 1880 down to the year 19J9 when the present act was passed.
The bill which became the act of 1919 was introduced into parliament in the year previous. A special committee of this House, upon which sat representatives from every province of the Dominion, worked, and worked diligently, upon this whole question. Twenty-four meetings of that committee were held; I had the honour of presiding over the committee and I know whereof I speak. We worked long and we worked late, and at the end of the session we were able to bring in a bill which was in the nature of a draft measure. In order that parliament and the country might have time to digest it, the bill was only allowed to go to its second reading. An enormous number of extra copies of the bill were ordered to be printed so that they might be circulated from one end of the Dominion to the other. Copies of the bill were sent to all the provincial legislatures, to the law officers of the Crown in all the provinces of Canada, to all the mercantile bodies of standing in the Dominion, to all the boards of trade, all the chambers of commerce, all the legal associations, to the banking associations, to labour organizations, to the wholesale apd retail associations of traders; and I may tell the House likewise that representatives of nearly all of these bodies appeared before the committee and submitted their views, and I do not remember that any single individual, or any body of individuals, offered any objection to the principle of the bill- that is, that we should have a uniform Bankruptcy Act in Canada. Of course we differed -differed very radically from time to time- as to many of the clauses of the bill. In 1919 the bill again came before parliament. During that session the legislation was threshed out in this House clause by clause, item bjr item. Amendment after amendment was offered, and amendment after amendment was accepted. The desire of parliament was to secure the best bill and the most uniform bill that it was possible to secure in order to meet the varying conditions throughout the Dominion without infringing more than was absolutely necessary upon the local enactments of any one of the provinces. We considered that we had been able to report a
EMr. Guthrie.]	*
fair and reasonable measure under all the circumstances-not by any means a perfect measure; no one dreamed that a perfect measure could be produced in either a year, or two years, or three, or four, or live years, and so experience has shown since the act was passed. Imperfections have developed from time to time. In Great Britain the bankruptcy act is frequently amended. So also in the United States, and I assume also in the countries of Europe wffiere they have had. bankruptcy legislation for generations back. I do not believe that any great measure of general application can be passed at a session of this House and remain as a perfect model of legislation for any number of years to come; it will have to be
5 p.m. amended and altered from time to time. I find that during the last twenty odd years the Dominion Lands Act has been amended, I think every year; the Railway Act has been amended almost from year to year. Not so with the Banking Act, because we revise that every ten years; but I believe the present Bankruptcy Act will have to be altered from time to time for the next one hundred or the next one hundred and fifty years; it will have to be amended to meet changing requirements, the changes in our conditions, and the changes in our methods of trade.
Now, if my hon. friend who introduced this motion desires to get any concrete results from it, what I submit to him is this:	He
should bring in his proposals in the nature of a bill to amend the act. He has gone over the act from end to end; he has criticized it here, criticized it there, and criticized it in the other place; but he has left us no. concrete proposal as to its amendment. If he would merely come before parliament-perhaps he could not this session but at any rate next session->
with a bill to amend the act in the various sections concerning which he seeks amendment then the House, I think, will be in the position to discuss the question intelligently. But I am satisfied from what I know of the bill, from what I know of the temper of the House and the views of hon. members, that the House will agree, by a large majority, that the principle of the legislation is good and should be maintained. Although the details of the act may require a large amount of amendment to make it more workable there is this to be noted, that outside of the province of Quebec I do not think there has been any serious objection raised to the act itself. We had the advantage of advice from the province of Quebec with respect to this act, when it was before the committee in 1919. We had the assistance of the Bar Association;

Bankruptcy
and many eminent and well known men from that province also advised the committee upon various questions. We had resolutions from chambers of commerce and boards of trade in the province of Quebec as well as from all the other provinces, and the committee endeavoured as best it could to put the ideas of those experience! bodies and able legal minds into legal form in the various sections of the act as they now appear upon the statute book. I have heard considerable criticism regarding the administration of this act in the province of Quebec, the criticism that my. hon. friend has voiced to-day-that there are too many trustees in that province. I heard it stated within a few hours-not by my hon. friend but by another hon. member of this House-that there are ever 170 trustees in the Quebec district alone-


Samuel William Jacobs: In the city of Montreal.


Hugh Guthrie: In the city of Montreal alone. Well, that is far beyond what anyone expected when the act was passed. We took particular pains in regard to the question of the appointment of trustees. We thought we safeguarded that branch of the act pretty well. We provided that no man should be appointed a trustee unless he possessed qualifications which would fit him for the office. In addition to that he was bound, in the first instance, to give a bond for $10,000 before he was appointed at all. In the next place there are provisions which safeguard the estate and creditors and compel the trustee to give bonds for every dollar that goes into his hands. These were clauses which were added in view of the experience which we had under the act of 1875; and the main idea was that only outstanding, capable, qualified men, who could give this security would be appointed to this office of trustee, as well as trust companies which had been incorporated in Canada for the purpose among other tilings of acting as trustees in the case of insolvent estates. I was amazed to-day to hear that there are some 170 or 165 trustees in the Montreal district alone. I was under the impression that if there were twenty-five or thirty that number would be quite sufficient to do the whole business of that district and do it well.
It has been intimated by the mover of this resolution that in the province of Quebec abuses have sprung up in the matter of fees on the part of trustees and also of the legal profession. If this is true it is in direct contravention of the provisions of the act-	[DOT]


Samuel William Jacobs: Hear hear.


Hugh Guthrie: And some one should be brought to account. That act prescribes what trustees and lawyers may take lawfully. If they take more, they take it unlawfully and they should be prosecuted for so doing under the terms of the act itelf. The terms of the act in this respect are'as plain and express as language could make them. The act fixes the percentage which may be taken for the cost of administering an insolvent estate, and if these particular sections of the act are transgressed in the province of Quebec as intimated by my hon. friend it is the only province with respect to which I have heard such a complaint made. My hon. friend in his address this afternoon had good ground, I fancy, for the statement he made, but I personally have not yet heard of any charge of this nature being made in any other of the provinces of Canada. I know there has been criticism in regard to the various details of the act from almost all the provinces of this Dominion. The Department of Justice may have	received many	complaints which
have	not come to my knowledge.
If my hon. friend because he has evidently made a study of the act and knows whereof he speaks, would devote some of his time to preparing an amending bill with the assistance of the law officers of the Crown, and would introduce it into the House we would then have concrete proposals as to amendments, and the House could intelligently deal with the whole subject. I agree with him that the subject is big and important enough to take up some of the time of this House, and if the act can be made more workable, more satisfactory in Quebec, Ontario, and the rest of the provinces, by all means let us try to make it so. But I do not think my hon. friend has made out any case for the repeal of the enactment, greatly as he has impressed upon hon. members the necessity for some important amendments. I congratulate the mover of this resolution for the very able and painstaking manner in which he has presented this somewhat intricate and involved question to the House.


Joseph Archambault: Mr. Speaker, when the Bankruptcy Act was introduced in 1919, I believe I was the only member of this House to protest against the passing of euch legislation. My protest at that time was based on five main reasons. The first was because I thought it would open the door to fraud and dishonesty. The second one because I was of opinion that it would disorganize trade and commerce. My third reason was because
Bankruptcy

the law was made applicable to nontraders, and I thought at the time' it was bad legislation to apply a law of bankruptcy to non-traders. My fourth reason was because it was an infringement on civil rights. And my last reason was that I was afraid that the government would practically destroy the benefits of the law by appointing political partisans as trustees.
The experience we have had with this law for two years and a half confirms the fears that I expressed at that time in the House. The law has been in force for a little over two years. Parliament has already made ninety-two alterations; complaints are coming from all parts of the country, and for the same reasons as I gave in 1919 against the adoption of the law, I support the resolution of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmor-ency (Mr. Casgrain). I do not say that I would go as far as to repeal the law in its entirety. If the other provinces of confederation are willing to keep the law in the statutes, let them keep it. We have had on our statute books and we still have a law existing from 1880, or over forty years, a law on abandonment of property, a law which has been tested and which has been found to be a good law. It has been practically abolished by the federal Bankruptcy Act. We want to go back to that law. There is no necessity for uniformity in a bankruptcy law. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who spoke before me stated that he was in favour of the principle of a uniform bankruptcy law, but I did not hear him give any good reason for that. The reasons he gave were that we needed a law that would be applicable in all the provinces, so that merchants in any province would know what kind of law existed throughout Canada, and they could reach their creditors. If his reasoning was good, we should say that most civil laws should be the same in all the provinces. Why? The civil laws are very close to trade and commerce. Trade and commerce is within the purview of the federal government, I will admit; but most civil laws are applicable to trade and commerce in every province, and when for instance a trader or a merchant in Vancouver or in Winnipeg sells to or buys from a merchant in Montreal, he is under the civil laws of Quebec as regards his sale or his purchase. If uniformity of the law is a matter which is absolutely desirable, we should make it applicable, not only to the bankruptcy law, but to all the laws


Hugh Guthrie: The framers of our constitution boldly stated and enacted that bankruptcy should be applicable to the whole Dominion, and they gave this parliament the only power to deal with the subject.


Joseph Archambault: That may be true; but my hon. friend will also admit that under section 92, subsection 13 of the British North America Act, civil rights are within the purview of the provinces. My hon. friend will also admit that in enacting a bankruptcy act, he can scarcely avoid touching on civil rights.


Hugh Guthrie: That is right.


Joseph Archambault: I believe I can show to the House that many of our civil laws have been touched and altered by the Bankruptcy Act.


Samuel William Jacobs: Does the hon. member not know that under the British North America Act the provincial authority has no right at all to legislate on bankruptcy?


Joseph Archambault: That may be true in principle; but the act has been on our statutes for forty years, and if it had been such an infringement of the British North America Act, I am sure the matter would have been raised before. The law has been on our statute books since 1880, and the question has never been raised. The reason why it was never raised was because bankruptcy matters were too close to civil laws and civil rights.
The hon. member for South Wellington also stated that, with the exception of China and Canada, there was no country in the world which did not have a uniform bankruptcy act. My hon. friend will admit that in all those countries, if there is a uniform Bankruptcy Act, it does not apply to nontraders. Outside of Canada, there are in the world only two countries at the present time, where a bankruptcy act applies to nontraders, and those countries are Britain and the United States. In France, Belgium, and all the other countries of the world, there is a certain bankruptcy law which is not at all dissimilar to ours; but it does not apply to nontraders. It. is illogical to apply a bankruptcy law to non-traders for whom credit is not essential. My hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) also stated that the chief complaint against the law of 1875 was that the assignees, who are now called the trustees, were charging too much, and that therefore the law was abrogated. We have the same complaint to-day. I have in mind a case in which the total assets payable to the creditors amounted to $700 while the costs came to $1,600. My hon. friend went on to say that there was no complaint

Bankruptcy
outside Quebec, which was the only province whence there came any word against the Bankruptcy Act. I might read to the hon. gentleman what Mr. Detchon, the manager of the Canadian Credit Men's Association, has to say on this subject. He is the gentleman whom I may call the power behind the throne, the one who inspired the member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) and my hon. friend for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). Speaking in Winnipeg on October 4, this gentleman stated, as reported in the Montreal Gazette of that date:
The law as it exists at present is on the side of piracy, it is claimed, by the men who have been close to its operation, and the manoeuvres of a portion of the trading community who have been quick and sharp to take advantage of its weakness. Where one class of the retail trading community can buy in their own stocks at fifty cents on the dollar or less, it is extremely difficult for the efficient, honest trader to continue to compete with any fair degree of success.
" Gentlemen, take 45 cents on long term payment or you get nothing," is the word passed by the wholesale traders in many instances. Along with the report on a long list of cases it is pointed out that 9 per cent of the men reported on have bought fine residences, run high-priced motor cars, and many keep their families at the beaches for the summer.
This complaint does not come from the province of Quebec; it comes from the manager of the Credit Men's Association, who lives, I believe, in Winnipeg, and who, practically speaking, is the father of this legislation. After having studied the act and the way in which it has operated, he finds just what I have quoted him as having said. The other comment offered by my hon. friend for South Wellington was that there were too many trustees. He told the House that he did not know that there were as many as 145 or 130 trustees in the city of Montreal, and added that during his administration good care had been taken to name as trustees only men who were reputable. Well, I have here a return to an order of the House dated April 26, 1921. I had asked this question:
What are the names of the trustees under the Bankruptcy Act for the district of Montreal? When were they appointed, and what were their respective occupations before their appointment?
In reply to this question I find, to my amazement, especially after the statement of the hon. member for South Wellington, that from July 6, 1920, to December 26, 1921, the old administration had appointed in the district of Montreal alone 118 trustees. I do not believe, therefore, that my hon. friend's statement, that he thought there should be only 25 trustees and that we should take good care to name only men of good reputation, is worth very much.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Does my hon. friend know of any case where an application was refused when the applicant was prepared to put up a bond of $10,000?


Joseph Archambault: No, I did not inquire into that; I did not investigate. But the fact remains that we have the statement of the hon. member for South Wellington that 25 trustees would be sufficient for the district of Montreal, and as opposed to this we have the proof that during the administration of the late government, of which he was a member, they named 118 trustees for that district.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: What is the objection to the appointment of any number of trustees so long as they qualify under the provisions of the act? Is there any more objection to that than there would be to the appointment of a large number of justices of the peace?


Joseph Archambault: Yes, there is an objection, because there should not be too many trustees appointed to take care of a limited amount of business. It is obvious that if there were sufficient business for five or ten trustees, say, and you appointed only that number, they would not try to obtain all sorts of business; by all means they would not go after people and try to make them assign. The state of affairs in the province of Quebec, whatever it may be in any other province-and I do not know that it is not the same-is simply amazing and outrageous. The other day a reputable lawyer of Montreal, Mr. Calder, in an address before a business men's association on the Bankruptcy Act, produced partnership agreement which he showed to his audience and the last paragraph of which read as follows:
In case of bankruptcy profits will be divided equally.
I could bring before the House many typical cases, and especially one in the district of Montreal, where the trustee went after a certain person in a rural district against whom there was a judgment. The trustee wrote this man a letter and in reply the gentleman came to Montreal to his office. The trustee told him that he knew the person who had the judgment against him and that he could probably make a settlement or obtain a certain delay for the payment of the debt or the satisfaction of the judgment. Here the party who came to the trustee was not a very well educated person, he was ignorant of the law and was under the impression that this trustee was really trying his best to get a settlement for him with that creditor. The trustee inquired into the man's busi-
Bankruptcy

ness, and after getting from him a list of his creditors he requested him to sign a paper authorizing him, the trustee, to interview the principal creditor who had taken judgment. A few weeks later the man found that he had signed a demand in bankruptcy and that a petition had been made on that demand.


William Alves Boys: Was the assignor in that
case actually insolvent? If so there was no great harm done.


Joseph Archambault: No. But even if he was insolvent I submit that harm was done him.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was the so-called trustee prosecuted under the criminal code?


Joseph Archambault: The case is pending in court. I will read to my hon. friend the letter which the man received. This is .a translation of it:
Dear Sir,-At the present moment we are going through a very difficult crisis and we find that a great many business men who have been in business a number of years are forced to make certain compromises with their creditors in order to maintain their business. Probably you, as do many of your confreres, need somebody to settle your affairs with your creditors. Do not be afraid to come and see us. If you want to maintain your trade at its maximum and to also maintain your previous standing, you have to avoid failure or bankruptcy. We are making a specialty of arrangements of all sorts between creditors and debtors. If the matter interests you, you can come and see me, or I will come and see you myself and give you a full explanation regarding this proposal.
Well, naturally this man, having done his best to obtain some delay from his principal creditor and having failed, was delighted to receive such a letter. He went over to that party, who was not a trustee, and was directed by him to the trustee, but he was always under the impression that the trustee who spoke to him was the party who had written the letter. He went over and, as I related before, he was made to sign a demand of abandonment. A petition was made by the court, and a few Weeks later a meeting of his creditors was called. I may say that this man came to see me and told me his story, and I directed him to another lawyer. This lawyer made a contestation, which is now pending in court. No doubt criminal proceedings could be taken, but I do not think it would be wise to do so before judgment is delivered on the case in the civil court.
My hon. friend for Charlevoix-Montmo-rency (Mr. Casgrain) has covered the ground pretty well and there remains little further to be added so I will shorten the remarks I had intended to make. He stressed a point which in my opinion is very important. Under the Quebec law, as he stated, which we had for

forty years, a debtor could never get his discharge. He was allowed to resume business after settling with his creditors for 50 or 75 per cent, but the creditors could take a judgment for the whole amount of their debts and collect if they desired to do so. The result was that after having made a compromise with his creditors, if on a second venture he made money these creditors could collect the balance owing them. But the present law is a direct encouragement to gambling. The merchant or manufacturer takes all kinds of chances, he may indulge in the wildest speculation, but he need not care if he does not make good, because under this bankruptcy law he can settle with his creditors for 40 or 50 per cent and start all over again, as many times as he likes.
My hon. friend for Charlevoix-Montmo-rency has also mentioned the various clauses in our Bankruptcy Act which infringe on the Quebec act. As I stated in my opening remarks, I do not contend that this parliament has no power to legislate on bankruptcy, but I do submit that when the law of bankruptcy is so closely related to civil rights, the Dominion parliament should be very chary about legislating in this matter. For instance, we had our old law governing the relations between lessor and lessee. Under the Bankruptcy Act the lessor has practically no protection when his lessee becomes bankrupt; all he is entitled to is three months' rent due. The trustee can take over the store, sublet it to a third party, even if there is a clause forbidding same in the lease, and the lessor has simply to acquiesce in the action of the trustee. Under the old act of Quebec, the fact of a lessee becoming bankrupt or abandoning his property automatically cancelled his lease, and the lessor was entitled to twelve months' rent due, if it was in arrears for that length of time; he was entitled further to damages for four months where the failure occurred four months before the expiration of the year, and to damages for twelve months if not.
As I said before, it may not be necessary to abrogate the law in its entirety. If the other provinces are satisfied with it, we have no objection to their taking that view. But as I have pointed out, for forty years we have had a very complete law, a law that has been tested and found good. The present federal law was passed upon the demand of the western provinces, and I believe it should be amended at least in such manner that it will not be applicable to the province of Quebec.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Mr. Speaker, I think the importance of this resolution demands the attention of all hon.

Bankruptcy
members of the House. The proposal is double-barrelled in its character; it asks for an amendment and it alternatively asks for abrogation. It is apparent from the remarks of the proposer (Mr. Casgrain) that he desires that the law should be abrogated.
It is not my intention to repeat any of the arguments or observations that have been made by previous speakers, but I may say that from the point of view of the people of British Columbia-and I believe the same idea prevails very largely in the prairie provinces-we are much better off with the Bankruptcy Act than we would be without it. The purpose of the act, as I understand it, is not to enable debtors to go through crooked forms of liquidation, but to preserve the assets of crooked debtors for the benefit of honest creditors who have lent them money or given them credit on goods. In just cases the law is such that through the courts and the ordinary administration of justice it is possible to enable perfectly honest debtors who, through unforeseen circumstances or other causes entirely beyond their control, have got into difficulties, to obtain a discharge from the courts and to start afresh with a new hope and a new opportunity, whereas the old law made the debtor under such circumstances a slave to his creditors and his community and the victim of unforeseen or unwise acts. Not only does the bankruptcy law preserve the assets for the creditors and ensure a larger measure of justice to the debtor, but I believe it is the best method of liquidating the estate of a debtor at the least possible cost. Then again, the bankruptcy law maintains uniformity and makes for stability in trade and commerce.
That the present law needs amendment is apparent to any lawyer who has had practice under it. But what have we as an alternative? As hon. members seeking to discharge the responsibility of legislators and not catering to whims or to votes-and we do not do such things-I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you abrogate the bankruptcy law you revert to the legislation which is still on the statute books in many provinces. I will take the case of British Columbia, because I am familiar with that province, and I would ask hon. members who are interested in this bankruptcy law to give attention to the remarks which I will make with respect to conditions prevailing before the Bankruptcy Act came into force. In British Columbia, if	a man found himself
in serious financial difficulties, three courses were open to him. He might sit down and allow his judgment creditors to rush in and sell him out, with others tumbling
after as fast as they could. Or if it were a company, it would go into voluntary or involuntary liquidation under the Companies Act. Or if it were an individual, he might take advantage of the Creditors and Trustees Act whereby he would assign all his goods, all his property real and personal, to a trustee, who would handle them for the benefit of the creditors. The result was that men who took charge of estates were often in league with the debtor, were often not competent, not honest, not qualified. to handle the assets. Then, the expense was great; the fees foi liquidation and for legal services ran into enormous sums. I cite to the House the case of the Dominion Trust Company, with which many hon. members may be familiar, in which in one year, I believe, the law fees-not for litigation, but merely in connection with the liquidation of the estate-ran up to $28,000 or $30,000.
Under these old provincial acts we also have uncertainty so far as the position of the debtor is concerned. He could never be discharged from his liability; even if he were an extremely honest man he may have been confronted, as sometimes occurs in the lumber business, with an unforeseen and unpreventable disaster-for instance, a fire sweeping his timber areas and destroying everything he possesses from the business point of view. He puts himself in the hands of his [DOT] creditors being obliged to do so from no fault of his own. What is his position? He is condemned for life so far as his activity in the business community is concerned; he can never get on his feet except behind the skirts of his wife or under the guise of an incorporated company. And even then he would not be safe, he has a hopeless future. Now, the purpose of the bankruptcy law was to give the honest man who is the victim of circumstances an opportunity to commence his business life over again.
The hon. member who proposes this resolution drew attention to certain abuses in connection with it whereby it was made easy for a man to avoid his obligations; whereby trustees facilitated liquidations under the Bankruptcy Act with the result that there were crooked and dishonest transactions. Well, my contention is that that would happen no matter what law you put into force in connection with bankruptcy. Where men are willing to be dishonest, where they have no respect for their character or their reputation and will employ crooked methods, then the law does not count for very much, unless it be the criminal law,-and it will be found that in the Criminal Code the attempt at

Bankruptcy

fraud to the advantage of the perpetrator, either as affecting money or credit, is amply covered. So that really, so far as the principle of the law is concerned, the contention of the hon. member that the act enables people to do crooked things is hardly a good argument, because they will carry out dishonest actions in other ways.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe this resolution should be rejected by the House, first because the resolution is confusing. If you adopt it, you make it possible for the law to be broken. I think the suggestion of the former Solicitor General, the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) is a good one, that a measure of this kind, to be dealt with intelligently by the House, should be handled by the hon. member bringing in his amendment in specific form, so that we may know exactly with what we are confronted. If we are to vote on the principle of doing away with the Bankruptcy Act or not doing away with it, I suggest to hon. members, apart from the reasons I have given, that they look in their own constituencies and see whether or not the business, the industrial and commercial interests of. those constituencies, or the responsible people of those constituencies who are interested in the business of the district, are asking for the repeal of this act. I do not think there are many portions of Canada where you will find that such a feeling exists, and where there are difficulties existing, I believe Mr. Speaker they can be overcome by an amendement and not by a complete abrogation of the law.


Mr. PAUL MERCIER (Westmount-St-Henri):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure to support the resolution of the hon member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). Indeed, as aforesaid, the bankruptcy act of 1919 and its amendments do not give to the people of our country the expected results, that they constitute a source of complaints on behalf of industry and trade, and that, at last, it is desirable to abrogate them or, at least, to greatly modify them. Before starting to study certain principles, the principal basis of this law, Mr. Speaker, let us glance over the judiciary administration, with regard to its laws and its connections with trade and industry, during the epoch that has preceded the year 1919. A bankruptcy law existed in each province of confederation. Creditors and debtors recovered in the proceedings as ordered by the provincial courts of justice. These local bankruptcy laws have been carefully studied, amended when required, by the provincial legislators and were giving, indeed, legal satisfaction. Moreover, this legislation had been enacted according to provincial

necessities and customs, further resembling, as much as possible, the remaining laws in force in such and such a province. On the other hand, we had the Winding-up Act applying to the whole Dominion of Canada with regard to incorporate trading companies in liquidation. Everything appeared provided for and then we believed the legislators were very wise. The creditors, always dissatisfied when becoming connected with a bankruptcy, accepted their lot without bad grace in virtue of the dividend sheet prepared by the curator or the liquidator. We, for example, in the province of Quebec, were satisfied on our part. The confusion in which we are at present confirms the past and obliges us to prefer our former situation. Our law, called "Assignment", comprising articles 853 and following, of the Quebec Civil Code of Procedure, was excellent. Any unlucky trader found justice, and the community found efficient protection. We remember, Mr. Speaker, the day when a proclamation of the Governor General, dated December 31, 1919, announced to the Canadian citizens that the Bankruptcy Act, to-day in force, and of which as enacted, we complain bitterly, would come into force on and after the first of July, 1920.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if we examine this act, it is interesting to remark that, from the first of July, 1920, to June 28th, 1922, it has suffered eighty-seven amendments. In fact, it was born before its time, and its numerous amendments have served it as an incubator. And, after all, how could it be otherwise? For, constructing a bankruptcy act for the whole Dominion, without consulting the provincial attorneys-general and the legislatures directly interested in the approval and the application of this law that superseded a bankruptcy system already established in every province, was an extremely difficult move. As an experimental act, it has embraced too much. Its construction has been badly calculated, and it has had need of many braces. It now approaches three years since that law was brought into force. During this period has it given the expected results? Together with the interests of trade, of industry, with the chambers of commerce and the public in general, we do not hesitate to answer in the negative. It has disturbed the commercial population of city and country. It encourages neglect and the breach of honest and frank commercial customs. It has diminished the urban and rural credit. It contributes, finally, as applied or tolerated, to the lowering of the honesty and morality of some individuals. The blindfold partisans of the Bankruptcy Act would answer: "But the principle of the

Bankruptcy
law is good; it was asked for in 1919 by various commercial institutions of the different provinces, we will remedy the abuses shown to exist. We will amend the act so as to satisfy any just claims which may be advanced by the public."
Very well, Mr. Speaker, let the act remain in our statutes, if such is the desire of the majority of the members of this House and also of this government, in which I place my trust, but, let us receive, without further delay, the wishes of the commercial and industrial world who have for more than two years watched carefully the exploitation of this unfortunate act, and suffered its disastrous effects, and this, nowithstanding the after-war crisis through which we have just been passing. Therefore, I say, let us amend the act during the present session.
The abuses come from the disposition of the act itself giving an opening to all kinds of modern procedures. It has been abused enormously, Mr. Speaker. A change is needed to reinstate confidence and good faith, on the whole, in all bankruptcy matters. And we will reach that end by applying [DOT] this act only to the tradesman who has ceased his payments, In the interest of the agricultural class, it is not convenient and it is unnatural that by the general law the farmer should fall under the operation of this act.
We understand that the tradesman has some risks to face. A reduction in price takes him by surprise and the effect on his business is such that he is sometimes thrown on the street. The war suddenly stopped-happily for the nation; the immediate result for the tradesman was, for example, the collapse of prices in silks, woollens, lumber and many other articles from sixty-five to seventy-five per cent. By its very nature, trade is very often risky in peace just as in war, in spite of the good name and the capital of a well-established firm. This is why a bankruptcy act is necessary to trade.
On the other hand, the farmer-and I am speaking now of the real cultivator of the field who has farmed from generation to generation, who likes his work and acquires experience with each succeeding harvest-is established permanently. Although he encounters some risk, although he has to face bad weather, he is almost never completely wiped out.
At six o'clock the House took recess
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


Paul Mercier: Mr. Speaker, continuing my remarks, I would add that this act, in offering to the agriculturist the opportunity of assigning, is a barrier to agriculture, hindering realization of the ideals of attachment to the land, annulling the effort of the farmer to balance his budget. The attraction of the city is then very bright. The farmer has no longer the same credit at the bank; discount is often refused to him. Even those who habitually lend money on farm property dare not lend to the farmers. Since these last have the right to assign, a privilege which they sometimes use, lenders prefer to buy debentures or shares in incorporated companies, more or less good, from salesmen who invade their neighbourhood. To-day, many people prefer a scrap of green paper, nicely engraved, to the value of a farm. This is how the act is at present affecting the solvency of the farmer.
Anyone who has studied our Bankruptcy Act will agree that it is a commercial tragedy. It brings on the scene five actors who play the principal parts. These are the assignee, the authorized trustee, the creditors, the registrar and the judge. As a finale, by way of apotheosis, when the curtain falls, there is the discharge, the rehabilitation in business. We have listened, Mr. Speaker, since July, 1920, to daily representations of this tragedy throughout Canada. We are now entirely justified in asking its withdrawal or, at least, in making necessary amendments, erasing certain sections which give rise to abuses respecting trade and the general public.
What are amongst thousands, the outstanding grievances against this act? First, the assignee ought to be a recognized tradesman; he should make his assignment in the district in which he is doing business, and in the hands of one of the trustees appointed for that district. Thus the creditors would have knowledge of the failure at its beginning, and trustee and assignee would be carefully watched during their work. Too much facility of procedure in bankruptcy is to be avoided It is surprising to note that, according to the present law, the province of Quebec-and the same is true as regards the sister provinces
forms only one district in bankruptcy matters. Any person doing business and residing at Montreal can, as he sees fit, assign at Montreal, or at Quebec, or at any other centre in the province. Really, this fact is laughable. The petition should contain the honest assent of a serious creditor, and it
1510
Bankruptcy

should not be returned except after notice has been given to the assignee. To-day the trustee always finds reasons which he judges sufficient to return the petition without notice. This manner of procedure must stop for the advantage of everyone. Moreover, under the old law, the tradesman must have kept a cash book; or otherwise, no discharge was granted. We should oblige business people to keep books according to the usages and customs of commerce. The title and privileges of trustee should be conferred only on those who are really competent. A deposit of $2,000 to the federal treasury could be required from each trustee when nominated, as a guarantee of good faith, and this, in addition to the ordinary security exacted by the said act.
The business of bankruptcy, Mr. Speaker, is, in these times, very lucrative for the trustees. We are informed by creditable persons, sometimes the victims of these fakirs, that there exists a type of bankruptcy beggar who annoys honest people who have no intention of assigning, under the pretext of advantageously liquidating their stock. A federal inspector should be appointed to supervise the operations of trustees and to examine their books. The trustees, most of the time, do not have their bills of costs taxed. This inspector would see to this matter. Each province should be allowed to formulate a table of costs and supervise its just application. If the trustee so desires, according to the law, he may have a bankruptcy sale of immovables by the sheriff of the district in which the said immovables are situated. But he is not obliged to do so. He may also sell them himself after proper notice. It is needless to add that this is the usual manner of procedure. The sheriff's sale is a notable exception. In the future, an amendment made to the act would oblige all immovables to be sold by the sheriff. In any event, the sale of immovables by the trustee should be made only after the permission of the judge has been obtained. In addition, the trustee should tell the judge why the sale is necessary.
In the application of this act, two trustees often quarrel over the possession of a bankruptcy stock. It is delightful, Mr. Speaker. We should avoid these morbid discussions by leaving to the first trustee in possession the right to look after the bankruptcy stock until such time as it shall be otherwise ordered by the judge. Besides, the nomination of a crown prosecutor to supervise the bankruptcy cases and the filing of claims, sometimes false and simulated by shady creditors, would do good work towards the cleaning. The discharge would not be so easily obtained, for the increase of claims is beneficial to those

who ask the discharge. To this effect, services are rendered to the assignee at the expense of oath. Fraud would then be punished by justice in the name of the state and at its expense, because fraud punished at the cost of the individual is never punished. It is the duty of the state to be directly interested, and France gives an example to many other nations on this point. The registrar, in my humble opinion, has too much power. He refers to the judge only contested cases. All procedures, after the assignment, should be presented to the judge to be ordered as law. What an enormous amount of dishonest proceedings would thus be avoided, discovered and rejected. This would be a protection for the actual creditors who are nearly always victimized by the tortuous procedures allowed under this act.
This act is based on English law'; precedents form the law. In Canada, the act of 1919 gives an absolute discretion to the judge. The matter depends on him; it is the absolutism of the judge. For instance, who decides on the discharge offered by the assignee? The judge alone. It is not the act itself which decides or prescribes the .procedure. No positive law text exists on this subject. This is a grave oversight which must necessarily be remedied. If an amendment is passed in regard to the manner of obtaining, and the requirements for discharge according to principles established and stated, judges themselves charged with the administration of the present law would be very well pleased, because the law as at present constituted gives them too great a responsibility. The immovable foundation of states, says the Greek poet Pindar, is justice. The grievances of the industrial and commercial world against the Bankruptcy Act are undoubtedly true and receivable in law as in fact. This cause is just; and when a cause is just, it must sooner or later triumph. I am assured, Mr. Speaker, that it shall triumph.


Mr. BOUCHER (Yamaska) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I unreservedly approve the resolution of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr Casgrain), and I deem it my duty to rise in this House so as to further give him my full support. The question brought up by the hon. member is one of the most important subjects that have been debated during the present session and I hope that the House will give it their most serious consideration, which it really deserves. It purports to a law which affects the financial interests of a large number of people in this country, and the application of which has up to now given the most fatal and disastrous results.

Bankruptcy
Mr. Speaker, the principle of the Act is defective and unjust, because it aims to limit, restrict, even to do away entirely with obligations legitimately contracted. To my mind, I have always considered and more than ever do I now believe that the legislator exceeds his powers, when he adopts legislation having for effect to liberate the debtor from his debt without having entirely discharged it. There is but one person who can remit a debt and that is the creditor. It is his privilege, his right, and any parliament which, through legislation, foils the creditors of that right, abuses its powers and is guilty of a denial of justice. I am therefore opposed, as a matter of principle, to all bankruptcy laws, and I think that the late government was ill advised in enacting the one of 1919. If I may judge from the protests which arise a little everywhere, and especially in my province, against the pernicious effects of this act to every point of view, I think it should be immediately struck off the statutes of Canada. I shall not, however, venture as far as to ask for its repeal, but I am strongly of the opinion, and, my own personal experience convinces me every day the more, that it should be radically amended.
The Bankruptcy Act as understood and applied fosters dishonesty. I will go further. I shall add that it is unjust inasmuch as it protects especially the debtor, to the detriment of the creditor which it leaves at the mercy of numerous annoying and costly procedures which, in practice, prove illusive. I contend that a bankruptcy act should have for its aim to protect first the creditors, and that the right to instigate bankruptcy should exclusively belong to them. I am therefore especially opposed to section 9 of the act which allows every person without any discrimination, whose debts are over $500, to make, of his own accord, an assignment of his property to the benefit of his creditors. This section makes no exception. Everybody is permitted to make an assignment of his property; the professional man, the artisan, the farmer, the ordinary beggar-as it has already happened-may avail themselves of the provisions of this section. It only requires to be indebted to the amount of $500 or more.
I represent a rural county, Mr. Speaker, and, I am proud to say, it is one of the finest counties in the province of Quebec. In my riding there are no large industries, nor any powerful business corporations, but fertile farms dotted here and there with beautiful villages where simple virtue survives, and I believe that the principal grievance we have to make against the Bankruptcy Act comes
from the section just cited. I have not the slightest doubt that if members of this House were aware of the working of this Act in rural counties, they would without hesitation amend it in such a way as to comply with the aim the legislator had in mind when it was enacted. My knowledge is based on experience. I have seen this law in operation in my district and I am sure of not exaggerating when I say that it is most depressing and demoralizing. Not only is it harmful to those who wish to take advantage of it, but it is especially injurious to the farming class whose credit it ruins, and there is a general hue and cry against what is known almost everywhere, pardon the expression, Mr. Speaker, the "damn" Bankruptcy Act.
Who are the culprits? First, I have no hesitation in pointing out the trustees of bankrupts. I am aware that there are conscientious, competent and honest trustees, but they are in the minority. I sympathize with the latter and do not refer to them. I am alluding to the majority who, lacking the virtues or qualities that I have just mentioned, do not take into account that the trustees are appointed to apply the law but they imagine and end by really believing that the Bankruptcy Act is administered for their benefit. It then becomes a race, an organized campaign in search of victims to sacrifice on the altar of authorized assignment. The trustees are on the look out day and night; they have recruiting agents and the moment they have an inkling of a person seeming somewhat financially embarrassed, they find means of meeting their intended victim, having him interviewed, proposing all kinds of schemes, verbally assign him so to speak and finally convince their victim that he had better make a clean slate of it and begin life anew, and wipe out all obligations contracted up to date. The debtor first listens, then on the spur of the moment or feeling somewhat depressed gives in, allows himself to be convinced and signs an authorized assignment. His creditors did not demand an immediate payment, they were willing to give him time; but not being consulted in the matter, they learn of the accomplished fact through a notice of the trustees requesting their presence at a meeting. In most cases, the debtor regrets his haste; he would be differently disposed a few days or even a few hours after, but the thing is done, the winding-up follows its course, the debtor's property is sacrificed, the creditors receive a year or two later a dividend of 10 or 20 per cent, when there would have been enough to settle in full with them, and the trustees who. in most cases, hardly earned

Bankruptcy
previously, $1,000 or $1,500 per year, now are in receipt of cabinet ministers' salaries.
Does this description, Mr. Speaker, seem too much exaggerated? It is not. It is the true narration of the application of the Bankruptcy Act in the rural country, at least in my district and the neighbouring ones.
In my own village I came across the following case: A certain person signed an authorized assignment under the same circumstances that I have just mentioned, the transaction had hardly taken place when the person discovers his mistake; two hours later he arrives at the trustee's home to inform him that he had changed his mind, and, would he be kind enough to return the assignment. After a long discussion over the matter, the trustee consents, demanding, however, an indemnity of $200. Was it to recoup himself for the work done? No, it was to indemnify himself for the fees he would lose if this assignment was not carried out. I can name the person in question. The trustee is still in office. I intend to ask for his dismissal and I hope that it will not be refused.
Is this, Sir, an isolated case? I contend that it is not. Cases of this kind are numerous; it is the general rule. On three different occasions, when the assets of the bankrupt comprised only a property mortgaged to its full value and that the inspectors had authorized an assignment in favour of the last creditor, subject to said mortgage, I was witness to trustees demanding in advance fees amounting to $400 and $500, simply for his signature in connection with the assignment. Still there are more glaring instances. In another village of my county, a merchant, immediately after the Bankruptcy Act came into force, took advantage of it to request a composition which was granted to him, and, naturally, it is almost the invariable rule in the composition that it is followed up by an authorized assignment. The latter was not yet settled when he again made-this happened only a few months ago-another assignment and this with the same trustee. Four long years under the rule of the Bankruptcy Act. Consequences: the merchant in question has just left the village without a cent to his name. The trustee is now the registered owner of both the property and trade of the bankrupt which he is disposing of, and, I am not aware that the creditors have received a cent.
It may be said that the act provides for such abuses as I have just mentioned. In theory perhaps, but in practice it is but a. disillusion. How is it possible for a creditor interested in ten, fifteen or twenty bankruptcies, to be present at all the meetings, follow the procedure, protect himself before the
fMr. Boucher.]
courts and thereby incur considerable expenses. It is not done and not possible. The trustees and the debtor are practically the masters of the situation, and the creditor has to be contented with what is handed to him, and he may consider himself lucky if he receives anything.
By keeping track of the nature of transactions which, as a rule, take place in rural districts, I am convinced that the Bankruptcy Act will be found to be the cause of serious prejudices to creditors without being of any benefit to debtors, for the simple reason that in 80 per cent of the cases, without taking into consideration the considerable charges that the trustees demand, the debtor could pay 100 per cent in the dollar if a judicious winding-up was carried out.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the abuses that I have just mentioned would greatly be reduced if all of Part II of the Act were repealed.
The highest authorities in my province have denounced this legislation, men whose names I mention in this House with a certain pride and admiration, and moreover, I feel certain of meeting the unanimous approbation of the House in saying that they are amongst those who incarnate what is most noble and best in the French-Canadian race. The Hon. Alexander Taschereau, Premier of the province of Quebec, and the Hon. J. B. Perrault, Minister of Colonization, have in the course of the last session, at the Legislative Assembly, condemned this act in the clearest possible way, and in my estimation their word is authority on such matter.
Somebody suggested exempting the province of Quebec from the application of the Bankruptcy Act. This is the best solution and I would welcome with pleasure an amendment to that effect. Up to this day the people of Quebec have been noted for their loyalty, honesty and integrity. They wish to remain loyal to their traditions and in no way do they want to be legally exempted from paying their debts. Should it not be possible to adopt this amendment, I think it would be to the purpose and beneficial to amend the Bankruptcy Act as follows :
1.	That Part II of the act be so amended that the authorized assignment and the composition will no further apply;
2.	That the Bankruptcy Act be only ap-jlicable to trade as in the act of 1875;
3.	That the scale of fees of trustees be more clearly defined;
4.	That trustees' fees be only levied on the proceeds of the sale of movables and that the immovables contribute to the extent of

Bankruptcy
the costs only of sale and awarding of moneys resulting from said sale;
5.	That a penalty be imposed upon trustees who, directly or indirectly, induce a person to go into bankruptcy, divide their fees or split a commission.
I do not state, Mr. Speaker, that all is defective in the present act. I am willing to admit that in certain spheres and in special cases its existence is warranted and may be useful, but I think it is capable of being amended and that these amendments impose themselves to answer to the needs of those who I have the honour to represent in this House, these fellow citizens with whom I am proud to share both their ideals and aspirations.


William Alves Boys: Mr. Speaker, the resolution contemplates two things: First the abrogation of the Bankruptcy Act; second, its amendment. From what I have heard so far I would not think there is any intention, even on the part of those favouring the resolution, that the act itself should be abrogated, but rather that certain amendments should be made thereto.
There seems to be a difference between the law in the province of Quebec and that in the province of Ontario prior to the passage of the Bankruptcy Act of 1919. If I understood aright what has been said, in the province of Quebec, farmers, for instance, were not entitled to the benefit of the Assignment Act -I am not giving it its proper name under the Quebec Code. I would point out to my hon. friends from that province that in Ontario farmers have always been entitled to the benefit of our Assignment Act. Its door was not closed to anyone in financial difficulties. At any time prior to the passing of the Bankruptcy Act anyone could make a voluntary assignment for the benefit of his creditors, and the same results were obtained as under the present act, with the one outstanding difference relating to discharge.
So far I find four main objections are made to the act. The first is that it is not confined to traders and merchants as in Quebec; second, that it was born too soon; third, that assignee's costs and fees are excessive; and, fourth, that there should not be a discharge.
Why anyone should want to withold the provisions of this act from a farmer I cannot see. Happily we do not as a rule, in the province of Ontario at all events, have assignments by many farmers. But if a farmer should get into financial difficulties why should not he be entitled to make an assignment under this act just as well as anyone else, be he merchant or otherwise. On behalf of the TMr. Boucher.]
farmers-and I regret to say that during the hard times of the last two years there have been in my own county to my knowledge four or five assignments by farmers-I am glad to think they can avail themselves of the provisions of this act and giving a proper account, of their dealings with their estate and satisfying the other provisions of the act get their discharge and start off again with a clean sheet and with a new lease of business life. Under our former act this was not the case. If a man failed, and his creditors wanted to pursue him, he was up against it. The only way he could start business again was by trading in the name of a fake company or in the name of his wife.
I think it was my hon. friend from West-mount (Mr. Mercier) who said that this practically was an eight months' child-that it was born too soon, because there were too many amendments. I happen to have in my hand the Statutes of 1921 and I observe that our criminal code contains for that year twenty-four amendments-about half as many as this act. The criminal code has been the law of our land for many, many years, and if at this stage it is necessary to put through twenty-four amendments to this long established law, surely it is not going too far to put through twice as many amendments to new legislation.
In regard to assignee's costs and fees, I was very much struck by the case cited by the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). The assets were only $600 and I think he said the assignee's fees were about $1,500 or $1,600. I am not sure whether I have repeated the figures correctly or not.


Joseph Archambault: The amount that remained to be distributed among the creditors was $700, and the fees were $1,600.


William Alves Boys: What were the gross receipts?


Joseph Archambault: I could not tell my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: Of course, it is that feature which governs. In the case referred to there is ample remedy provided by the act. Under the section dealing with trustees' fees a trustee is limited to five per cent. Solicitor and counsel fees are governed by stringent provisions contained in section 67. If the estate referred to by my hon. friend amounted to only $600, the assignee's fees would be limited to $30 and the solicitor and counsel fees, even if they secured the unanimous consent required by the act, would be limited to ten per cent, or $60-a total, all told, of $90. If any assignee in the province of Quebec or his solicitor retained $1,600, or indeed any-
Bankruptcy

thing over $90, there is ample remedy under the act and it should have been invoked, and I cannot conceive of the creditors acquiescing in these excessive charges.


Joseph Archambault: The amount included all expenses, advertising and so on.


William Alves Boys: I am, of course, only dealing with the commission and fees. We must add to those the disbursements provided for by the act. I do not think any estate of $600 would involve disbursements of more than $75, or $100 at the outside. So this was a case of gross fraud, and I am at a loss to understand why the creditors interested did not take steps to protect themselves, for the act provides against any such extortion.
It was also argued that the act is prejudicial to the interest of creditors. I cannot see how it has that effect. Certainly it does not in Ontario, for beyond the question of discharge there is no difference between our previous law and this law. As I said before, anyone can assign and get the benefit of the act. The only difference is that under the former procedure he could not secure a discharge.
In regard to discharge let me deal with some of the provisions that have to be complied with. A bankrupt will not be entitled to his discharge unless his assets are sufficient to pay 50 cents on the dollar, except in the special circumstances referred to in the section; if he has failed to keep books of account he cannot get his discharge; if he has continued to trade after knowing himself to be insolvent, he cannot get his discharge; if he has failed to account satisfactorily for any loss or deficiency of his assets or to account for his liabilities, he cannot get his discharge; if he has contributed to his bankruptcy by rash and hazardous speculation he cannot get his discharge; if he has given any undue preference to his creditors, he cannot get a discharge; if he has made a previous assignment, he cannot get his discharge; and last, and perhaps most important of all, if he has been guilty of any fraud or fraudulent breach of trust, he cannot get his discharge. There are other provisions that I have not even read. When one views those provisions it is hard to see how any man who has not dealt fairly with his creditors, who has not been honest, can secure a discharge. If he has been honest and dealt fairly with his creditors, and through misfortune has failed, is there any member of this House who wants to see such a man go through the balance of his life as a debtor pursued by his creditors? Is it not better that when he shows he has acted honestly he should get his discharge and get off to a fresh start in

life? Those were, as far as I could see, the main objections to the act.
While I am on my feet I want to say a word or two regarding amendments. I have heard it suggested that the Minister of Justice is going to introduce a bill providing some further amendments to this act, and I certainly think there is room yet for amendments. I want to refer to one or two.
In the first place, the provisions regarding the preferential claim of a landlord for rent do not seem to me to be reasonable or fair. Under the Assignments and Preferences Act under which we formerly operated in Ontario, a landlord in case of failure, if he had been considerate of his tenant-who may have had a crop failure and the landlord may have given him an extension-if there was a year's rent in arrear and a failure took place, the landlord was given a preference for one year's rent immediately preceding the time of failure. Now it is limited to three months, so if a tenant wants an extension from his landlord and there is any danger, he cannot get it for the landlord would stand to lose at least nine months' rent, and the tenant suffers accordingly. That is not fair or proper. I cannot see why if a landlord is considerate enough to give his tenant time and the tenant has the misfortune to fail, the landlord's preference for at least one year, which was the law in Ontario before, should not still prevail.
Then, under the act he is only entitled to a preference for three months under the acceleration clause, and I would like to point out to the minister the effect that has. Suppose a farm lease is dated the 1st of March, rent not payable in advance, and a failure takes place say on the 1st of June. The landlord can secure three months' rent immediately preceding failure. If the assignee retains possession, the landlord, of course, can receive rent for whatever time possession is retained, but he can only secure three months' preference after the assignment. The crops are in the ground. He could not even get them. The most he could get would be six months' rent. The crops could be taken by the assignee and for the balance of the year, namely six months, the landlord would go without his rent, for a new lease would not be effective till the following spring. If there is any thought of introducing amendments, I would strongly urge on the minister a consideration of the section dealing with the preferential claim of the landlord, both for his protection, and that of the tenant.
There is another feature to which I would refer, and that is the powers of the -registrar. In the province of Ontario we have one regis-

Bankruptcy
trar. A failure might take place in lore William, yet practically everything you want to do in connection with the assignment has to be done in the city of Toronto where the registrar is. I am offering no criticism of the registrar at all. We have one of the most capable officers of the courts in Ontario as registrar, but I would suggest to the minister that there, should be some change there. Why we should not have our assignments registered and dealt with in the first instance in all ex parte applications-simple proceedings such as examinations and so on-in the office of the local registrar or local master in each county, just as is done in connection with supreme court proceedings, I cannot see. Where we have more difficult matters to deal with we have two judges to dispense the law. If you want even to examine the debtor, who might live in Windsor, or Kingston, or Fort William, the provision of the act requires the debtor to be examined in Toronto before the registrar. Surely that is not reasonable. I want to protest against the centralization of the operation of this act in one or two large cities in any province. Let us bring the provisions of this act as close to the door of the failure as possible, because the people interested in the failure are generally within that county. I am aware that in the case of merchants perhaps, most (freditors would be in Toronto or possibly Montreal, but outside of that this change that I suggest would lead to the convenience of the people interested. If there is any thought of amending the act I would therefore suggest that that feature be taken into consideration also.
For my part I heartily approve of the Bankruptcy Act, and would be very sorry indeed to see it abrogated. I do not fear that for a moment, but by all means let us get all the suggestions we can for its improvement, and in the end I have no doubt an act will be worked out which will be complete, which will be convenient, and which will be less costly than the proceedings required by the act at the present time, and will be just as fair to all concerned.


Samuel William Jacobs: I would not have entered this debate were it not for the fact that my name has been mentioned by several speakers who have preceded me, and I feel that in justice to myself I must say a word or two in support of this Bankruptcy Act for which I am given the credit.
I may say this to my friend the member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault), who I think referred to the fact that the act perhaps was bad because it was introduced originally by the Union government.


Joseph Archambault: I never said such a thing.
Mr. JACOBS; It may have been the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). I do not think everything that the Union government did was bad. In fact, I think the best thing they did was when they retired from the government of this country.


William Alves Boys: Or when they accepted your act.


Samuel William Jacobs: The discussion this afternoon from this side of the House, and the essays which were so beautifully read by the members from the province of Quebec, would almost lead one to conclude that they were written in the office of the Nationalist sheet, Le Devoir. I have read these statements for the last two or three years. Le Devoir has always been opposed to this measure, and the reason they claim is, that it is an encroachment upon the civil rights of the people of the province of Quebec. -It is claimed by Le Devoir and its supporters that the Bankruptcy Act is an attempt on the part of the English-speaking people of the other provinces to impose upon the province of Quebec, English law; that this is the thin end of the wedge, and that before very long we may have the whole English body of law imposed upon the province of Quebec. That is frankly what is at the back of this agitation to repeal the Bankruptcy Act. I know whereof I speak, because I am a very diligent reader of Le Devoir. I do not think I have missed a number since it came out originally in 1910,	'


Mr. GAUVREAU:: You have never improved on account of that,


Samuel William Jacobs: I have improved on account of it. I always like to know both sides of the question. I like to know what the other man is saying and what he is thinking. I have given the reason for the opposition to this law. If I thought that this Bankruptcy Act was the beginning of an attempt to impose English law on the province of Quebec, I would be the very first to oppose it, for the reason that if I know any law at all the only law I know' is the French civil law of the province of Quebec, and , if English law were imposed on that province I would be at a loss to know what to do, because I would have to go out of active practice. It is wrong for our people in the province of Quebec to say that the act which the parliament of Can-
Bankruptcy

ada has a right to impose on the whole of the Dominion of Canada is an attempt to take from the people of the province of Quebec their civil rights and their civil law. The British North America Act gives to the federal power the right to legislate in certain matters for the whole of the Dominion of Canada. The Bank Act, for instance, is a federal act, and the Merchant Shipping Act, the Criminal Code are also federal acts. Not only the present Bankruptcy Act but those that preceded it are federal acts. If the residents of the province of Quebec, or if the legislature or the lawmakers, or if the Fathers of Confederation from the province of Quebec, felt that a law of this kind would eventually mean that their law would be superseded by the law of the other provinces, why did they not in explicit terms say that these federal laws should not apply to Quebec? Here is a statement made by serious minded members of parliament, and eminent lawyers like my hon. friend for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) and my hon. friend for Charle-voilx-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain), to the effect that this law should not be made to apply to the prpvince of Quebec. For my part I have this to say: that I would rather see the act completely repealed and abrogated than to have it apply only to provinces other than Quebec. This is something which the federal parliament has the right to impose, and so long as we have that right I say that we ought to exercise it, inasmuch as it is a measure for the general advantage and benefit of Canada.


Joseph Archambault: What about prohibition?


Samuel William Jacobs: My hon. friend for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault) always thinks in terms of prohibition. One would imagine that, with his visits to Montreal once or twice a week, he would be able to forget his troubles between those visits. What is the trouble with the Bankruptcy Act as shown by the discussion to-day? One is that the costs of the attorneys and trustees are extortionate, and another is that there are too many trustees. That is a matter which can be very easily changed by an ordinary amendment. I myself believe we have too many trustees. We have in Montreal about 150 trustees. Now 150 men cannot live in the city of Montreal on the business provided in that city or in the district of Montreal.


Joseph Archambault: How many of those trustees were appointed at the request of my hon. friend?


Samuel William Jacobs: I will take the responsibility of saying that I suggested five or six to the Union government. Their names were carefully examined by a committee of the government which, I think, consisted of Messrs. Ballantvne and Blondin, and the appointments went through. Since our government came into power not one man I suggested was appointed. They told me they already had a sufficient number and I think perhaps they were right. As I said before, we ought to curtail the trustees to a reasonable number I should think in Monteal fifteen or twenty would be quite enough. I understand in the city of Winnipeg where they have 250,000 population and a very large district surrounding it, there are four or five all told, to take care of the needs of that district.


Leon Johnson Ladner: On what principle or reasoning would the hon. member limit the appointment of trustees, seeing that practically all the trustees engage in other business besides that of handling liquidation?


Samuel William Jacobs: I do not think they should be engaged in other businesses, but that they should give their entire attention to this work of insolvency. It is impossible for 150 men to live on the business provided in Montreal, and it is just possible that when a man cannot live honestly he perhaps resorts to other means. The complaint has been made that many of these trustees go about from place to place, particularly in the farming districts, and they seduce the righteous farmer from the path of virtue. It is an easy matter for the farmer to fall, they claim, particularly in the province of Quebec. I do not know why that should be, but it seems to me that the method has been resorted to. I say that no respectable trustee, or no man who deserves the name respectable, should resort to that sort of work. If we had fifteen or twenty proper trustees in Montreal, they would see to it that the law was properly observed, and if it were not properly observed the trustees would find themselves removed from office.
Now with regard to the question of these extortionate charges, hon. members who just preceded me referred to the statute but they did not refer to those sections which say explicitly that no trustee and no attorney shall receive more than 5 per cent of the proceeds of the estate. For the benefit of my predecessors who spoke on this resolution, and some of whom I am afraid have not even read the act, I would refer to sections 40 imd 67 of the act, which provides that no trustee or no attorney can charge more than 5 per cent. If they were restricted to that rate, I do not

Bankruptcy
think there would be any cause for complaint, and if the number of trustees were further restricted both these causes would be removed.
On the question of the unconstitutionality of the act, it is all very well for hon. members to rise in their seats and tell us that this act is unconstitutional. I would refer them to a number of privy council cases, where it was held that the Bank Act, the Bankruptcy Act and other federal acts which were deemed at one time to,conflict with provincial jurisdiction were found to be quite constitutional. It is not for this House to sit in judgment and declare whether the act is unconstitutional or not. If it is unconstitutional, or the House thinks it is, let the courts be applied to, and if the courts say it is unconstitutional, that is an end of the act. I know that Mr. Tasch-ereau, the Premier of the province of Quebec, lias declared that he will stake his reputation upon the uncorstitutionality of this act. Well, I Was very much surprised indeed to hear that statement made by the Premier of Quebec. He is one of the ablest lawyers in our province and a great constitutional authority, but I think when he made that statement he was talking more as the Premier of the province of Quebec than as a lawyer of the standing everyone knows he has reached.
A further complaint has been made against that act-not this afternoon, but I have seen it mentioned in the press and elsewhere-in regard to the loose way in which it is drafted. They claim the English in the act is not what it should be, that no person is able to understand it, and that it is so confusing that no one can make out its intent. All I can say in answer to that is, that this act is a replica of the English Bankruptcy Act passed about. 40 years ago, with its amendments. All of us who practice law know that there are no better draftsmen in the world than the English in matters of legislation, and if . these men who complain cannot understand what the real meaning of the act is, it is not the fault of the English in the act, but perhaps it is due entirely	to	themselves.	I know that oftenthere is difficulty in clearly understanding the meaning of a new statute, but it is only a question of time when these sections of the law will be interpreted by competent authority, the	judges on the	bench,	and in	duecourse the law will be as clear to them as it is to those who practise in England. This Act, I submit Mr. Speaker, ought to be given a chance.	It	has only	been	on the	statute books	about two	years	and a	half.
We cannot see yet how it is going to work out. If we find that there are abuses, later we may take steps either to repeal or to amend the act. At the present time, I submit, it should be given a chance to function, and those who are trying to administer it should be afforded the opportunity of giving it a fair show.
Another complaint that was made, was that the act is being amended all the time It is being amended, that is true, quite often, but for the purpose of improvement. The law must keep abreast of the advancing tide of public opinion. What may have been good three or four years ago may not be good to-day. We did not claim that this bill when it was draughted and submitted to the judiciary, when it was submitted to the trustees, to the trade and to others, was perfect, or that there were not certain defects in it when the measure was brought before the House. From time to time the law was amended and, as I said before, it was amended in order to improve it and not otherwise. I do not believe that the fact that the law has been amended is in itself a proof that that law is bad; the amendments made to it are for the purpose of improvement.
Now, my hon. friends who have spoken here to-day on this side have no concrete suggestion to make with regard to this act. They say that it is a vicious act and that it produces fraud; they say it is productive of dishonesty and consequently it ought to be abrogated. In what sense does this act induce fraud and dishonesty? Do my hon. friends know that there are about seventeen or eighteen sections of this act which deal particularly with fraud and dishonesty on the part of debtors; sections which practically cover every case of fraud and dishonesty. It may be that these are not invoked as much as they should be. I know what the tendency is in insolvency matters. When a bankruptcy takes place the desire of all the creditors is to get as much as they possibly can out of the wreck, which is only human, and instead of prosecuting a fraudulent debtor and sending him to prison, as perhaps they should do ethically, they are anxious to get what they can out of the estate, and that is why these people are not prosecuted. We have heard statements made here to-day by gentlemen who would seem to be acting more as attorneys for creditors, but we have not heard a single word about the debtor's side of the case. Surely the debtor has some rights also. The debtor says, when he has handed everything he owns in the wide world over to his creditors, when the estate is wound up and
Bankruptcy

he has nothing further-not even enough to start with again-because no privileges are given to the debtor-and no fraud of any kind can be charged against him, "I have a right to be given another show to start off again afresh." That is the theory of the act; but my hon. friends here say "No. Once a man has gone into insolvency he should be made to pay a hundred cents on the dollar, and until he does that he cannot go into business again." The rule of the old Roman law, was that the creditor should be able to ell his debtor into slavery. If a man is not able to start off afresh and earn a living for himself and his family, but is constantly in danger of being persecuted, by the creditors, then I say, we are lapsing back to the condition under the old Roman law, and our civilization of two thousand years amounts to nothing at all.
My hon. friends bn this side also say that we ought to go back to the provincial code of civil procedure, which is a law that worked for many years and worked harmoniously and successfully. Do my hon. friends not understand that under the British North America Act the provincial legislatures have no power whatever to pass any bankruptcy act; and the so-called Insolvency Act to which they refer simply consists of a scheme whereby the debtor's assets are disposed of by auction or tender and the proceeds distributed to the creditors. It is not a bankruptcy act at all; it is merely a scheme of division. The only authority that can deal with the question of bankruptcy is the parliament of Canada; and if we repeal this act then we go back to the old system whereby a man, as I said before, will have to remain under cover practically all his life unless he has satisfied his creditors to the extent of every penny that is due to them.
Now, in connection with the discharge of the debtor. My hon. friends, I trust, know that no discharge-no matter whether it is for fifty cents on the dollar or over-can be granted unless the judge examines carefully into the entire state of the debtor's affairs. My hon. friends say that this act induces fraud; that a debtor throws his assets into the hands of a. trustee; he obtains a settlement or a compromise and starts off afresh. That is not a fact. Every scheme of settlement, every scheme of arrangement or compromise must be submitted to the judge. Notice is given to every creditor who is interested to appear on a certain named day before the judge to show cause why this debtor should not be given his discharge. If any person appears before the judge and points out that some fraud mentioned in the act

has been committed-and there are scores of these mentioned in the act-then the judge must deny to the debtor the right to obtain his discharge. So that we have here a distinct division made between an honest debtor who obtains his discharge and the dishonest debtor who does not obtain his discharge. If this act were repealed or abrogated they are all thrown into the same category; the honest and the dishonest debtor are refused their discharge, and we are just, as we were before. I say, Mr. Speaker, we have now arrived at that stage in our national development where we want a bankruptcy act similar to those laws which they have in even-other country in the world.


Joseph Archambault: Is my hon. friend
ready to state that only honest debtors get their discharge under this law?


Samuel William Jacobs: If the debtor is able satisfactorily to answer the questions put to him by the court on the day fixed when all the creditors are there-and very often they are there with an array of counsel to back them up -if the debtor is able to run that gauntlet, and the judge declares he is honest, it is not for us to sit in judgment on the debtor or on the judge, but we will have to assume and presume that he is honest.


Joseph Archambault: Did not my hon.
friend say a minute ago that the creditors were more anxious to get money out of the debtor than to punish him if he is dishonest ?


Samuel William Jacobs: I say that in certain cases
it is so.


Joseph Archambault: In most.


Samuel William Jacobs: In certain cases; but why
should we protect, or attempt to protect, a creditor who does not want to protect himself? If the creditor is willing to accept a certain sum on the dollar and does not wish to prosecute the debtor, who can prosecute him? If the creditors had in their possession information which would lead to the conviction of the debtor and they refuse to prosecute him they cannot call upon us for protection. Thev make their own bed and must lie upon it.
and it is not for us to interfere.
9 p.m. At the same time there is plenty of machinery in this act which will enable a dishonest debtor to be sent to prison
Now, with regard to the question of the rights of the lessor, and other rights referred to in the Bankruptcy Act, which seem to have been changed from the law as it existed before the act came into force, I may say that the entire question is now before the courts to determine as to whether the parliament

Bankruptcy
of Canada has the right to interefere with the lessor's claim against the trustee and against the debtor. That is a matter which will eventually find its way to the judicial committee of the Privy Council. In fact all tliese questions-that is the rights of the parliament of Canada as against the provincial legislatures to legislate in matters of bankruptcy- will in due course come before the judicial committee of the Privy Council and will be dealt with there. If it is found they are unconstitutional it will be so declared and we will be where we were before; but it is not for us, sitting here as the parliament of Canada, to ask that the law be repealed while these questions are before the courts. The reason of much of this controversy is that in Quebec the law prior to this act differed so materially from the law of the other provinces that it is a bit of a shock to most of us in Quebec to find that our law in these particular matters should be overruled, as it were, by the federal authorities. But as I said before, the right was given to the parliament of Canada to do this, and until that right is taken away we are only exercising that right in a logical and constitutional way by enacting a law of this kind.
Many of my hon. friends were in this House in the parliament of 1917; they will remember that resolutions were passed by every board of trade in the country, with perhaps, one or two exceptions, by public bodies throughout the entire land, by the board of trade of the city of Montreal, the most important body of its kind in Canada, by boards of trade of Toronto and other cities, in fact, even by the board of trade of the city of Quebec, beseeching us to enact a law of this kind, and we were simply concurring in the views of the vast body of the people at the time when this law was passed. I care not for the odium which appears to have been cast upon me by certain people in Quebec for my part in putting upon the statute books this particular act. My friends will probably come to see a little later on that I was right when I advocated a law of this kind for the entire Dominion. The suggestion, as I said before, of contracting the province of Quebec out of this act will meet with my uncompromising opposition, and I would much rather see the act thrown into the waste paper basket holus-bolus than agree to any scheme which would put Quebec into one class and the rest of Canada into another. Such action does not make for nationhood, concord or harmony. It is true that we have on the statute books certain acts which permit Quebec in specific matters to pass its own laws. The one I have
in mind is the Lord's Day Act; but surely we cannot begin to make any comparison between the Lord's Day Act and the Bankruptcy Act. The Lord's Day Act is an act for the observance of Sunday, and of Saturday, if I may say so. The act of Quebec is the most fair-minded and broadest of its kind in the whole Dominion. It declares that any person who keeps Saturday as his day of rest may work on Sunday, and that the laws and customs of Quebec as regards the observance of Sunday shall remain in force notwithstanding the federal Lord's Day Act. I should be the last one to complain about the Lord's Day Act in Quebec, because I had something to do in seeing that the proviso as regards Saturday observance was inserted in that act. Tou cannot compare an act which deals with the trade and commerce of this country with the Lord's Day Act. Trade and commerce is the same in every part of Canada; the other act is a.matter of religious principle and observance, and we cannot think for a moment of placing the Bankruptcy Act in the same category as the Lord's Day Act. For these reasons, I shall vote against the resolution which was introduced by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency.


Mr. J. J. DENIS (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I always listen with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) and again to-night, I was charmed to hear his eloquence as he spoke on -may I say?-so difficult a subject as the Bankuptcy Act. There is however, a point as regards which I cannot agree with my hon. friend, and there is at least one assertion which he has made that I must challenge. He seems to think that Le Devoir is the guiding influence of hon. members from Quebec. In that respect, my hon. friend is altogether wrong. We read Le Devoir at least, I do; I take what good there is in it and what I think is wrong, I leave out. In this particular case, it just happens that Le Devoir has been conducting a campaign against this law, and I think Le Devoir is perfectly right in doing so. That is the reason why to-day we stand with Le Devoir. I wish also to say to my hon. friend that in opposing this law, we rest our opinions on its merits only. We are not afraid by any means, nor are we prejudiced by the fact that the English law might be introduced into this country, and more particularly into Quebec. We want laws which are just and right to be introduced into this country; but we are opposed to laws that are unjust and vicious and, in our opinion, this law is both unjust and vicious. Rightly or wrongly, I am one of those who have always opposed this law. I have made strong
Bankruptcy

representations, and I have brought protests to members of this government and the preceding government. Some amendments have been brought up; but I do not think this law is subject to amendment in order to make it right and just, because the fundamental principle of the law is, in my opinion, wrong and bad. The hon. member for George Etienne Cartier thought, doubtless, that he had driven a very strong point when he said that this law was simply a replica of an old law that was passed in England about forty years ago. If there is a reason why I would not have this law in Canada, it is because it is a replica of an English law, passed some forty years ago. We have had too much copying of English laws in this country. We have this law which is a copy of the English law; we have another law7, which in my opinion, is bad in many respects, which is also to a large extent a copy of the English law, and that is the electoral law. In many respects the electoral law has given us sad experiences. That law, in my judgment, was drafted by pseudo-experts or reformists, whose lack of experience and ignorance of conditions that prevail in this country are exceeded only by their arrogant self-appreciation. These men have shackled and fettered the electorate of this country with a cumbersome and, in many respects, unjust law imported from England where conditions are totally different from those which prevail ip this country, and to bring a law of this kind into Canada, the best argument that they have given us so far, is that it is a copy of the English law. Conditions in this country are altogether different from conditions in Europe and it is not because this bankruptcy law and this electoral law are copies of English laws that I object to them; I object to them because they are not suited to the people of Canada. I would object to them just as strongly if they had been imported from France.
While I am on this subject, I might have a word to say to my friends of the party angularly opposite. I have just said that the electoral law is bad in many respects. I will ask them what they think of that law when they consider the results that have just taken place as regards the contestation of the constituency of Moose Jaw? Is it not a fact that the hon. gentleman who was recently disqualified had, during the conduct of the election, committed no crime? I am sure many hon. gentlemen thought what that hon. gentleman did was absolutely correct and lawful. But this law, borrowed from England, has been drafted in such a way that it requires highly trained legal minds to understand and apply

it. And, so long as the law stands as we have it members of parliament will, quite unconsciously, do things that are not lawful; they will be liable to find themselves disqualified for having committed acts which are unlawful, although they may not have had the least idea that what they were doing was wrong. The electoral law must be modified in many respects if this condition of things is to be remedied. I mention this only by way of comparison in reference to the argument brought forward by my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), who declares that the law we are at present discussing is good because it is an English law.


Samuel William Jacobs: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me an explanation. I said that the language was English and therefore there should be no complaint as to the form in which the law was drafted.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The grammar is good.


Samuel William Jacobs: Yes.


Jean-Joseph Denis: The grammar may be good but the law itself is mighty hard to understand, even when a clever lawyer tries to construe it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I do not know whether my hon. friend is a lawyer or not.


Samuel William Jacobs: He is.


Leon Johnson Ladner: But does he say that because the Bankruptcy Act happens to have been drawn on the lines of the English act, it is therefore incorrectly drawn?


Jean-Joseph Denis: My answer is that the act as presented to us is so terribly involved that it was declared impracticable, not later than three or four months ago, by the Court of Appeal in Montreal in the case of Danforth and Riordon. Both the English and the French judges expressed the view that it was unwieldy and that, if it was not repealed, at least it should be amended in accordance with common sense. That declaration was made in Montreal by Mr. Justice Greenshieids, an English judge, and it was sustained by the French judges present. I was there when the statement was made. As I have just said, this law is incomplete, imperfect, and involved. It is difficult, and in some sections impossible, to understand it. But that is not the greatest of its faults.
I said a moment ago that I was opposed to the importation of laws from England, and I will go further and add this, in regard to which I do not think I shall be contradicted'

it is the cardinal function of any government to give good laws to its people. I submit that this law as presented to the pepple of Canada, and as it stands to-day, is not a good law. When it was submitted by my hon. friend fiom George Etienne Cartier the late government were very busy doing other things. My hon. friend for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) rose this afternoon and spoke in defence of the law, and I can quite understand his doing so if he assumes a share of the l esponsibility for it. It was passed practically without any discussion, and although I want to believe my hon. friend for South Wellington when he tells us that it was studied by the government at the time, I greatly doubt it. The government at that time had something else to do.* For instance, they were negotiating loans for the Balkan states; they were buying railways; they were building the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. In short, they had other things to do; and this principle of giving the people good legislation was their least consideration. The Bankruptcy Act therefore passed practically without consideration. The late government, having assumed the responsibility for it, must of course defend it. They have adopted the child and naturally it is their duty to defend it and-


Mr. BELAND:: And nurse it.


Jean-Joseph Denis: Exactly. Now,
back to the act itself, I shall be very brief. I believe that it should be limited to traders and that people who are not traders should not be allowed to fail. Reasons have been given on this point, and I will not repeat them. Then the proceedings under the Bankruptcy Act should be held at the place of the domicile of the insolvent. It is absolutely ridiculous, as at present, to allow a man living in Ottawa to go and fail in Toronto, or a man living in Fort William to fail in Ottawa, And this condition of things exists in Quebec; these anomalies have been observed.
A third point: I would object to property which has been given as security being sold to pay the costs of an insolvent estate. In other words, where property has been given as security it should stand as such, and the liquidator or the trustee should not have the right to take the proceeds of secured property to pay the fees of liquidation. Further, I submit that there should be inspectors for each province. There is no question that several trustees have violated the law. Well, hon. members say, go after them; why do you not take action against them? Now, Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that a man is
Bankruptcy
willing to lose his money in an insolvent estate, and then spend more good money taking an action against trustees. In that way, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred the trustee gets away with it. I would also have the number of trustees limited. However, this is a point on which vye are not . all at one.' As to the tariff, I think it is not clear enough. The costs are far too high, too, and the tariff should be so drafted as to avoid such cases as have been cited this afternoon.
There is another point which has not been laised, and it is this. Under the act any trustee can go before a judge and ask for an ex parte ruling.	I submit that that is not
right or proper. It is absolutely contrary to the laws of procedure and justice that a person interested in a bankruptcy case should go before a judge and obtain such a ruling because no matter how just and honest the judge may be he knows the facts from one side only when an ex parte case is submitted to him, and in many cases injustice has been done. Moreover, we have seen cases in which the judge having rendered an ex parte ruling, the party who was dissatisfied with it has appeared before another judge and obtained a second ex parte ruling, overruling the first one. I say that the law is fundamentally wrong when it permits a debtor to evade his creditors. Perhaps I might mention on this point something that was said to me not later than three or four weeks ago by a Montreal lawyer. I do not know whether my hon. friend from George Etienne Cartier knows him, but I will not divulge his name. What he told me is worth listening to. Speak-in regard to this law he said: "A few days ago a client came into my office. On entering he requested me to close the door. I did not know what the crime meant. t closed the door. Thereupon my client said, 'Now we are both together I have something very important to say to you. I want to commit insolvency.' " In those few words you have the gist of the situation. Here is a man who wants to "commit" insolvency. Of course, there is something in the proceeding for a great many people. By "committing" insolvency some people think they will benefit themselves to the prejudice of others. No wonder this client wanted the door closed be-tore he asked his lawyer's advice.


Samuel William Jacobs: I suppose my hon. friend does not know that that is an old threadbare joke?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Well, I met it for the first time three or four weeks ago.


Samuel William Jacobs: It did not reach Joliette until then?
Bankruptcy


Jean-Joseph Denis: It is such an
apposite case that I thought it well worth mentioning here. Of course, my hon. friend may have heard of similar cases in his practice and that is why my story is so familiar to him.
Now, Mr. Speaker, very strong objections have been raised to this law being made applicable only to such provinces as wish to avail themselves of it. I do not see the strength of these objections. Irrespective of whether or not the parliament of Canada has authority to pass a bankruptcy law-and my hon. friend from Yamaska (Mr. Boucher) quoted the opinion of the Premier of Quebec that this parliament has no such right -irrespective, I say, of this right, why not let every province profit by the adoption of this act if it chooses to do so? But do not force it on the province of Quebec, which does not desire to accept this legislation. If the province of Ontario is satisfied with the law, let the authorities there retain it; the Bame with the province of British Columbia and with any other province which is satisfied to have this law. But when opinion in the province of Quebec is practically unanimous against this law, which is not suited to the requirements of its people, for the life of me I cannot see why hon. members should insist on forcing it on my province in direct opposition to the strongly expressed wishes of the people there.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Would the hon. gentleman apply the same principle to all the subsections of section 92 of the British North America Act placing certain matters under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government? ,


Jean-Joseph Denis: My hon. friend
knows quite well that the question he is asking me is not a fair question. Section 92 of the British North America Act is far too wide for him to expect me to answer his question offhand. But in any event my answer is, no. I do not pretend that everything contained in that section should apply in this case, but for nearly forty years before the Bankruptcy Act of 1919 we got along very well in the province of Quebec without any special bankruptcy law. Indeed prior to that time we had a bankruptcy act but it proved so unsatisfactory in operation that it was eventually repealed. Now the present bankruptcy law does not satisfy a large section of the people of this country. Leaving all technicalities aside, why not let us try to give satisfaction to all the people? I submit that this end can be served by letting those

provinces which are satisfied with this law retain it, giving the same liberty of action to other provinces which are dissatisfied to reject this legislation.
This is a very serious question. As the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) stated this afternoon, complaints against the unsatisfactory operation of the act have been received from all the provinces. The hon. member said that these complaints were not against the principle of the law but against the amendments. Therefore I say again that when these complaints are so general, that when the law is so doubtful in its constitutionality, and when in the opinion of the people of Quebec it is bad in principle, why should it be forced on any province?
I have said that in the province of Quebec nearly everybody is against this law. I have before me an article which was published in the Montreal Gazette on the 5th December last. I shall not take up the time of the House by quoting it at length, but, generally, it states that the legislature of the province of Quebec was seized of the question and that the premier and all his cabinet had declared themselves against the Bankruptcy Act.
In my opinion this act should be repealed. But I would not take from my hon. friends any benefit which in their opinion this law confers on them, and, on that account, failing to have it repealed I would have its operation confined to those provinces that desire to retain the benefits which they feel they derive from its provisions. But, conversely, I insist very strongly that this law should not be imposed on a province that does not want it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Why should the Bank Act be imposed, then?


Jean-Joseph Denis: We are satisfied with the Bank Act. Moreover we have no law to replace the Bank Act in the province of Quebec, while for nearly forty years we had in the code of procedure of our province a law which served us very much better than the Bankruptcy Act.


Louis-Simon-René Morin: Did the old law provide for voluntary assignment?


Jean-Joseph Denis: Under the code ol civil procedure there is no voluntary assignment and there is no discharge. I am not going into that subject now. Finally, in the event of this law not being repealed, or not being made voluntary in its application to each province, I would urge very strongly on the government to have the act thoroughly revised-not by the same experts who drafted it originally, but by other authorities on the law and practice of bankruptcy and in col-

Bankruptcy
laboration and consultation with representatives from all the provinces. I hope some results will accrue from this discussion and that we shall see a stop put to the squandering of the many millions of dollars which has gone on since the enactment of this legislation by those who have taken undue advantage of its provisions.


Lomer Gouin: Mr. Speaker, it will soon be a century since the legislatures of this country started trying to give to the people a satisfactory bankruptcy law, and from what I have heard during the course of this debate, which I have followed with great interest, I am led to believe that we will have to spend the balance of the century in efforts to arrive at the desideratum.
Prior to confederation the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Ontario had at different periods legislated in regard to insolvency. None of these provinces ever passed any bankruptcy act. The province of Prince Edward Island had various statutes about insolvency, and in 1868 it adopted a regular bankruptcy act providing for the discharge of the debtor. The colony of Vancouver Island and the mainland colony of British Columbia always referred to the English law on insolvency and bankruptcy matters until they came into this confederation. It was the old province of Quebec, then Lower Canada, which was the first colony to legislate on bankruptcy. In 1839 it passed an ordinance entitled "An Ordinance concerning Bankrupts and the Administration and Distribution of their Estates." It was administered by commissioners. It applied to traders only. It provided for the discharge of the debtor, and it was based on the English law.
In 1843, under the Union, another bankruptcy act was passed. It repealed the ordinance of 1839. It applied to traders only of the two Canadas, and provided for the discharge of the debtor. Twenty-one years later, in 1864 an insolvency act, which was a bankruptcy act was passed. It applied to the traders of Quebec and applied also to all persons in Ontario. It provided for the discharge of the debtor, and was administered by official trustees.
Under the confederation the first statute passed on that subject was adopted in 1869. That statute repealed the Insolvency Act of 1864. It was a consolidation, an assimilation, of all the insolvency and bankruptcy legislation of the four provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. It repealed all the acts or parts of acts inconsistent with the legislation of 1869. The 97
statute of 1869, as well as the statute of 1864, provided for the discharge of the debtor. In 1875 another bankruptcy act was passed. By that statute the legislation of 1864 and of 1869 were repealed; also the statute of Prince Edward Island of 1896 was repealed. So with the legislation of Vancouver Island of 1862, and with the British Columbia legislation of 1865 which were repealed with all the amendments.
From the very start of the operation of that legislation of 1875, there was an agitation in the whole of this country, an irritation which became so acute that the law had to be repealed in 1880. As you have heard many times to-day, in 1918 the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) introduced into this House a bankruptcy bill, which was very carefully studied, and distributed to the public after it had been reported from the committee, and we may properly say that this bill of the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier was the genesis of the statute of 1919.
This, Mr. Speaker, is to show and to establish that we have had many experiences in insolvency legislation and bankruptcy matters. This experience of ours, our neighbours have had. They have been working for nearly a century to arrive at the legislation which they have now, and which seems to be accepted by the people of the United States. Their first legislation was passed in 1800. It was repealed in 1803. A second bankruptcy act was adopted in 1841 and repealed two years after, in 1843. Only twenty-three years later, in 1867, a third statute was adopted, which endured until 1878. The law now in force in the United States was adopted in 1898.
This, Mr. Speaker, I repeat, establishes that we have had the same difficulties in Canada that they have had in the United States on this very important question of bankruptcy. But, after listening to the very able speeches which we have heard to-day, at what conclusion can we arrive if not this, that the best we can do would be to amend the statute on bankruptcy which is now on our books? The people of Canada, I repeat, for nearly one hundred years, not only in the western provinces and the eastern provinces but in Quebec as well, have been trying to get a satisfactory bankruptcy law, and as I have told you, it was the province of Quebec which was the first province to legislate on that matter. The social and economic needs of this country, I would say, demand that we should have a uniform law on bankruptcy, and if I am a good judge of public opinion I believe that a

Bankruptcy

majority of the people of Canada, Quebec included, are in favour of a bankruptcy law provided it is a fair bankruptcy law. If we were to repeal the law that we have to-day, which has been in force since 1920, on account of the abuses which have been cited to this House, then immediately after this session, or within a year anyhow, an agitation would be started in all the provinces of this Dominion to have in Canada bankruptcy legislation, as all the civilized people of the world have it. This same irritation, this same dissatisfaction which we have witnessed, would certainly result in the passing of a new law. But the day must come when in this country we shall have only one law on bankruptcy matters.
The proposition was made to the effect that we might perhaps keep on our statute books the bankruptcy law that we have, but make an exception of the province of Quebec. Is that practical? Is that advisable? Would it be wise? Would it be advantageous to the people of the province of Quebec?


William Findlay Maclean: Would the British North America Act permit that very thing?


Lomer Gouin: I would not like to give an answer on that. Perhaps it may be possible, and perhaps not. At any rate I wish to say that the province of Quebec has in its territory some of the best traders of Canada. We have many important manufactures. We deal not only in the province of Quebec, but we deal all over Canada, and even supposing that we would accept the proposition put before the House, that the province of Quebec should not be under the Bankruptcy law, that law would nevertheless affect the manufacturers, merchants and all the creditors in the province of Quebec in their dealings with merchants, manufacturers and others residing in the other provinces and who might take advantage of the bankruptcy law, and I do not see really, even if we consider only the interests of the population of Quebec, what advantage we could find in accepting such a proposition.
I have listened with great attention to all the arguments brought forward in the course of this debate. I have noticed all the objections offered against the law as we have it to-day, and I must say none of these arguments, none of these objections, appeals strongly enough to me to convince me that we should repeal that law.
Mention was made of the fact that in the province of Quebec there were bills of costs which were extraordinarily high. It is possible the same thing may have happened in some of the other provinces of the Dominions, but it seems to me this is not an ob-

jection sufficient to justify the repeal of such an important law. I think it would be easy to find a remedy for such a condition. As to the right or the privilege which has been granted to the farmers in this country to take advantage of the law, even supposing the majority of this House would be disposed to accept this proposition, and to say the farmers should not be allowed to assign, this is not an objection against the principle of the law itself. Speaking for myself, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the moment that we adopt in this country a law of bankruptcy-that is to say, the right of the debtor to assign and the right of the creditor to force the debtor to assign, a law which provides for the administration and the liquidation of the estate of the debtor and provides for the discharge of the debtor under certain conditions-I cannot see very well how we could say, "because you are a merchant, because you are a manufacturer, you will have the advantage of that law, but the farmer will not; the farmer will not have the right to obtain his discharge if he is unhappy, if he has bad debts or is passing through bad times." On that point we are disposed to treat all our citizens alike. It seems to me we should not give any preference or any privilege to any class of our countrymen. We are told that some of the trustees have acted in a fraudulent manner, and that for that reason we should repeal the law of 1920. You have already been told, Mr. Speaker, that it would be very easy to find a method by which a trustee could be punished and placed in a position where it would be impossible for him to repeat the fraud. I have heard with pleasure hon. members who addressed the House and complimented the province of Quebec on the legislation we had regarding assignments. They were right. By experience I know that our law of Quebec gave full satisfaction to our people, and it was approved by all the citizens of Canada who knew of it. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we could succeed in amending our law of 1920 in such a manner that we would give to it the good character which we find in our Quebec law, and the good provisions which made it so acceptable to our population. I feel confident that the hon. members who spoke against the law of 1920 would be disposed to accept it. For my part the great source of all these troubles in the administration of our bankruptcy law is to be found in the manner in which the trustees are appointed. There are two modes of the administration of the estates of bankrupts. One is by trustees who are officially appointed by the state, responsible to the state and the state responsible for them, and the other

Bankruptcy
mode is trustees unofficially appointed by the creditors, for the benefit and the advantage of the creditors. Under the law of Quebec as we had it, we had no official trustees. There was no restriction as to the number of those who wished to become trustees. Any citizen in Quebec had the right to act as a trustee. The trustee was chosen and elected by the creditors. If we could arrive at the same system which prevailed in Quebec for so many years, and which proved absolutely acceptable to the people of Quebec and to all the creditors all over Canada, I think we would have found a solution of the troubles we meet to-day. Mr. Speaker, that is the system that they have :n England. I read from Duncan. Lav and Practice of Bankruptcy in Ci.n ida.
The system under the English act is a compromise between official and unofficial administration. The act provides for official receivers who act under the board of trade. Pending the appointment of a trustee the official receiver is interim receiver of the debtor's estate. He summons and presides at the first meeting of creditors; reports to the creditors any proposal which the debtor may have made with respect to the mode of liquidating his affairs; investigates the conduct of the debtor and takes part in the public examination of the debtor. After thus as it were, getting the bankruptcy proceedings under way the official receiver hands over to a trustee appointed by the creditors.
That is what we have been doing in Quebec for over twenty years, and if we were to adopt that in our act I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would give satisfaction to all the provinces of Canada. It has been suggested that instead of centralizing the administration of the Bankruptcy Act we should decentralize it. If we were to adopt the system they have in England, and that we had in the province of Quebec, we would be carrying out decentralization. The debtors would assign to the prothonotary or at the court house, and this would harmonize with the proposition which is put before the House.
I do not know what the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) will say in reply. I hope, however, that he will not insist on pressing this proposition to a vote. Even after listening to his very able address, and to all the other speeches which were delivered to-day, it seems to me that very few members would be perpared to take the responsibility of asking for the repeal of the bankruptcy law that we now have. Most of us-I will say every one of us-in this House are agreed as to the necessity of the law being amended. If the hon. member struck out the last part of his resolution and simply asked that the law be amended I am sure the resolution would then pass unanimously. For my part I would be happy to
97 i
vote in favour of such a resolution as amended. At any rate, after the remarks which have been made during this very interesting debate I may say that the government is disposed to submit to the consideration of the House during the present session some amendments to the act. We will try and make them as complete as possible so that all the provinces of the Dominion will be able to say, after those amendments have been made, that the law on bankruptcy matters is acceptable to them.


William Garland McQuarrie: We have all, no doubt, listened with much interest to the speech of the Minister of Justice, and particularly to his resume of the evolution of the Bankruptcy Act. I must say, however, that I do not feel that I can accept the suggestion which he made to the mover of the resolution, or rather I do not feel that if that hon. gentleman accepted the suggestion of the Minister of Justice I would be prepared to vote for the resolution in its amended form. My reason for taking that stand is, that if the words "or abrogated" were eliminated from the resolution its wording would still be very indefinite. It would then read that the Bankruptcy Act should be amended. That does not mean anything at all. It might mean amended by striking out one word, or it might mean amended by striking out the whole of the act except one word. It seems to me that we should have something more definite from the minister, that we should have some concrete proposition before us for our consideration before we could vote intelligently on any resolution of this kind.
I think the mover of the resolution was quite justified in bringing the matter to the attention of the House. I realize the fact that conditions as to the administration of this act in the province of Quebec cannot be very satisfactory. As to that, of course, I do not know the details other than what have been given here to-day. That same conditions do not obtain in all the other provinces so far as my information goes or, I should say, at least, not in the province of British Columbia so far as I am aware. We have found there that the act is being administered in a fairly satisfactory manner. To the best of my information those who were appointed to act as trustees in British Columbia were men or companies who were responsible parties, and who attempted to carry out the provisions of the act in a fair and reasonable manner. It may be that in the province of Quebec too many trustees have been appointed.
Bankruptcy

I listened, too, with a good deal of astonishment to the remarks of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archambault). (Sometimes the hon. gentleman tries to be serious but usually he is quite the reverse, and I was at a loss this afternoon to know whether to take him seriously or otherwise. He made the statement that the appointment of trustees in the province of Quebec had been made through the exercise of political patronage. I asked the hon. gentleman if he knew of one case where an application for appointment as trustee, properly supported by the necessary bond, had been refused and he said, "no", and that he had not made an investigation into that feature at all. But he had a lot of cases that he referred to in other connections, and it seems to me that if there had been such a case the hon. gentleman would have known about it. My information is that appointments were made in all cases where the trustee, or the proposed trustee, .would provide a bond for $10,000 to properly administer his duties. I had occasion, I remember, at one time to make inquiries as to what the requirements were to obtain an appointment under the act, and I was told that there was no restriction whatever, absolutely none, but that anyone who applied and put up this bond could be appointed. Well, that principle may be objectionable, and apparently it has worked out in the province of Quebec in such a way, according to hon. members who have spoken, that too many trustees have been appointed. But it is not a case of political patronage at all, there is no political patronage about it, and I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member make the accusation on such a flimsy foundation.
I listened with some interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis). I always listen to the hon. gentleman with interest. I feel that invariably he is sincere and in most cases I have found him to be reasonable. The hon. member is always fair in his arguments, is usually rather
10 p.m. convincing, and generally has grounds for every proposition that he submits. I was therefore surprised to-day to hear the argument that he advanced against this act. He stated that the act should be repealed because it was draughted along the lines of an English act. He seems to wish to have the House think it was a good and sufficient reason for asking for the repeal of any act, that it was made in England, as it were, or that it was modelled after an English act. That is a very surprising proposition to me. I thought in this country 
we got most of our good models of law from England; that they were always safe guides for us to use. Indeed, I think both my hon. friend and myself found in our practise of law that the English law is pretty good; that English cases are pretty sound; that English precedents are very reliable, and that when we follow them, we are usually on safe ground. The hon. member departed somewhat from his customary course, and he got lost in the fog, or something of that kind, when he touched upon that subject. I see that he is smiling now; I am sure that he has come to his senses again, and that if he had opportunity to do so, he would withdraw that as a ground of opposition to this particular law.


Joseph Archambault: Has the hon. member ever heard of the Code Napoleon?


William Garland McQuarrie: The hon. gentleman
sees fit to be facetious again.


Joseph Archambault: No, I am most
serious.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is hard to tell. My hon. friend, rightly or wrongly has earned the title of comedian of the House.


Mr. BOIYIN:: He has a few rivals.


William Garland McQuarrie: One always expects
something funny from him. He has some qualifications which are, .perhaps, superior to those of other hon. gentlemen in this House. We have all heard of the great comedian who would stand up before an audience, and the audience would immediately, before he had said anything, burst into a roar of laughter. My hon. friend, possibly, has a qualification such as that, and we are glad to hear him. Everybody enjoys seeing him in the House, and everybody enjoys his little jokes.


Joseph Archambault: Will the hon.
member answer my question?


William Garland McQuarrie: He is very funny I
know.


Joseph Archambault: My hon. friend
does not know what the Code Napoleon is. I am glad to know that.


William Garland McQuarrie: Perhaps my hon. friend would like to hear some more recommendations of himself, but I am afraid I have complimented him enough for one evening. I entirely agree with those hon. gentlemen who have stated their adherence to the policy of uniformity of laws in this Dominion of ours. We must all appreciate the movement which is now on foot, in which you, Mr. Speaker, are playing some part, which is tending to-

Bankruptcy
wards bringing together the people of Canada for the welfare of this great Dominion. It would be a mistake, particularly as regards such an important matter as this, to have one law in Quebec and another law for the other provinces. Some hon. gentlemen, and particularly the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis), put this query to the House: Why should we in Quebec be forced to take something that we do not want? Of course, that would be a hard question to answer if his facta were correct. After listening to the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), I am forced to the conclusion that it would be going a little far to say that the people of Quebec, as a whole, are asking for the repeal of this particular enactment. I do not think that can be shown, because, if I remember correctly, the act was originally introduced by a Quebec member, and when it came up during the last parliament and prior to its being passed, there was plenty of time for objection to be made to it. If I remember correctly, the province of Quebec was not as a whole opposed to it in fact, I do not remember that there was any very strenuous opposition from Quebec. But in Quebec, as in other places, there were strong and urgent demands for the passage of such a law. That is as far as my memory goes. I know there were strong demands from other parts of Canada, and those demands were based on the fact that there was so much diversity in the matter of assignments and the winding-up of estates by reason of insolvency, that business concerns which did business in a big way, were unable to tell, with any degree of certainty, exactly what the real conditions were.
I am not going to go over the ground at any length; but I think I am safe in saying that there was on the part of the business people of Canada a very strong demand that there be a uniform bankruptcy law, and this law was passed as a result of that demand. Whj7 should we repeal the law altogether? Why cannot we rather have put up to us in concrete form some amendment or amendments which will meet the difficulties which have been encountered, so that .they may be considered, and then I am sure it will be possible, as the Minister of Justice says, to work out an act that will be satisfactory to the province of Quebec? Why should the act be repealed? Personally, I am opposed to its being repealed, and I am also opposed to voting for a resolution which calls for the amendment or the repeal of an act. We should either have certain amendments or the repeal of the act proposed; then either proposition would be open for anyone to vote on, and I
would certainly vote against the repeal of the act.
Something has been said about the costs being excessive, and it may be that in some cases the costs have been excessive. But, as I say, that is also a matter that can be remedied. If the costs are too high surely we can put into the act a schedule of costs that would be satisfactory to those who are complaining. But it seems to me that the real objection to the act, so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, is that too many trustees have been appointed, and that these trustees have been endeavouring to get business for themselves, and consequently have created difficulties which have given rise to this agitation. Well, that also is a matter that can be remedied. It would be possible, surely, to revise the list of trustees appointed for the province of Quebec, and more particularly for Montreal, if there are too many there, and reduce the number. To my mind that would meet the situation. I believe that after the courts have had time to interpret the act, after the law has become settled, and after the necessary amendments have been made, we shall find that the act will work smoothly enough and that it will be more satisfactory to have one uniform bankruptcy law for the whole of Canada than that there should exist such a condition as we had prior to the passing of the act.


Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I wish to speak briefly on the resolution, and in doing so I shall 'approach the subject from my limited experience of the working of the act in the province of Ontario. I hope, however, that in dealing with it I shall not consider it from a provincial standpoint, but that whatever I may say will have reference to the matter upon the national scale and with a view to the benefit of Canada at large. Now, the resolution makes two attacks on this piece of legislation, and it appears to me that these attacks are somewhat inconsistent. First, it suggests the repeal of the act; and then, as if the mover were not confident as to the advisability of that, it proposes an amendment to it. There is considerable inconsistency in the proposition outlined in the resolution itself. We cannot overemphasize the importance of uniformity in our bankruptcy law in Canada. Our commerce has become very widely extended, and in my own limited experience I have found great difficulty in advising a creditor with respect to his rights when he was carrying on business in all the nine provinces of the Dominion under the old system. In the case
Bankruptcy

of insolvency in one province, his rights would be governed by the laws of that province, and in another province his rights might be altogether different. The result was that we had nine different rights in the Dominion of Canada, all in connection with one situation, that of insolvency. We have been endeavouring through our Dominion Law Association to bring about uniformity in the laws relating to matters of this kind, and this surely is one in regard to which it is very important that there should be that uniformity which this statute provides. I cannot understand any reason why all classes of the community should not be free to take advantage of the act; I cannot see why the farmer should not be as free to assign and get a discharge as is a trader and do not think that anything has been said in support of that contention that requires any answer. I submit that after listening to the clear, complete and concise review of the situation by the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) the answer to the resolution has. been provided, and nothing can be added to what he has said. This legislation was not hurriedly introduced; it was preceded by a long campaign of education, and after representations had been made from different parts of the country in favour of a Dominion insolvency law. The act has many advantages. It has the advantage of uniformity, and a creditor knows his rights to be the same in all provinces. It has made a good beginning and has worked well in the province of Ontario. No person contends that it is perfect; it does need some amendment, and the weakness of it is particularly striking in its tendency to centralization. That was pointed out by one of the preceding speakers and a remedy was suggested.. If there are any features in the law of the province of Quebec, as it existed prior to this act, that are better than the law we now have, or that are an improvement upon it, then by all means let us have them and embody them in the act. There will be no objection to them on the ground that they come from the province of Quebec, for we wish to make the law as perfect as we can. I am sure that it makes for a common citizenship to have a law of this kind. I am strongly opposed to the repeal of the act, but am in favour of its amendment in every respect that will make it more workable, that will improve it, and that will meet the defects which experience from time to time show's that it possesses. For that reason I am opposed to the resolution in so far as it asks for the repeal of the act, while I am in favour of the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that it be amended.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Before the debate is concluded I might offer a few remarks. I should riot like the resolution to be voted upon without putting before the House this fact, that the resolution is not submitted because the province of Quebec, from which I come, is afraid of any invasion of English law under the new system. But the debate that has occurred to-day must have shown conclusively to every hon. gentleman that there are undoubtedly real defects in the law; and as was pointed out by the hon. member for George Etienne Cartier, the act is nothing but a replica of the English law. We are not afraid of having certain provisions of the laws of other countries embodied in our law, provided that under all circumstances the rights of each and every province of this Dominion be properly safeguarded and protected. And that is why in the remarks I made this afternoon before closing my address I requested the hon. the Minister of Justice to see to it that in all cases the laws of the province of Quebec should be respected, and the rights of the people adequately protected. In view of the clear address of the minister and the sound views he expressed [DOT] regarding the question of the abrogation of the law, and his opinion as to what should be done under the circumstances, I have no objection to accepting his suggestion. I would therefore move to strike out the last two words of the resolution. So that the motion will not now be to the effect that in the opinion of this House the law as it stands at present should be amended provided, as the Minister of Justice pointed out in the course of his remarks, that it be in such terms as shall be in the best interests of the whole, community.


Hewitt Bostock: I must inform the hon. member that he has no right to amend his own motion without the unanimous consent of the House. As the debate is closed, and no one can move an amendment to the motion, it must be taken as it appears on the order paper. Of course, with the unanimous consent of the House the hon. member may move to amend by deleting the last two words of his motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to withdraw the said motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion withdrawn.

Canada and War


LEAGUE OF NATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. Power (Quebec South) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Dominion of Canada should give notice of its intention to withdraw from the League of Nations and forthwith take steps to comply with article 1 of the covenant of the League of Nations by promptly freeing itself from all obligations which it may have contracted under said covenant.
Mr. POWER:: Dropped.
Motion withdrawn.


CANADA'S PARTICIPATION IN WAR
Charles Gavan Power: That, in the opinion of this House, it is expedient to declare that save in the case of actual invasion the Dominion of Canada shall not be committed to participation in any war without the consent of the parliament of Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, lest later on in the course of the debate some hon. gentleman may accuse me of political embezzlement and literary plagiarism, I wish at the outset to plead guilty to both charges. The resolution which I have placed on the order paper is taken mutatis mutandis from Article 48 of the constitution of the Irish Free State. This constitution was ratified by the parliament of Great Britain.
The theories advanced and the arguments adduced in support thereof have been placed before the people of this country on numerous occasions by Mr. John S. Ewart, K.C., of Ottawa. Mr. Ewart, in a manner as able as unselfish, has for a number of years devoted himself to the study of Canada's relations to the Empire and to the rest of the world. He has done this without any hope of financial reward or political preferment. His theory has developed into this: That we in Canada at this stage of our national development should be the moulders of our own destiny, undeterred by any consideration of interest or sentiment, except the interest which we have in matters pertaining to our own country and the natural affection which every Canadian should have for the land of his birth or of his adoption.
Some hon. gentlemen may be of opinion that this resolution is somewhat inopportune. Others may be of opinion that it is unnecessary because by the very fact that no moneys can be appropriated without the vote of this parliament, therefore no Canadian troops can be equipped or put in a state to go to war. It is urged that no government unless it had the support of the House of Commons or was assured of such support, could possibly involve Canada in war.
To the first of these objections, I answer that now is the time, if ever, for us to approve or disapprove of the. conduct of the
present administration during the Near Eastern crisis of last September, that now is the time, not too soon after the actual event for us to be still under the spell of the enthusiasm and of the glamour of the moment and not too far removed for us not to understand perfectly and to judge impartially as to what occurred on that occasion.
My answer to those who might say that this resolution is unnecessary is that as a matter of fact on the last two occasions on which Canadian troops have taken part in war they were mobilized and prepared for embarkation before even our parliament was summoned.
I would say further that the resolution does not pretend so much to discuss the actual participation of this country in war as its commitment to participation. I think that perhaps as I proceed with my argument I can place this point more clearly before the House.
There are in this country two great schools of thought: Those who say-as some hon. gentlemen said last September-that at the moment when Great Britain extended to us an invitation to mobilize our troops for the Gallipoli campaign, we should instantly have answered, "Ready! aye ready!" Others who say "It was well that we had a government in power courageous enough to answer to the invitation of the British Prime Minister: 'Let us see what this quarrel is about-what are our interests *-how is Canada's honour involved-is her territorial integrity menaced?' "
Now, Sir, I should like for a few moments to discuss the point of view of those who are willing to ask the Dominion to take part in any and every war wherein the British Empire may be engaged. From what I can gather their arguments-and they are not many-may be classified somewhat as follows: First, what I may call the sentimental argument; next, the moral argument; and last the legal or constitutional argument.
The sentimental argument may be summed up somewhat in these words: We must help the Mother Country-blood is thicker than water-we must answer the call of the blood. To this I would reply: In the first place, Britain is not our Mother Country; France is. It was the French explorers, the French missionaries,- the French captains who first laid the foundations of civilization in this country, who first developed and christianized it. It was the French explorers who first opened up this country to civilization, and if we have a mother country at all in that sense, it must surely be France. Now I hardly think that any member of this House will venture to assert that we should go to war on any occasion when France is at war.
Canada and War

There is another argument, too, under the same heading, the argument of the call of the blood. Because the greater proportion of the inhabitants of Canada are of British birth or descent it is urged that we should promptly enter into bellicose and belligerent operations as soon as the Mother Country of these individuals becomes involved in war. We might just as well say that the United States should become involved in war when Britain is at war, because I imagine that the greater number of inhabitants of the United States have ties of kindred or business more or less closely connected with people living in the Old Country. But even admitting that this argument is not a good one, I would ask hon. members whether they think it is fundamentally and morally sound for the majority of the inhabitants of this country, simply because they are bound by ties of blood and sympathy to some nation, to insist that their fellow-citizens of some other nationality or of different racial descent should kill or be killed for the sake of whatever sympathy the first nationality may have. In this country there are people of every race and of every nationality. When they become citizens of Canada they are entitled to equal rights, and particularly to that right and privilege of carrying on their affairs in a manner to become as prosperous as possible, and unless we give them security to pursue their peaceful avocations free from the troubles and turmoil of war we have not carried out our contract with them.
Then we have what is called the moral argument, which might be summed up as follows. As Canadians we owe to the British Empire or to Great Britain that we have been protected by the British army and the British navy, and furthermore we owe to Great Britain our constitutional development and the freedom and privileges we enjoy under the British Constitution.
To that first argument I answer this: We have not, as a, matter of fact, been protected to any great extent by the British army. On two occasions on which we became involved in war, when the British army fought on our side, the war was none of our choosing. The war of American Independence was certainly not brought on by Canada or by the citizens of Canada. With the war of 1812 we had little or nothing to do, and the least that those who undertook to carry on this war could do was to protect their own base. Canada on both these occasions was the base of supplies for the British army in their attacks against the United States and in their defence against attacks from that country. Further-

more, if British troops have for a long time garrisoned this country, I submit that it was
because it suited the convenience of the Imperial authorities and not because it suited our convenience. In that connection may I quote the opinion expressed by the Duke of Newcastle before a select committee of the British House of Commons in 1881. He was asked the following question:
Since 1854, the time when the arrangement of which you spoke was made, it appears that the force in the North American Colonies has not been in a state of progressive reduction, but rather fluctuating.
His reply was:
I have already stated in answer to some questions in the early part of my examination that that was done without any communication with the colony, and for Imperial purposes. It was a convenience to us to send those troops there; they were not required by the Colony and beyond the towns and villages in which they were placed, which no doubt derived advantages from the commissariat, I do not think that the colony wished a single man.
Further on in the same inquiry, Earl Grey states that the troops were in Canada, but they were here because they cost very little more than they would at home. I have a number of other quotations on the same subject, but as the hour is growing very late I shall not weary the patience of the House by giving them.
With regard to naval protection, it has been said frequently in this House and outside of it, where would Canada be if it had not, been for the protection of the British navy? The same argument applies also to the navy with regard to the war of 1812 and the war of American Independence. With regard to further protection, may I quote further from the evidence given before that same select committee of the British House of Commons'.' Rear Admiral Erskine states:
We are at a certain expense in defending Canada; but supposing Canada were incorporated into the United States, would our expense be increased or diminished in time of war?
His reply to this was:
Your expense must increase, because you must have your territory protected in the event of the Americans committing any aggression upon your trade, which now there is no apprehension of.
The Duke of Newcastle in the same inquiry states:
Halifax is not kept up for the benefit of Nova Scotia; but rightly or wrongly according to the particular views which men may entertain, it is kept for military purposes; it is still more important as a naval station, inasmuch as by its natural capabilities it is certainly one of the finest, and in all probability the finest harbour in the world.
I go further, apd I say that not only has the British navy not protected us, but it has on several occasions intervened to our disad-

Canada and War
vantage. I quote now from Canada and British Wars by John S. Ewart, K.C., Ottawa, who, at page 10, says:
Observe, next, that, so far from having enjoyed British protection, there have been but two occasions upon which the British navy has gone into action in connection with our (I include Newfoundland) quarrels, and in each case, although we were indubitably in the right, the British fleet acted against us. The first occasion was in connection with the seizure, by the United States cruisers, of our sealing ships on the open ocean. . . . The second occasion was when, in defence of an absurd claim of the French, a squad of British marines destroyed the lobster factories of Newfoundlanders on Newfoundland territory. In both of these' cases, not only was it the opinion of the British government that our opponents were undoubtedly wrong, but, in the international arbitration in the one case, and in the British Privy Council in the other, our contention was authoritatively declared to be right.
So we may conclude from these quotations and from our own experience that so far from our being protected by the British army or the British navy, we have in a large measure protected ourselves, and in some instances if we could we would have protected ourselves more strenuously against them.
It is urged also that our constitutional development, the constitutional freedom and rights and privilege that we now enjoy are due in a large measure to what I may call the benevolence of Breat Britain. Let us see what these blessings are.
The first important document in our constitutional history was the Constitution of 1791. That was granted to us shortly after the American Revolution. The reason given for advancing us so far along the path of freedom is somewhat as follows. Lord Grenville in a letter to Lord Dorchester about 1790 asks for his opinion on this question.
-by what means, the connection and dependence of Canada, on this country may be so preserved and cultivated, as to be rendered most beneficial to Great Britain during its continuance, and most permanent in its duration.
The Colonial Office accompanied these suggestions with the hope,-
-that they would afford a juster, and more effectual security against the growth of a republican or independent spirit, than any which could be derived from a government more arbitrary in its form or principles.
So that our constitution in 1791 was granted to us, not so much for our benefit as in order to keep us the longer under the more direct control and subjection of the Imperial authority. The next important step in our constitutional development was taken in 1841. I do not think it is necessary for me to dwell at any greater length on that portion of our history. We obtained a constitution in 1841 as a result of the rebellion in 1837. If we
were granted certain freedom it was because it was found impossible to govern Canada, a country so far removed from Great Britain, unless certain concessions were made, and before the concesions were made the colonies had broken out into open revolt. The next step in our constitutional history was the proclamation of 1867. I do not think there is any question of doubt whatsoever in the mind of any hon. member but that the motive which swayed the British government in granting us the British North America Act was in order that we would build up, under the auspices of the British gevemment, on the North American continent a country strong enough and big enough and having sufficient strength to resist any encroachment which the republic to the south of us might be able or willing to make on the British naval or military power. May I say further still on this subject that it is true that we obtained freedom and our present free institutions while under the protection of Great Britain, but I submit, Sir, there is no copyright on freedom. We could just as well have obtained that freedom and developed our own free institutions under the protection of any other power, or we could have obtained it even had we been free and independent. We owe every gratitude to the Mother of Parliaments for having so far developed parliamentary institutions, but there was no copyright, as I said before, and no law which prevented us from copying these institutions and applying them to our own circumstances.
To conclude this portion of my remarks, let me make a passing reference to our experience with British diplomacy when we were represented in foreign affairs by the British authorities. Every one in this House is familiar with the fact that after the war of the American revolution we lost a large portion of the territory that rightfully belonged to us and which now makes up a portion of the United States of America. Every one knows of the Hay-Ashburton Treaty by which we lost Maine. Every one knows of our fishery dispute, and every one knows of Sir John Macdonald's report when he was acting with certain British diplomats at Washington. He found they were not so much interested in Canada as they were anxious to get home with a treaty of some kind in their pockets. During the whole course of our empire when we were in early youth and in young manhood, we were protected, firstly-if we were protected at all-in order to suit the interests of the Mother Country, and as soon as it no longer suited their interests we were made the butt of their diplomacy in order to placate
Canada and War

and to please the Americans on every possible occasion. In making these remarks I wish not to be misinterpreted. I do not think there is any one on this side of the House, or on the other side of the House who shares this view with me wishes, for one instant, to decry the British Empire or its achievements. We are proud that we have taken part in some of these achievements. We are willing to admit that probably no empire in the world or no country in the world has done so much for the advancement of the human, race, but at the same time we would like it to be clearly understood just what our obligations and what our views on this question are.
Before closing this part of my argument allow me to discuss what might be called the legal and constitutional viewpoint. It is I think fairly well understood that during the whole course of British constitutional history, so far from the colonies being obliged to defend or to help the Mother Country, it was the duty of the dominant partner to extend aid and assistance to the colonies. We have but to contrast the state of affairs which existed on the North American continent during the wars which took place here between England and France to see what the distinction was between the two colonial policies. The French in Canada marched to war at the command of the King. The British in America marched to war, sent their troops to the frontiers, and granted supplies only when the American colonial assemblies voted such supplies. And so a contrast can be made through the whole course of British and colonial history. So much did the colonies have control of their own funds, and of the question of defence, that when it was attempted to tax them, they for purposes purely of their own defence rebelled, and during the course of that rebellion the British House of Commons decreed-
The King and parliament of Great Britain would not impose any duty, tax, or assessment whatever, payable in any of His Majesty's colonies, provinces and plantations in North America or the West Indies, except only such duties as it might be expedient to impose for the regulation of commerce; the net produce of such duties to be always paid and applied to and for the use of the colony, province or plantation in which the same shall be respectively levied, in such manner as other duties collected by the authority of the respective general courts or general assemblies of such colonies, provinces or plantations were ordinarily paid and applied.
Furthermore it has been stated by the foremost British authorities that the relation of the colonies to the Mother Country was not such that the Mother Country could not call
on the colony for aid and assistance. On the
contrary the Duke of Newcastle, in the same

inquiry which I have already mentioned, states in answer to questions;
Q. May your opinion be stated in these terms, that the mother country having assumed the government of a colony, takes upon itself all the responsibility of its defence?-A. Certainly.
Q. No responsibility given to a Colony gives it the responsibility of declaring war?-A. Certainly not.
Q. The power, therefore, of declaring war imposes upon the government the responsibility of protecting the Colony from the cost of war?-A. Certainly.
So that even during the time of our colonial status there was no question of doubt in the minds of British statesmen but that we were not under any obligation whatsoever to furnish it assistance.
Now, let us see what happened later on when we developed still more; when we lost the status of a colony and became a self-governing dominion and later on a nation. It was found and it was stated distinctly by our leaders, that the question of the defence of the Empire bad now become a matter of treaty obligation and no longer a matter of any kind of obligation. Sir John Macdonald, at the time of the Soudan war, stated in a letter to Sir Charles Tupper, the High Commissioner in London, dated 12th March, 1885, in refusing to furnish a contingent for that war:
Our men and money would therefore be sacrificed to get Gladstone and Co. out of the hole they have plunged themselves into by their own imbecility. Again the reciprocal aid to be given by the colonies and England should be a matter of treaty, deliberately entered into and settled on a permanent basis.
And then he goes on to say further:
The spasmodic offers of our Militia Colonels anxious for excitement or notoriety, have roused unreasonable expectations in England and are so far unfortunate. I dare say that a battalion or two of venturous spirits might be enlisted but 7 d.* a day will cool most men's warlike ardour.
Again, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, at the time of the despatch of the South African contingent
said:
I claim for Canada this, that in the future Canada shall be at liberty to act or not to act, to interfere or not to interfere, to do just as she pleases, and that she shall reserve to herself the right to judge whether or not there is cause for her to act.
This, Sir, 1 think is the present state of the case. We are not bound to take part in Britain's wars unless we have some kind of a treaty which would bind us to do so. This was the position last September. We had no treaty at that time. We were under no written obligation or, as I have shown, moral or legal obligation to send an expedition to the Far East, so that the government of this country, in acting as they did, I think acted constitutionally, acted within their rights, acted with perfect justice, and for that reason

Canada and War
deserves the thanks of the House and of the country.
That crisis having been safely passed let us see what shall be our policy for the future. I have said that in my opinion-and if the argument which I have pursued so far is right such is the case, any question of participation in Imperial wars should be a matter of treaty of arrangement. This resolution reads that no such treaty or arrangement be entered into without the consent of the parliament of Canada. In case it should be said that it would be impossible to enter into any such treaty or arrangement without the consent of parliament, allow me to give you an example of a case in which a country became involved in war without the consent of the people, or even the.consent of parliament. In making these remarks I do not wish to ascribe any blame of those concerned in Great Britai#. To my mind Great Britain entered the last war from the purest of motives, and after she had made every effort to avoid that calamity. She was, it is true, bound by no treaty obligation, but she was obliged to support France owing to a series of arrangements, conversations, and diplomatic interventions which allowed France to hope that in any case in which she should be assailed Britain would promptly come to her assistance. The obligation was, I say so strong that the parliament of great Britain- though it had no knowledge of these conversations or these arrangements-could not without besmirching the national honour, refuse to take part in the war. In 1904 Great Britain and France came to a sort of friendly arrangement whereby these two nations settled their difficulties throughout the world. One of the conditions was that France agreed to give Britain a free hand in Egypt and Britain agreed to give France a free hand in Morocco. In 1905 arose the first Moroccan incident. May I quote here the words of Sir Edward Grey from the Parliamentary Debates, British House of Commons, Volume 65, page 1,181:
Now I must make this question of obligation clear to the House. I must go back to the first Moroccan crisis of 1906. . . . when a general election was in progress, and ministers were scattered over the country; and-spending three days a week in my constituency and three days at the Foreign Office-was asked the question whether if that crisis developed into war between France and Germany we would give armed support. I said then that I could promise nothing to any foreign power unless it was subsequently to receive the whole-hearted support of public opinion here if the occasion arose. I said, in my opinion, if war was forced upon France then on the question of Morocco-a question which had just been the subject of agreement between this country and France, an agreement exceedingly popular on both sides-that if out of that agreement war was forced
on Fiance at that time, in my view public opinion in this country would have rallied to the material support of France.
He says, further on, that the French officials approached him saying: "It is all very well to state that you will support us in the case of war with Germany, but had we not better have some arrangement, some conversations, between the military advisers of both countries in order, if you find yourself bound to take part in this war, that we will be in a position to make reciprocal arrangements?" He says that he agreed to this arrangement. Then he goes on to say:
As I have told the House, upon that occasion a General Election was in prospect. I had to take the responsibility of doing that without the cabinet. It could not be summoned. An answer had to be given.
I	consulted Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, the Prime Minister; I consulted, I remember, Lord Haldane, who was then Secretary of State for war, and the present Prime Minister who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the most I could do, and they authorized that on the distinct understanding that it left the hands of the government free whenever the crisis arose.
Then he states that another Moroccan crisis arose, that of Agadir-


Mr. McMASTER:: When was this speech delivered by Sir Edward Grey?


Charles Gavan Power: On the 3rd of August, 1914. Then, at the time of the Agadir crisis in 1912, he gave a somewhat similar assurance to the French Ambassador. It can clearly be shown by the diplomatic documents relating to the war that at that time, in 1912, conversations and reciprocal arrangements were
II	p.m. entered into between not only the
French general staff and the British general staff, but also the Belgium general staff and the British general staff. It is true that at that time the French Ambassador, at the request of Sir Edward Grey, gave him a letter in which this was stated:
We have agreed that consultation between experts is not and ought not to be regarded as an engagement that commits either government to action in a contingency that has not yet arisen and may never arise.
Other English statesmen, however, took a different view of those engagements from that which Sir Edward Grey took. It will be remembered that, at that time, owing to negotiations which had passed between the British and the French governments, the British fleet retired to the North sea and the French fleet retired to the Mediterranean, leaving the British fleet to undertake the defence of the North sea. Lord Crewe, on August 6, 1914, says:
The direct effect of that understanding was the weakening of the French maritime defence in the channel and the corresponding weakening of our
Canada and War

maritime defence in the Mediterranean. Your Lordships will see that the result was inevitable, without any formal arrangement between the two powers that one should fill the gap left by the other.
The Marquis of Lansdowne, speaking on the same day, August 6, 1914, states:
I do not think anyone can have failed to be deeply shocked by what I can now describe as the cynical attempt made to bribe this country, and not this country alone, into a disregard both of its treaty obligations and of those other obligations which are not less sacred because they are not embodied in a signed and sealed document. . . . To the other category belong our obligations to France -obligations of honour, which have grown up in consequence of the close intimacy by which the two nations have been united during the last few fateful years.
Bonar Law is of the same opinion in a letter which he wrote to Mr. Asquith, Prime Minister of England, on August 3, 1914. Lloyd George, in defending his policy in August, 1918, four years afterwards, stated that there could be no question of doubt but that an obligation of honour was imposed upon the British Empire to intervene in any war in which Germany should be the aggressor. I have said before that it is possible for obligations of this nature to be entered into without consultation with parliament and without the knowledge and consent of parliament. I have had in my hand a book entitled, How the Wat Came, by Earl Lorebum, who was from 1905 to 1912 Lord Chancellor, and consequently a member of the British cabinet. I may say that Sir Edward Grey, in the course of his speech, after stating that he had informed Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman and others, states:
The fact that conversations between military and naval experts took place was later on-I think much later on because that crisis passed and the thing ceased to be of importance-leu later on it was brought to the knowledge of the cabinet.
This is what Lord Lorebum says:
He does not say when. . . . but one of Sir Edward Grey's then colleagues may be permitted, in view of his statement about withholding the information from the cabinet, to offer certain criticisms. Sir Edward Grey's phraseology rather conveys that his selection of confidants was casual, but Mr. Asquith and Lord Haldane were with himself vice-presidents of the Liberal leaguq,, a continuation of the Liberal imperialistic movement which had supported the South African war and opposed Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman on that subject.
He says further:
There was no difficulty whatever in summoning the cabinet during the election to consider so grave a matter. A good many members of the cabinet were in London or within an hour of it, while those whom he consulted were at a distance. And there are "railways and post offices in Great Britain. The cabinet met in January, 1906.
And then he goes on further to say that all during 1906 and later he, as a member of

the cabinet, was not made acquainted with these conversations which had taken place with the French and Belgian officers. Further, he asked the question-When did the war come, and how did they bring us into it? Speaking with regard to the action of the ministers of the Crown, he says:
The answer to this question, in & single sentence, is that we were brought into the war because Mr. Asquith and Sir Edward Grey and their confidants, by steps some of which are known while others may be unknown, had placed us in such a position toward France, and therefore also toward Russia, that they found they could not refuse to take up arms on her behalf when it came to the issue, though till the end they denied it to parliament, and probably even to themselves.


Mr. McBRIDE:: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that England was in honour bound to go and support France when she went to war, and that Canada is not in honour bound to go and support England if she ||ot into difficulties.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that owing to this series of conversations and arrangements that took place between England and France prior to the last war, without there being any written treaties or conventions with the consent of parliament thereto, and without the knowledge of the whole cabinet, Britain found herself so involved that, without loss of honour, she could not stay out of the war. As I proceed further with my argument, my hon. friend will see that it is to avoid any such contingency arising in Canadian politics, that this resolution is being brought down this evening.


Leon Johnson Ladner: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question which is relevant to the present theme of his discussion? Was the government of Canada justified, in August, 1914, at the time Great Britain entered the war, in pledging Canada's active military support to Britain without securing the consent of the parliament of Canada?


Charles Gavan Power: I am under the impression that owing to some more of those conversations, for instance the interchange of officers between the British general staff and our exchange of officers, and also owing to a certain resolution passed unanimously in this House of Commons in 1909, we were practically pledged to go to war in case the British Empire was forced into war through aggression on the part of Germany. It is to prevent any such contingency in future without the know-_ ledge and full consent of parliament, that this resolution is being introduced.
Before closing that portion of my remarks relating to how Britain entered the war, let me read Lord Loreburn's appreciation of Sir

Canada and War
Edward Grey's speech on the 3rd August, 1914:
0 -
This remarkable speech began with an elaborate effort to prove that the House of Commons was perfectly free to determine either for peace or war. It ended with a passionate declaration that this country would be disgraced if we did not declare war, and the reasoning of the speech proved that Sir Edward Grey had committed himself irretrievably.
As I said before, this is a case where a great nation, the greatest nation on earth, a nation which has amongst its statesmen those who should be most familiar with everything that goes on in international politics, a nation the members of whose House of Commons probably study international politics more than those of any other similar bodies in the world, found that it had restrained its liberty of action in case of an aggressive war on the part of Germany to such an extent that it could not remain out of the war without, as I said before, besmirching the nation's honour. If such a thing can happen with regard to England, how much more so could it happen with regard to this country? Our leaders, much as I admire and respect them, will be, I think, the very first to admit that they have possibly not the training in diplomacy, nor in the knowledge of old-world events, which the members of the British cabinet and the members of the House of Commons of Britain, before 1914, possessed. As I said before, the general aim and object of this resolution is to prevent this country from being placed in a position similar to that which Great Britain was placed in before 1914. The resolution really only gives a more general application to, and elaborates an amendment moved by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he was leader of the Opposition, on April 27, 1921, on' the occasion of the departure of the present leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) then Prime Minister for Great Britain to attend the Prime Ministers' conference. The original motion stated that it was advisable to take part in the Imperial Conference, and so forth; and the present Prime Minister moved:
That the House, while recognizing the propriety of Canada being represented at any Imperial conference or conference of the Prime Ministers of the Empire that may be called, desires to record its opinion that at the coming conference no step should be taken in any way involving any change in the relations of Canada to other parts of the Empire; and that, in view of the present financial position of Canada, no action should be taken implying any obligations on the part of Canada to undertake new expenditures for naval or .military purposes.
This amendment was defeated by some thirty votes. But may I say now to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) that, though he considered it his duty at the time to ask his supporters to vote down this amendment, he took to heart the injunctions which had been given him, and by his manly stand and his steadfast Cana-dianism was able to resist the blandishments of the Imperialists and prevent the renewal of the Japanese Treaty. The principles enunciated in that resolution remain, I think, the principles which guide the Liberal party in its foreign and imperial policy to-day. There can be no objection, then, on the part of the government to accepting the more general statement as outlined in the resolution which I have placed on the order paper. There will no doubt be other imperial conferences; there will be other discussions of the question of imperial defence; and our ministers, when discussions relating to these matters arise, might very well be pleased to be able to say to those who approach them that it is useless to converse, useless to negotiate, unnecessary to enter into undertakings because their hands are tied, they are bound by a resolution of the Canadian House of Commons not in any way to commit their country to any participation whatsoever without previously having consulted parliament. This, I submit, would be in the best interests of the ministers themselves; it would make the matter clear for everyone; and it would be following out the adage of which so much was said during the war,-open agreements, open covenants, openly arrived at. I can conceive of the case where it might be necessary for two nations which are combining against the aggression of a third party to keep secret the negotiations and even the result of their combination. It might be that this very combination might be sufficient to urge the third nation into making an attack before the plans of the other two parties were completed. But in this country we need no such precaution; we need have no enemies on this continent; and we have no right to make enemies for ourselves on any other continent. Any arrangements which the representatives of the people of Canada may arrive at should be arrived at in the broad light of day and be freely published, so that every citizen of the Dominion may know just to what he is obliged and under what circumstances he may act in such and such a matter. To sum up, I have tried-


Leon Johnson Ladner: Does the hon. gentleman think, in the event of enemy attacking Great Britain and being victorious, that Canada would be free from the penalties of the loser?


Charles Gavan Power: I am rather under the impression that we would. It has been said
Canada and War

quite freely that in any case in which Great Britain is at war, whether we want to go to war or not, we would be attacked. I think the hon. gentleman knows, and every hon. gentleman in this House ought to know, that it would not be to the advantage of any single nation on earth to make an enemy of Canada if Canada were not inclined to go into war. Almost any nation on earth would carefully refrain from attacking a country which could put 500,000 of the best fighting troops in the world in the field at practically a moment's notice.
Now, I have tried to show that at the present moment our slate is clean in so far as international or imperial obligations are concerned. I have tried to show also that there is a way of keeping that slate clean. The passing of a resolution such as this is one way that would keep us from undertaking any entangling al- liances or engagements. It remains only for me to close my observations by stating that my motives in bringing forward this resolution are not anti-British any more than they are anti-American. They are simply Canadian. I am Canadian, purely and simply, and I place the interests of this country before those of any other country no matter how closely we may be related thereto. A number of hon. gentlemen in this House may have arrived at the same conclusions as I have reached, but by following different paths. With these I have no quarrel, any more than I have any quarrel with those who think I am utterly and absolutely wrong. This is a matter of opinion. The question of our relations to the Empire is, I think, one of the greatest questions now before the people of Canada. It is certainly one question on which we can have a definite line of cleavage, at any rate. At the present time, for instance, with regard to the tariff, we have free traders and protectionists on this side of the House, and we have protectionists and so-called free traders on the other side. And we have private ownership and public ownership advocates sitting cheek by jowl on either side of the House. On almost every single question it is possible to cut clear across party lines. But on this question the time is fast approaching when every citizen of Canada will have to decide whether he is a Canadian first or a Britisher first. And when that question is placed before the people of Canada, without any extraneous circumstances to dim their vision or prejudice their judgment, then I think every member of this House will have to make his choice one way or the other. I think from what I have said to-night the House knows where my choice will lie. It will

be said perhaps that the views which I have expressed this evening are selfish and narrow. To their selfishness I plead guilty; I think we should be selfish with regard to our country. We should so take the interest of our country to heart that we have little time or occasion to be worried over the fortunes of any other country.
It will be said too, that my views are narrow. But how can views be narrow which take into consideration the problems of the miner from Nova Scotia, of the farmer from Alberta and of the fisherman from British Columbia? We have national problems great enough to exercise the minds of our ablest statesmen. We have class problems-the problem of the employer, the problem of the worker, the problem of the farmer, the problem of the manufacturer; we have the problems of race antagonism and religious prejudice; we have economic problems-our railways are on our hands and we have to seek some means of developing our national resources. When we have settled, if ever we do settle, these problems, it will be time enough for us to turn our attention to the woes of the Hindu, to the troubles of the Australian sheep-rancher,, to the hardships of the tax-burdened Lancashire miner, to the sorrows of the London coster. But until such time as we have either settled definitely or come to some conclusion regarding the settlement of these great national problems which cry aloud for solution, I say our people should devote their attention to their own national affairs, in an endeavour to make this country more prosperous and better to live in, and indeed a country better than any other in all the world.
Mr. d'ANJOU (Rimouski) (Translation): Mr..Speaker, as it is quite late and considering that my hon. friend the member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) has so ably set forth his resolution, I shall but add a few words in support of this very important motion; I shall, however, dwell long enough on the subject in order to express my views clearly on this question of participating in Imperial wars. It affords me much pleasure to second the resolution of the member for Quebec South, and, I sincerely congratulate him for having brought up this debate, thus affording to members the opportunity of stating their views on a question so vital to the interests of Canada. On that score he certainly deserves the thanks of every patriotic person in this country.
Members sitting in this House and having a leaning towards militarism or imperialism can no more parade as drawing room generals, or seriously cast a shadow of doubt on the

Canada and War
motives which have prompted my hon. friend to take this step. This right is denied to them by the reason of his being one of the glorious wounded of the great war. It is because he was an eye-witness to so many horrors that he wants no more war, it is because he has a true knowledge of its frightfulness that he does not wish his country to be dragged into new conflicts without the people's consent, represented by their members in the nation's parliament.
In 1914, the Borden government decided to throw Canada into the most terrible war which history has ever recorded. They were willing to lay waste the country by sacrificing the last man and dollar to save the Empire, and this without having first consulted the Canadian parliament. Such an act was unworthy of responsible government nor was such a procedure truly democratic. It is this arbitrary and despotic way of settling the destinies of Canada by making light of the rights of the Canadian people that we wish to prevent by asking the House to adopt the resolution which my hon. friend has so courageously and eloquently put forth.
In the month of August, 1914, the people of this country awoke one morning to learn with stupefaction, that the Canadian government had cabled to the Imperial authorities that they were ready to lead the country into the most disastrous bankruptcy to save the Empire. What right had the government of that day to pledge Canada to an unlimited participation in the war? What authority did it possess to cause the blood of thousands of Canadians to flow on the Elanders fields and drain the treasury to save the Empire from floundering. It is under a false notion of liberty that' the government directing the destines of Canada, in 1914, offered, without thought, to place all the nation's manhood on the battle-fields of old Europe, for England's benefit. It is only after everything had been settled that the government called parliament together to ask it not to decide if yes or no, we should participate in the war, but simply to approve of its line of conduct after having taken upon itself to decide what belonged to parliament alone to decide.
Since it is the people who shed their blood and give up their gold to the god of war, it is but just that it, should be the same people that decide if they should or not take part in the wars of the Empire or in any other war outside Canadian territory, except as the present resolution under consideration demands it in case of an actual invasion of Canada.
The Canadian people were highly pleased to hear on different occasions the leader of the
present government state that parliament alone would decide in the future if, yes or no, we should participate in foreign wars or the Empire's wars if you wish to put it that way. The whole of Canada sincerely applauded the noble and patriotic action of our prime minister when, during the Turkish entanglement, he answered, in a dignified manner, the British government who asked for contingents to be sent to Turkey: "The parliament of Canada is the sole judge in the matter and alone it will decide of our participation or non participation in foreign wars, either in Turkey or elsewhere." Europe is actually resting on a volcano. France which suffered the most in the last war, was obliged, so as to obtain the payment of reparations, to invade German territory. The society of nations is a huge joke and the sooner we get out of it, the better it will be for Canada. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the Canadian people should control their own destinies and have the last word to say, through its representatives in parliament, when the question again presents itself of pledging Canada to participate in the Imperial wars. The people s duty is therefore to choose representatives whose views are well known in regard to the question of participation, and, who are in favour of previously consulting parliament before pledging Canada to new wars to the exclusive benefit of the British Crown.
Mr. CASGRAIN moved the adjournment of the debate.


Arthur Meighen: I know this motion is not debatable, but I do think it is lamentable that a motion of this kind supported by speeches of the character we have heard should now be adjourned and the whole discussion abandoned. I enter my protest.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE KING moved the adjournment of the House.
Arthur Meighen: What is the business tomorrow?


John Warwick King: The first item of business will be the Interim Supply, which was referred to at the beginning of the sitting to-day. Then the Minister of Railways and Canals will make a statement on the railways.


Arthur Meighen: Will the statement be made in supply or before going into supply?
Interim Supply


John Warwick King: Before supply.
I would like to draw the attention of my right hon. friend to the estimates of the Post Office Department. I have received word from the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) that it is hardly probable he will be able to be back in the House till after the middle of May. I have sent to my hon. friend a letter from his physician which would indicate that he has had rather a serious illness, and under the circumstances perhaps my right hon. friend would consent to our -going on with the Post Office estimates to-morrow if an opportunity presents itself.


Arthur Meighen: The Prime Minister was kind enough to give me the letter, but I am very sorry to say that I have not read it. I intended to do so, but omitted it for the moment. I will read it and let the Prime Minister know to-morrow. After the railway statement to-morrow, which probably will not be followed by large comment at the time, may I ask what estimates will be gone on with in the absence of the Post Office estimates! Immigration?


John Warwick King: No. There are some estimates outstanding of the Department of Defence, Public Works and Trade and Commerce, but I think it is possible that if the estimates of the Railway Department are not proceeded with to-morrow we may take up the estimates of the Department of Labour.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 11.45 p.m
Tuesday, March 27, 1923