[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER read a communication from the Governor General's Secretary, announcing that His Excellency the Administrator would proceed to the Senate Chamber this day, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 207, respecting a patent of the Commercial Acetylene Company of New Jersey.-Mr. Maclean (South York).
Bill No. 208, respecting a patent of Maurice Delvigne.-Mr. Barker.
Mr. WEBSTER.
That it is expedient to authorize the Minister of the Interior to issue a military bounty land certificate to Miss Lois B. Hutchinson, as the sole heir and personal representative of her deceased father, James Hutchinson, entitling her, or her substitute, to obtain, free of charge, an entry for a homestead of two adjoining quarter-sections of Dominion lands, and to receive letters patent therefor, provided that such entry is made and obtained on or before December 31, 1913.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. W. CROTHERS (Acting Minister of the Interior), moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 209, to amend the Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Mr. CROTHERS:: When the former Act was passed, setting apart certain areas as forest reserves, the examination was not very full, close or accurate. It has been discovered since that there are in some cases, adjoining areas that should be added to these forest reserves and that in some cases, the present forest reserves included some agricultural land which should be taken from them. This Act is simply to amend the existing Act, enlarging the areas in some cases and in some cases taking some parts out of the reserves.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a
very important distinction. I have no objection to the proposal that the forest reserves should, be increased, but to introduce farm lands into the forest reserves is to propose something that will very much interfere with the object of the Act.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think there is a very small portion to be so treated-only in one or two cases.


Wilfrid Laurier: Even so.


Mr. OLIVER:: What reserves are affected by the provision withdrawing from the reserves?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: There are only one
or two cases, I think. I will tell my hon. friend a little later on. I have the details of each case and the number o.f square miles that it is proposed to add. It is only in one or two cases that anything is proposed to be taken from a reserve.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Wilfrid Laurier: Might I call the attention of the House to a paragraph contained in the Citizen of this morning with regard to the proceedings in the House yesterday. There is an insinuation in it, which, I am afraid, was designed. This is what the Citizen says:
The final division took place at eleven-thirty and was witnessed by crowded galleries.
. . . One of the most notable features of the debate leading up to the passage of the Bill occurred with the Laurier motion for the six months-' hoist. The charge had been repeatedly made that the Government policy was dictated by the Nationalists, yet When! Sir Wilfrid Laurier sat down the man who got up to second his amendment was Guil-bault, of Joliette, a so-called Nationalist.
The gentleman who seconded my motion, and whom I asked to do so, was my desk mate, the Hon. Mr. Graham. That ought to be sufficient.



NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE-IMPERIAL SQUADRON AT GIBRALTAR.

Wilfrid Laurier: I would call the attention of my right hon. friend who leads the House to a matter in regard to which I would like to get some information from him. In order to make my question intelligible I shall have to read a paragraph which I find in the United Empire for May, which just came to hand yesterday. Speaking of the recent speech of Mr. Churchill in regard to the organizing of a station at Gibraltar, the editor of the magazine says:
From that standpoint the most important part of the First Lord's statement was his declaration of the Admiralty's latest plan of Imperial co-operation. Its two parts are mutually dependent. On the assumption that the dominions would be willing to' provide the capital 6hips of a general service squadron, to be based at Gibraltar, the Admiralty suggests that they should direct their policies of local development to the provision of the ' necessary naval bases, dock-yards, crusiers, local flotillas, or other ancillary craft which would enable the Imperial squadron to operate for a prolonged period in any particular threatened theatre to which it might be sent.' To this squadron would be assigned the three prospective Canadian ships, together with the Malaya and New Zealand.
Then, on the next page, the editor goes on to say:
The reception of the Admiralty's proposal in the dominions was mixed. As regards Canada, where one would suppose that the Government would support it and the Opposition deprecate it, the announcement was followed by a sudden silence of the cables, which hitherto had been busy with the progress of the naval controversy. Only from' New Zealand was there any abundance of! comment which was thought likely to interest the British public. The getneral tenor was favourable to the scheme, though the selection of Gibraltar was not universally approved.
The question which I want to put to my right hon. friend is whether or not any official communication has been received from the Admiralty in regard to this intended project.


Mr. BORDEN:: In regard to what my right hon. friend first observed, I have nothing to do with and do not know anything about any communication to the press with respect to the seconding of his amendment. I did observe that the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Guilbault) had taken the floor before six o'clock, and it was yielded to my right hon. friend as a matter of courtesy. As far as the noise or the silence of the cables is concerned, I know nothing about it; I have nothing to do with their noise and I have nothing to do with their silence. In respect to the matter on which the right

hon. gentleman has asked a question, there has been no official communication from the Admiralty except in so far as the matter has been brought to the attention of the dominions throughout the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, from which I made a quotation last evening.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY SPECIAL RATE.

Mr. BELAND:: Passing from the navy on the sea to the navy on land, may I be allowed to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) whether a special rate was granted on the Intercolonial railway from Levis to Mont-magny to those desirous of attending a meeting there the day after to-morrow, and whether after it was granted, if it was granted, it was countermanded?


Mr. COCHRANE:: I do not know anything about the question at all. The management of the road is altogether from Moncton. I had a telegram from a gentleman in Quebec yesterday asking if I had countermanded the order, and I said that I did not know anything about it, and referred him to Moncton.


Henri Sévérin Béland: May I ask whether the hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) knows anything about it, as, I understand, he has been invited to attend the meeting?


Mr. PELLETIER:: I have not been invited to the meeting,- and I know nothing about the matter to which my hon. friend refers as far as the Intercolonial railway is concerned. It must be those Nationalists who voted with my hon. friend last night.


Henri Sévérin Béland: You got fourteen of them.



RUSSIAN CANADIANS SENT TO SIBERIA.

Robert Laird Borden: I would like to bring to the attention of the House a despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, transmitting a question and answer in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom with respect to a matter that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition mentioned some time ago. The question was as follows:
Mr Hewins: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affiairs, whether his attention has been called to the case of three naturalized Canadians, formerly Russians, who upon a visit to Russia have been sentenced to Siberia for life on a charge of evading military service; whether, as stated in the Canadian House of Commons by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on the 16th April, the British authorities have declined to interfere, or whether, as the late Canadian Prime Minister asserted, it is the right and duty of the British Government to protect persons possessing Canadian nationalisation.
Secretary Sir Edward Grey: His Majesty's Government have no information on the sub-
Mr. BORDEN.
jeot. They could not, however, claim to protect Russian subjects, when within the limits of the Emperor's dominions, from any consequences attaching to them for breach of the daws of Russia, whether they had been naturalised in Canada or in this country. The law of Russia would, in such cases, be the governing law, and no question of difference between British or Canadian nationality would arise.



RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.

Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask the hon. Postmaster General whether he intends to establish a rural mail service in the county of Montcalm, as I know he is well disposed to do all that which is fair and reasonable in the interest of the electors, in all the counties indistinctly. I have received from my electors numerous requests to the effect of establishing this service, and especially from those who live , in the parish of Saint-Jacques, beginning at the brook. There is, along that road, a great number of electors who are all unanimous in asking for that service. They are ready to pay the charges and expenses necessary, and the service in question would be a great benefit to them.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Have they made that request long ago?


David Arthur Lafortune: Pretty long ago, that is before the new Administration came to power, and since then the request was reiterated to the post office inspector at Montreal. That. part of the parish is the richest, and its inhabitants would 'be very glad to hear that the Government will do them justice.
If the hon. minister wants them to make the request over again, they are ready to do so.
I hope the minister will not consider the fact that this is being asked by a Liberal. The majority of that parish has even voted against your humble servant. There are more Conservatives than Liberals along that road. However, I >do not think that the Postmaster General will punish those electors because they are so unfortunate as to be represented by a Liberal, and I hope he will soon take 'this matter into serious consideration.


Mr. PELLETTER:: I must say that this
is the first time the matter is submitted to me. So far, the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune) has sent me no correspondence about it nor did he call my attention to it in the House. I must say- and I hope both sides of the House will bear testimony in my behalf

that I have never stopped to consider what was the political party adhered to by those concerned, or the fact that they were represented by a Conservative or by a Liberal,

when I was called upon to take a decision on such a question. So true is this, that 1 was even congratulated for so doing.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: That is your duty. You have done what it was your duty to do.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Then I have done my duty.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is your duty.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are dealing with
one question, and the hon. member should not try to raise another one at the same time. I wish especially to point out that, in the province of Quebec, this question of postal roads should be considered more closely than it is at present, and I would be glad if it were.
If, in the big and beautiful parish of Saint-Jacques-de-l'Achigan, the establishment of a postal road is desired, I shall be very glad to help them as much as I can towards realizing such improvement.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 196, to amend the Government Annuities Act.-Mr. Pelletier.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 25, to amend the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railways Employees' Provident Fund Act.-Mr. Cochrane.
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the nature of the amendment?


Francis Cochrane: It is in regard to computing the retiring allowance of representatives of the different organizations on the road, namely, conductors, engineers and so on, when they absent themselves in order to do work for their organization or to wait on the management or the Government. Their time is allowed if they pay in what they should pay on those days of absence.


Mr. STANFIELD:: I am to blame for this amendment not having been introduced at the time the Bill was under consideration in this House. I was absent when the Bill was called the second time. I was asked by some of the men connected with the Intercolonial Brotherhood to have this amendment introduced. When the retiring allowance of these men is considered, their time is made up for the previous eight years. Some of these men lose three weeks or a month during the year in attending meetings of the brotherhoods. The consequence is that, if an amendment of this nature is not made, a man's time during the last eight years may have about eight months deducted from it. The public lose nothing by this amendment, as it provides
that each man shall pay to the comptroller a sum equal to the amount which would have been deducted from his salary, and appropriated to the fund, if he had not absented himself from his duties.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster General), House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to establish a parcedl post system and to provide for the appointment of two officers and supervisors at salaries of $2,800 on appointment, with an annual increase to a maximum of $3,500.
(Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and concurred in.
Mr. PELLETIER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 210, 'relating to Parcel Post.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first
time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 211, to amend the Criminal Code.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DOHERTY:: This Bill, which contains thirty-three sections, proposes to amend different dispositions of the Criminal Code, one of the principal dispositions dealt with is that relating to the carrying of arms or weapons upon the person. In this regard it is proposed so to amend the provision with regard to obtaining what is called a certificate of exemption from the prohibition of carrying concealed weapons, that such certificate shall be procurable from certain police officers instead of from justices of the peace.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the present state of the law?


Charles Joseph Doherty: At present a person is prohibited from carrying weapons unless he has a certificate of exemption from the provisions of the Act, which may be obtained from any justice of the peace. The proposed amendment seeks to limit the power of granting these certificates of exemption, which under the amendment are called permits, to the police in the different cities or localities, and leaving the poweT to justices of the peace only in localities where there are no such police officers. It has been thought better that the power should be invested in some specific officer or officers who would be responsible for the carrying out of the law, and not left to the justices of the peace gen-

erally. Perhaps the most important modification in connection with these restrictions of the right to carry firearms consists in the introduction of a provision to prohibit the sale of weapons of this kind-that is to say, pistols, sheath knives, bowie knives, daggers, stilettos, metal knuckles, skull crackers, and other offensive weapons-except to persons who have a permit to carry them. I think it is evident that we are coming to have a very large increase in the number of crimes of violence, whidh I think may he directly attributed to the general carrying of arms of this kind. While our population is increasing, being fed by constant streams of immigration-in which, generally speaking, we rejoice-it is coming to contain, I think, and regrettably so, a larger proportion of persons with regard to whom it is unsafe and certainly undesirable that the procuring of weapons of this kind should be as easy as it is under present conditions.


Mr. MARCIL:: Can any person possessing a permit carry an unlimited number of weapons ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No person is entitled to carry such firearms without a permit. The section has not gone into the question of what quantity a man would be entitled to buy. With regard te the prohibition of sale, I may say that there is an exception to its application in the case of a bona fide sale by manufacturers or wholesale people to persons keeping stores where these things are sold. Perhaps we might consider at a later stage whether it is desirable that ue should define what number of firearms any individual can carry. The requirement provides that each of these sales shall be registered by the vendor, and that he shall register upon the permit presented to him the fact of sale.


Mr. WILSON (Laval):: Is there any provision for the limitation of the age of the individual to whom these firearms may be sold ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is in this section no limitation as to age; but the person must have a permit.


Charles Avila Wilson: Would the sale of a revolver to a child ten years of age, for instance, be permitted ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If he had a permit, it would under this section, but he cannot get a permit. The provision with regard to sale is that you shall not sell to any person who has not a permit. The provision with regard to the granting of the permit is as follows:
Upon sufficient cause being shown, any officer of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police or commissioner of Dominion police or superintendent of provincial police or stipendiary or district magistrate or chief constable of Mr. DOHERTY.
any pity, incorporated town or district municipality may grant any applicant therefor, as to whose discretion and good character he is satisfied, a permit in form 76, for such period not exceeding twelve months as he deems fit.
There is no provision as to age, but one may safely assume that such an officer would not issue a permit to a child. Moreover, there is a separate and distinct provision in the Code at present under which the sale of firearms to persons under 16 years of age is prohibited, without regard to whether or not a permit has been issued,
The next section deals with the selling of pistols, airguns or firearms of any kind to minors, so it is obvious that persons under 16 years of age are subject to prohibition without regard to permit.
The next provision increases the penalty for the violation of section 150 of the Code I do not think it calls for any special explanation at the present moment.
Section 7 deals with the offering for sale of instructions or medicines represented to be a means of preventing conception or of causing abortion or miscarriage, and the advertising of medicines for the restoring of sexual virility.
Under the next section, which amends section 213 of the Code, any person is guilty of an offence who seduces or has illicit connection with any woman or girl previously chaste and under the age of 21 years, who is in his employment. Under the law as it stands at present, the words ' in a factory, mill, workshop or store ' are included, and it is proposed to strike these words out, making the offence consist in seduction of or illicit connection with any girl under the age of 21 years, of previously chaste character, who is in the employment of the seducer.
Section 9 deals with what is generally spoken of as the white slave traffic. The purpose of it is to make, in some respects, more severe and generally more easily enforcible the provisions of the law imposing punishment upon people who traffic in vice. These provisions, I may say, are practically the provisions of the English Act of last year; to that subject are devoted sections 9, 10, 11 and 12. They prescribe penalties for the keeping of bawdy houses, for the procuring of women for prostitution, and upon persons who seek to derive profit from the propagation of vice, more particularly . by the prostitution of women. There is also a provision intended to make the criminal law reach persons who lease their properties for use as houses of prostitution.
The next section is one extending to persons who lease gambling devices the provisions which now apply to persons who import, make, buy and sell such devices.
The next amendment provides punishment for the offence of deserting wife and

children. It is not proposed to alter the law as it now stands which makes it an offence, and prescribes the punishment for that offence, to desert wife or children where the effect of such desertion is to endanger their lives or health. It is proposed to add a section making such desertion an offence, even though it does not seriously endanger life and health, where the party deserting leaves his wife and children in want, and where the abandonment is without lawful excuse. The punishment provided for this latter offence is not so great as the punishment provided under the section ol the law' as it now stands.
The next section also deals with that subject, making provision in regard to the evidence of marriage that shall be necessary in such cases, and providing that the fact of acknowledgement and public cohabitation between man and woman shall be sufficient proof of the marriage of the persons in question. This is deemed necessary because such cases arise very frequently. They occur often in regard to newly arrived immigrants, where legal evidence of the marriage is difficult to obtain.
The next section makes it an offence for the husband or the wife who deserts his or her consort, at the time of the desertion, or subsequently, to steal anything belonging to his or her consort. As the law stands at present, the stealing by a husband or a wife, during cohabitation is not actually a crime. The case that is sought to be reached by this amendment is the case where either party is just about to abandon the other with the intent of deserting, and stealing takes place, that is, strictly speaking, during cohabitation.


Charles Avila Wilson: How many
clauses are there in this Bill?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Thirty-three. The next section, 16, has for its purpose to make applicable the provisions of the law which now governs the obtaining of goods by false pretences, to cases where the false pretences consist in false statements, made, not necessarily directly to the person from whom the goods are immediately obtained, but for the purpose of obtaining credit on the part of the person making them in order that goods may be obtained. For instance, a person making a false statement of his affairs and furnishing that statement to a commercial agent, with a view to obtaining thereby credit among the business public, is made guilty of an offence by reason of his making that statement. The making of that statement is made an offence without it being necessary to proceed to prove that the goods were actually obtained by means of it. The amendment also makes it an offence for any person to procure goods on behalf of any person who has made such a false statement, knowing that statement to have been made, and obtaining goods on the strength of it.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Would that clause reach insurance agents making false representations or false statements as to the standing of an insurance company? It often happens that agents, such as insurance agents and machine agents, go into the country districts and make certain representations, and they are not reached 'exactly by the Criminal Code at present. Would they come under that clause?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I presume there might be a concrete case, where the statement made by an insurance agent with regard to the standing, and so forth, of the company he represented might perhaps bring him within the terms of this clause, or perhaps rather of the law as it now stands. I suppose he would obtain money in the shape of his commission by means of that false statement. What was in contemplation was not a case of that kind. What is in contemplation is the act of a man engaged in business who makes false statements as to the condition of his affairs. Such statements are usually furnished to agencies, to the banks and other people, and it may happen that although goods are not intended to be obtained from the person to whom the statement is directly furnished, the purpose is to obtain credit generally upon such false statements, and the object of the amendment is to make such false statements an offence.
Section 17 provides for the adoption by the Crown of marks for the identification of public property.
Section 18 has for its purpose the extension of the provisions in regard to protecting warehouses, shops and counting houses to cages or dens in which fur-bearing animals are kept. I understand that the industry of raising fur-bearing animals is assuming larger proportions, and it seems proper that the houses, or cages, in which they are kept, should be given the same protection as other buildings in which goods are kept.
Section 19 deals with the protection of letter boxes, and provides specially for the protection of Tural mail delivery boxes.


Mr. CARVELL:: You are not afraid of
suffragettes?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The next section is for the purpose of preventing the making or circulation of any coin or token which may be mistaken for, or may be intended to be taken for, any current coin.
Section 21 is to correct an error in the French version of section 594 of the Criminal Code.
Section 22 deals with the right of search in gaming houses and disorderly houses. The special change is with regard to the officer on whose information the magistrate has to issue a warrant. At present it is provided that the chief constable should lay the information. That has been found

very difficult of practical application, and the substantial amendment in this section extends the right to ask for a search warrant to the chief constable and his officers.
Section 23 makes it possible to arrest without warrant persons entering a military fortress when such arrest is asked for by the Militia Department.
Section 24 makes it possible to arrest without warrant persons reasonably suspected of offences under the sections which deal with what is called the white slave traffic. It has been found in a large number of cases that persons whom circumstances indicated to be clearly guilty have escaped by reason of the fact that it has been necessary to delay in order to procure a warrant to affect their arrest.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would the minister go back to the previous section? I understand that it says that a man may be arrested without warrant who is found on a military property. To what extent does that go?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The section is in amendment of section 646 of the Criminal Code. That section provides that any person may be arrested without a warrant who is found committing any of the offences mentioned, and then it goes on to enumerate a large number of sections of the criminal code. The purpose of this is to add to paragraph (a) of article 646 the following words:
Eighty-five and eighty-six, information illegally obtained or communicated.
Section 85 makes any person liable to prosecution whofor the purpose of wrongfully obtaining information enters or is in any part of a fortress, arsenal, factory, dockyard, camp, ship, office or other like place in Canada belonging to His Majesty, in which part he is not entitled to be, or when lawfully or unlawfully in any such place as aforesaid, either obtains any document, sketch, plan, model or knowledge of anything which he is not entitled to obtain, or takes without lawful authority any sketch or plan, or when outside any fortress, arsenal, factory, dockyard or camp in Canada, belonging to His Majesty, takes, or attempts to take, without authority given by op on behalf of His Majesty, any sketch or plan of that fortress, arsenal, factory, dockyard or camp;
The offences themselves already exist under the law as it stands and the purpose is to include violations of this section among the offences for which an arrest may be made without a warrant. The militia authorities consider this of importance to them for the protection of the military works throughout the country and above all for the effective prevention of the obtaining of information by persons who are not entitled to do so.
Mr. DOHERTY.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does not that provision place pretty broad powers in the hands of a few military officers? I am afraid it is opening up a pretty wide door.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The power will be
slightly widened by this addition. There are numerous offences, very similar to these, in regard to which persons may be arrested without warrant. But I should be very glad to hear any observations that may be made upon the subject later on.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would be afraid that if I went on the military grounds at the rifle ranges some sergeant might come along and simply put me under arrest.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think that
any sergeant, on the appearance of the hon. gentleman, would arest him on suspicion of having any dishonest purpose.


Charles Avila Wilson: Does my hon.
friend the Minister of Justice remember the case on the Champs de Mars a few years ago when a sentry arrested a gentleman who was simply crossing the place on the occasion of a review.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would be very glad
to consider any possible effects of this suggested amendment later on. While I am proposing these amendments I certainly look to the House for assistance, advice and suggestions, and I shall be glad to have them. These are matters which nobody is interested in save with the view of improving the law and making it more effective while at the same time seeking not to do anything which will unduly interfere with the liberty of the subject. I shall be glad, when we come to the committee stage, to hear any suggestions that may be made and to give them every consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there anything in
the Bill, or is it the intention of the Minister of Justice to propose any legislation, to make the penalties more stringent against persons engaged in the cocaine traffic which has been a plague in the large cities? Any number of people have been arrested both for selling and using cocaine. It is becoming a regular pest. My hon. friend from Montcalm (Mr. La-fortune), the Crown prosecutor in Montreal, states that the public is up in arms against the habit and the traffic. I would like to know if my hon. friend proposes to make the penalty more stringent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, this Bill does not propose to make the penalty more stringent. I have not received any representations to the effect that the present law does not provide a sufficient penalty. The matter was dealt with, I think, in the last session of the last Parliament and a law

providing what were regarded as fair penalties was enacted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Justice to the matter. I follow the press pretty closely and it is apparent that this offence has become more general within the last few years. The number of the victims of cocaine and morphine has become simply appalling. I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the investigations which have been made into this question and I would urge him whether such legislation cannot be enacted as will prevent people from falling into the habit or engaging in the traffic. I remember that, in the city of Montreal last fall, the police authorities discovered two or three places where young men and young women were established, as they are in China and in some western cities on the coast, using opium. I saw that a man was arrested the otheT day, I think, in Ottawa, for selling a drug on the street. The drug was found in his hat. It is said that the traffic is going on in large cities. I am perhaps out of order because there is nothing on this subject contained in this Bill, but I simply wish to bring the matter to the attention of my hon. friend.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not prepared to
speak at the moment on the matter, but my hon. friend will recollect that, as I said, in that last session of the last Parliament, the tihen Minister of Labour, the Hon. Mackenzie King, caused to be passed some legislation which, I think, met with the approval of Parliament generally, for the purpose of getting at and suppressing the evil to which my hon. friend refers. I have not had it represented to me that that legislation was insufficient or ineffective. I shall be very glad to look into what the penalty is and to make inquiry amongst those charged with the administration of the law with a view to ascertaining whether there is need of doing something further in that regard. Then, as I said, section 24 gives the power to arrest without warrant persons reasonably suspected of offences under the provisions of the law in regard to the white slave traffic.


Mr. PROULX:: I would like to ask the
minister if the punishment provided for white slaves includes the lash?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to a certain class of offences, whipping forms part of the punishment that may be imposed.


Edmond Proulx: They have adopted that mode of punishment in England.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes. The other provisions all have to do with matters of procedure and I do not think it is necessary
for me to go into detail with regard to them.


Charles Avila Wilson: There is a very important point in connection with the matter of procedure to which I would draw the attention of the Minister of Justice. It has reference to the reading of depositions. At the preliminary examination witnesses for the prosecution are brought in and give their evidence, and their depositions may be afterwards read at the trial. But, supposing that the accused desires to have read the deposition of a witness who has died or who has gone away from the country, or who, for some other reason, is not present at the trial, he is precluded from having that deposition read, while the prosecution is permitted to have its depositions read. I think it is most important that some amendment in connection with this matter should be made to the law, and it would be well if it could be included in this Bill, because the present law deprives the defence of a great privilege. A man might be sent to the scaffold by reason of the fact that he has not the privilege of reading depositions at the trial.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This is introducing the discussion of matters which are not included in the Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Among the sections
contained in the Bill is one modifying in some respects the provision in regard to the depositions that may be read at trials. While the proposed legislation does not permit depositions taken on behalf of the accused to be read, when we come to deal with the section, I shall be very glad to listen to, and meet if possible, any suggestion that my hon. friend may make.


Charles Avila Wilson: May I inquire '
of the Minister of Justice whether he intends to bring in legislation concerning penitentiaries ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, I do propose to
introduce legislation in regard to the salaries and wdges of penitentiary employees. I hope to introduce that Bill on Monday or Tuesday.


Mr. KNOWLES:: May I ask the minister if he intends to introduce any legislation for increasing the district and county court judges salaries this session ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to an increase in the salaries of the judges, I am very much afraid it will not be possible for us to deal with that matter this session. It has been discussed on a previous occasion. I pointed out some of the matters involved in connection with the question and their nature. The difficulty that arises in connection with this matter of judicial salaries largely results

from the different conditions that prevail in different provinces, not only from the point of view of the cost of living, but more particularly in regard to the legislation which prescribes the number of judges, their duties and their possible emoluments, which may be derived from other sources than their salaries. To deal with the matter in a manner which would be just to the judges in the different provinces and under these different conditions will be exceedingly difficult without cooperation on the part of the legislatures of certain of the provinces. It will not be the easiest task imaginable. These difficulties make it impossible that [DOT] we should hope to introduce at this session a measure which we could reasonably expect to have passed, because all of these differences in the conditions of judges will cause considerable discussion and produce differences of opinion with regard to any measure which would seek to deal with the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Robert Rogers (Minister of Public Works), Bill No. 206, to authorize the payment of a subsidy to the Western Drydock and Shipbuilding Company, was read the second time, and House went into Committee thereon.
On section 1-agreement in schedule confirmed :
Mr. GRAHAM:: Would the hon. gentleman give us an explanation of this Bill?


Mr. ROGERS:: This Bill is made necessary in view of an agreement made on the 10th of February, 1909, under which a subsidy was granted for the construction of a dry-dock at Port Arthur, subject, in view of a slight change in the legislation that followed, to ratification by Parliament. Bills similar to this have already been passed by this House. On the 10th day oi February, 1909, the Western Drydock and Shipbuilding Company, Limited, made an application for a subsidy of three per cent per annum during twenty years, under the Act of 1908, then in force. Plans and specifications for the construction of a dry-dock at Port Arthur, Ontario, of the following dimensions, viz: seven hundred feet long, one hundred and twenty-five feet wide at the top, eighty-five feet wide at the bottom and fifteeen feet in' depth over the kill blocks, were submitted to the department. On the 4th day of March, 1910, an Order in Council was passed approving the plans and specifications, and giving authority to enter into an agreement with the company for the payment of an annual subsidy of three per cent during twenty
Mr. DOHERTY
years. The agreement was prepared in accordance with the Act of 1908 and to the terms of the Order in Council, dated the 4th of March, 1910, but the agreement having been signed only on the 9th day of November, 1910, it became necessary to insert in clause 9 of the agreement the following proviso:	'Subject to ratification and
confirmation by Parliament of Canada, at its next session,' the Act of 1908 upon which the agreement was based having been re-[DOT] pealed by an Act assented to on the 4th day of May, 1910.
You will see that it is simply in order to conform with the agreement made on the 9th day of February, 1909, and to carry out the provision in that agreement requiring ratification by Parliament before the subsidy can be paid.


George Perry Graham: Is the subsidy different now from what it was in 1908?


Robert Rogers: No change has been made.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is this what is called a second-class dock under the statute of 1910?


Robert Rogers: Yes, it is a second-class dock, seven hundred feet long.


George Perry Graham: What is the personnel
of the company? I see Mr. James Whalen is president.


Robert Rogers: I understand the directors are the same as at the time the agreement was made in 1909. Mr. James Whalen of Port Arthur is president and Mr. I. S. Fenn, secretary. I do not know anything more about them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-expropriation by Government if not in working order:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the Government were to take over the property, what would become of the subsidies which they have paid? They may have paid subsidies for ten years. Is there any way of getting back the money?


Robert Rogers: I do not think there is any provision for that in the agreement.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Is there anything about
compensation being paid to the owners of the dry-dock?


Robert Rogers: No. A Bill similar to this one was ratified last year. There is no change,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The Government guarantee the interest on the bonds for twenty years. If the Government expropriated the work, they would be compelled to pay the value of it to the owners and would still be liable for the bonds.


Robert Rogers: The Government would
still be liable for the bonds; ' that is the agreement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It would seem to me that it might pay the owners of the property simply to allow the Government to take it over.


Robert Rogers: I think the public interest is as well safeguarded under this agreement as it possibly can be. Under the agreement the Government guarantee three per cent of the cost for twenty years. In that way the Government are responsible for the subsidy.
mittee thereon. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-fruit marks:


George Perry Graham: Will the hon. minister give us some explanation of the Bill?


Mr. BURRELL:: The chief object of the amendment is to deal with imported fruit, in regard to which under the old Act there was a little doubt as to our power. This simply makes it absolutely clear that we have the same right to deal with imported fruit as to branding and marking, as we have to deal with fruit produced in Canada.


George Perry Graham: In these agreements and in the statute, provision is made that under certain conditions the Government may take over these properties. Do the Government provide in any way for an inspection of them? I think it is advisable for the Government to have one of their engineers go over these properties at least once a year, without invitation, just to see that the statute is being carried out properly.


Robert Rogers: That is always done by the department.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have gone carefully over the agreement and I cannot find any provision in case the Government should decide to take over the property, because by clause 3 they would have to expropriate. According to the clause as it stands, the Government would have to pay the owners for the property and then they would have to pay interest on the bonds after that for the remainder of the twenty years. That seems to me to be rather unfair to the Government.


Robert Rogers: There is nothing in the agreement to compel * the Government to pay the company for the property, if they do not operate the dock. If the company fail in their agreement to the Government, they forfeit their rights.


Mr. PERLEY:: I think the marginal
reference is wrong.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. The marginal
reference -says 'expropriation.' The word 'expropriation' would indicate that the Government would have to -expropriate, but the clause says that the Government may take possession.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. Martin Burrell (Minister of Agriculture), Bill No. 199, to amend the Inspection and Sale Act, was read the second time, and House went into commr. uuviui: lms Bill is a departure in principle from the Inspection and Sale Act as it stands at the present time. The Inspection and Sale Act makes provision for the inspecting and marking of fruit imported into Canada. There is a very radical principle contained in this Bill, and a very wide authority is taken by the Government in regard to it. The matter is one of such importance and affects the interests of a very large number of people so intimately that I take the position that if the Government have certain views in regard to the marking of imported fruit, those views should be stated in the statute,' and not expressed by the Governor in Council. It is quite possible, as my hon. friend knows, to administer the law under this section so as practically to prohibit the importation of fruit into Canada. I know that the principle of taking all authority into the hands of the Government is, of course, a well-established principle on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, but it is none the less objectionable from my point of view. I say that if the Government considers it proper-and I am not arguing that point-that there should be a new provision introduced into the Inspection and bale Act, providing for the marking of imported fruit, that provision should be statutory and not made by Order in Council.
Martin Burrell: I cannot agree that we are introducing a new principle in the proposed Bill, because in section 321 of the old Act there is a clause saying that no person shall sell or offer or expose or have in his possession for sale any fruit packed and so on. The only difficulty, which has been pointed out by the Justice Department, is that while we are operating under that section against all fruit, it should be made a little clearer, because in the main the Act was directed against fruit grown in this country. As to what the hon. member for Edmonton says with regard to the powers of the Governor in Council, I would point out that the original Act is amended by adding thereto section 320. That section lays down the

regulations in regard to the grades and the marking, and it is abundantly clear that this new section is simply incorporated into the old, and that the same method as to marking will be pursued. The onlyv desire is that we shall be able to deal with all fruit on the same basis.
Mr. CARVELL. Is it provided that packages containing fruit imported into Canada must be branded in a certain way, as directed by Order in Council. Can the Government prescribe what the marking shall be? Under the Inspection and Sale Act we have, of course, the right to prescribe how fruit exported from Canada shall be marked. We felt that we were suffering because the people were marking fruit as superior and sending it to the British and other markets. To meet that condition of affairs, what I considered to be a very rigid regulation was applied to prevent 'this illegal marking. But the present Bill seems to act entirely upon a different principle. If I import fruit into Canada, under this proposed legislation, it must be marked in a certain way. How is the man who puts up grapes in Spain-and we import hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of grapes from Spain each year-to know exactly what brand or mark must be placed upon the packages in which the grapes are shipped? When he puts up his fruit he expects to sell it over the world. Has he got to put on a special mark in order to reach the Canadian market? Is the Canadian consumer to be denied the right of buying grapes from Spain because the packer has not oomplied with all the requirements set out in the Canadian regulations? I am afraid that under the operation of this proposed legislation the price of fruit in Canada will be increased. If there is anything which should be made cheaper in Canada it is fruit. Eor oranges, bananas, apples, pears and peaches we are paying two prices in some parts of Canada. Under the operation of this Act it would seem that if a man desires to bring peaches * from the state of New York, unless the packages are branded in a certain way, be is liable to the application of these regulations. If, for instance, a dealer imports 100 boxes of peaches, and places them in his store, and if they are not branded according to regulations he may be told that he is liable to a fine of $50 if he sells them.
I may be submitting a very strong illustration, but it seems to me that that will be the 'logical result of the passage of this Bill. Many of these fruits we import from the United States, usually from Boston. This is made imperative by reason of the exorbitant freight rates which a dealer has to pay if he attempts to bring them from some portion of Canada, resulting in his Mr. BURRELL.
charging very high prices for the fruit. Supposing a dealer in my town or any other town in the Maritime provinces orders a shipment of grapes, peaches, pears or plums from Boston; they^ arrive by express, and he places them in his store. If they are not marked in a certain way, he is liable to a fine of $500. Surely that is not right. I believe this Bill is proposed for the very purpose of preventing our people from importing fruit from the United States, and of compelling them to buy from the home producers. It may be all very well for a few people in the Niagara peninsula, but it is bad for the consumers of Canada. I think we have enough protection on fruit now without giving it additional protection in this roundabout and disguised manner. If I am wrong, I would like the minister to correct me; if I am right, I think he should withdraw this Bill.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is subjecting himself to a good deal of unnecessary alarm. There is no great difference between this Bill and the old Act, which was placed on the statute-book by the previous Government. The old Act covered exactly what this does, but there was a weakness in it with regard to our power. Under this proposed legislation we do not intend to deal with such fruit as the hon. gentleman has mentioned; as a matter of fact, it is chiefly intended to apply to the apple trade. In regard to the grades and other matters dealt with by my predecessors after a con- 1 ference, no doubt, with all concerned, this Bill deals almost entirely with apples. There is not the slightest intention to touch such fruit as my hon. friend has mentioned, or interfere in any way with that trade. The sole object of the Bill is to make the old Act a little clearer by giving the Government ample power to provide such regulations as will put the imported apples exactly in the same position as the native-grown apples. It is true that the Act may be extended, to some extent, to pears and peaches and fruits put up in certain grades. We have been prosecuting, in behalf of every consumer in this country, scores and scores of apple-growers in Canada because they have not been packing honestly, and in doing that we feel that we should have the right, in regard to the same fruit, to prosecute anybody who sells fruit packed or branded in a dishonest manner.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I must say that the answer of my hon. friend hardly removes the suspicion I have in my mind with regard to this Bill.


Martin Burrell: My hon. friend is
very full of suspicion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I may be, but I think
I am discussing this matter from the standpoint of the consumer of this country. We must assume that the jobber or retailer

buying fruit does not desire to buy an inferior product if he can help it. He is going to buy the best he can get, and if he buys it and brings it into this country, he is liable to a fine of $50 if he sells fruit which has not been branded according to the regulations. In this Bill the hon. minister is carrying out the well-defined principle of this Government-that of government by Order in Council and not by Parliament. The Government desires to get the same power with regard to fruit as with regard to the Highways and Agricultural Acts, the Naval Bill, and everything else. They say: give us the money; give us the power; we do not intend to exercise it in any unfair way; give us the power, and trust us. It has been said many times by members on this side of the House that individually we respect the gentlemen who are occupying the treasury benches, but why is it necessary to give them all these powers and take their word that they will not exercise them improperly? My hon. friend says this legislation is intended to protect the country regarding apples. I do not object to that, because we do not have to import apples into Canada. It is quite right and proper that the .producer of apples in Canada, over whom we have jurisdiction, should be compelled to label and mark his fruit properly, but we have not jurisdiction over the producers in Spain and California. If my hon. friend intends that this legislation shall apply only to apples, let him say so; if he intends that the legislation shall go further than that, let him say so. If he does say that it is intended to go further, I think this proposed legislation is an unwarranted interference with the rights of the people, who ought to have the right to buy their fruit in the cheapest market they can find.


Mr. GERMAN:: Did the hon. minister
see a letter I wrote to his deputy some time ago in regard to the kind of packing in which the apples should be packed?


Martin Burrell: No.


William Manley German: I would like the hon.
minister to ask his deputy to let him see that communication, that he may look it over and advise me as to whether or not the regulations could be changed in accordance with my suggestion. I bring this matter up for the purpose of criticising not the minister's Bill, but the regulations of the department. I am free to admit that these regulations were made by the hon. gentleman's predecessors; I am not quite certain, however, that they were always correct, although they were as nearly so as they could be. As the matter is one of very considerable importance, I would like the hon. minister to look into it and let us have his views.


Martin Burrell: Is my hon. friend alluding to the regulations, or to the Act?


William Manley German: I am alluding more particularly to the regulations.


Martin Burrell: Section 325 of the old Act deals with the size of the package.


William Manley German: I was under the impression that the dimensions of the packages were fixed by the regulations, rather than by the Act.


Martin Burrell: I think it is by the statute.
Progress reported.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.



BANKS AND BANKING.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White ' (Minister of Finance), House went into Committee to consider Bill No. 36, respecting Banks and Banking. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-short title:
Wilfrid Laurier: I was not
able to follow the progress made in the Banking and Commerce Committee. Might I ask my hon. friend if the committee has made any serious changes in the Bill presented by him?


Mr. WHITE (Minister of Finance):: No doubt my right hon. friend is aware that the Bill was very fully considered by the committee, that a great deal of evidence was taken and that the clauses were all under very full discussion. In a general way, I may say that the Bill has not been substantially modified from the form in which it was introduced to the House. A few changes of an important nature have been made and I shall briefly indicate them for the information of my right hon. friend. In the first place, my right hon. friend will recollect the clause providing for an audit of the chartered banks. To that provision of the Bill, the committee added the further provision that the auditors shall be chosen from a list of forty named and selected in the first instance by the general managers of the 'Chartered banks of Canada who are the members of the Chartered Bankers' Association. They are to be selected by them by ballot and their selection is subject to the veto of the Minister of Finance. From that rota the shareholders of the bank shall select auditors in accordance with the provisions which were in the Bill when brought originally before the House. A further provision has been made by the committee for the registration of the liens which the new Act authorizes banks to take upon threshed grain and cattle. Some slight modification has been made, although the law has not been altered, in the sec-


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand it, then, the modifications which have been made are not of a serious character? It seems to me that only two important changes have been made the first of which is in regard to the audit. I do not exactly understand why there should be such complicated machinery, but that will be explained, I suppose, when we come to the clause itself. Then, the other important change is that under the new provision in regard to the taking of liens on chattels and things of that kind, these securities have to be registered while other securities do not require to be. There is a difference between the two classes of securities.


William Thomas White: I do not quite understand what my right hon. friend means.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that by the new Act farmers may borrow on the security of grain and things of that kind, and that these pledges have to be registered.


William Thomas White: That is a change made
by the committee.


Wilfrid Laurier: Whereas
other pledges continue to be non-registered.


William Thomas White: Yes.


Mr. EMMERSON:: I would like to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance if he proposes following the course that was pursued in the committee, that is to go through the non-contentious clauses first and then take up those in regard to which there may be some difference of opinion. I think it will be found that Mr. WHITE (Leeds)
there are still a number of sections which were apparently disposed of in the committee that will be more fully considered here. There were some proposed amendments that were steam-rollered out of existence in the committee and I think it would be well for the House to consider these proposed amendments in Committee of the Whole.


William Thomas White: If it is thought advisable that any particular clause should stand I would be very glad to allow it to stand, but I think it would be inadvisable to go over each one of them three times because it would take up a good deal of the time of the House. I think we will be able to make very good progress and at the same time to preserve to my hon. friend (Mr. Emmerson), or any other hon. member, the right to defer a section for further consideration.
On section 2-definitions; Association.


Mr OLIVER:: Is this the first recognition of the Canadian Bankers' Association in the Bank Act?


William Thomas White: No. The Canadian Bankers' Association is an incorporated body and this definition is for the purposes of the present Act, especially the selection of an auditor.


Frank Oliver: Is the Canadian Bankers' 'Association specifically recognized in the existing Bank Act?


William Thomas White: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why are hogs excluded from the definition of ' cattle ' on which a bill of sale can be given? There is nothing in the Bill to draw the distinction between a rancher and a farmer, and I am satisfied that will lead to considerable trouble, because, for example, a man might be both a rancher and a farmer and who will draw the distinction. Then, a farmer can pledge or hypothecate his cattle which includes everything except hogs. Where is the logic in that?


William Thomas White: The privilege of making a loan by way of lien was extended to meet especially the case of the West, and is particularly of advantage to the western farmer in regard to his threshed grain. The committee was of opinion it would not be wise to extend the privilege of giving a lien to farmers generally upon cattle or live stock. In the present Bank Act, manufacturers engaged in wholesale business are permitted to give a lien upon their products, but the retailer is not, the wholesale idea being the principle adopted. In the West the banks have been in the habit of taking a lien upon the cattle of ranchers, who, so to speak, raise animals wholesale. It is not the intention of the commission that

liens should be extended to farmers generally throughout the country, upon their cattle, sheep or hogs. It was thought that the animals mentioned would include all these raised by ranchers, and hogs have been omitted. The legislation is exceptional and designed to meet the conditions in the West, although in terms, of course, it is general.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister has correctly stated the intention of the committee, and personally I could see no object in the legislation until the change was made by which the lien should be registered. Once the committee decided that, the legislation is proper enough. I do not see why a farmer should not be able to go to a bank and borrow money on his nogs as well as on his cattle, so long as the lien is properly registered. Unless the minister says he is opposed to this policy and that he was forced into adopting it by the insistence of the member for Brandon and others, and having adopted it, he wished to confine the principle as narrowly as possible, I cannot see any logic in it. To my mind, what is the most valuable asset on which a farmer can raise money has been omitted. The hog is ready for sale at six months, and any other animal takes perhaps three years to fit for market. In my opinion the hog is the one item above all others upon which a farmer ought be allowed to obtain an advance from the bank.


Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario):: The farmer has no right under this Act; it is the rancher.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I know, but there will be a lot of trouble in drawing a distinction between a farmer and a rancher.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: The courts have always had to draw that distinction.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There are many in the
Maritime provinces who have three hundred or four hundred acres of land; two hundred acres would be a ranch with cattle and horses, and the balance would be cultivated and hogs would be raised. What is there in this Act which will help the court to interpret whether that man is a farmer or a rancher. The minister may have the distinction in his mind, but it is what the courts will decide that will rule. If the minister says he only did this as a matter of special favour to the West, and based on that principle the eastern farmer was out out, then there may be some logic in it.
Mr. MEIG-HEN:	The necessity for the
courts drawing a distinction between a rancher and a farmer has existed under the old Act, and the difficulty is no greater now than before. I have had suits in
which the courts drew the distinction as a matter of inference from the facts. In the case of a man who had a pledge to the bank, the court ascertained the business he was in in relation to cattle, and the proportion of that business as related to that of others in the neighbourhood, and from these facts they decided whether or, not he was a rancher or a farmer. It was not an easy task. All I want to say is that the courts are now loaded with no greater responsibilities or difficulties than they, were under the old Act. Previously a rancher was able to borrow money on his cattle. He is able to do so now legally. Previously a farmer was not able to do so. He is not able to do so now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is no answer to say that, because it was in the old Act, it should he put in this one. The object of this legislation is to remedy dififtculties that exist. What my hon. friend states only emphasizes the point I made. This distinction ought not to be drawn. If you give to one man the right to borrow money on his cattle, you ought to give it to every man. The fact tnat my hon. friend has had law suits in regard to the matter, while it might be of advantage to him, I think is evidence that this distinction should not be drawn.


William Thomas White: I hope to meet the objection of my hon. friend because I believe he and I see substantially eye to eye, as to the inadvisability of extending the principle of the lien to individuals, whether farmers or retailers. The principle, which has underlain the Bank Act since the original legislation was brought in, has been that the banks should make loans on personal security; that they should look to the individual, whether a farmer or a retailer, as their principal security, and that they should not engage in the business of making loans upon chattel mortgages. I believe that is a sound banking principle. The first invasion of that principle took place in the revision of the Bank Act in 1891, when the right of lien was given to the wholesale manufacturer, by reason of his raw material being worked up through several processes and the desirability of his being able to pay cash. The idea was that wholesalers should have it and that retailers should not. That has been the principle of the Act until this revision. I do not believe it is in the interest of the public or of the banks that farmers or retailers or individuals, speaking generally, should have the privilege of going to a bank and borrowing money upon chattel mortgages. I should not like to see the banks engaged in chattel mortgage business. I do not believe my hon. friend would. He is aware of the circumstances under which we introduced this legislation,



namely: in order to provide for liens upon threshed grain. The committee, after giving that matter very full consideration, and having regard to the peculiar situation in the West in regard to the storage of grain and lack of transportation facilities came to the conclusion that such loans should be permitted. We are not giving to the farmer the right to borrow by way of lien upon his cattle, sheep or other animals. We are only giving that right to the rancher, who in a sense is a wholesaler. My hon. friend knows how difficult it is to define terms. In 1891 they tried to define the word ' wholesale,' and they failed. They came to the conclusion that the definition would have to be left to the decision of the courts, if necessary. Once you attempt to define, you only confuse. The wholesale idea is contained in the word ' rancher,' a man who is engaged in the raising of cattle or sheep or other animals upon a large scale. Mv hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) has pointed out that the matter has had to be dealt with by the courts even under the present Act,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am very much of the opinion of the minister. The only difficulty is that we are opening the door for litigation. We should either refuse to extend the principle/or make it so broad that there will be no question in the matter. If the principle is extended so that a man can borrow money on horses or cattle, there is no reason why he should not have the right to borrow money on hogs. If you give to one man the right to borrow money on horses or cattle or hogs, you ought to give that right to every man in Canada. That is my point. My hon. friend is only creating a condition of affairs which will be fruitful of litigation. I will give an illustration. I have a business proposition under way now by which another gentleman and myself intend to go into the business of sheep raising. We are going to run a farm for sheep alone. We shall not have a thousand acres of land, and we are going to raise hay and other grain with which to feed the sheep. We do not expect to sell a pound of hay or grain or anything else on the farm except sheep. Will the hon. minister tell me whether we shall be farmers or ranchers?


William Thomas White: I look upon my hon.
friend as a legislator of renown, so I am not going to call him either a rancher or a farmer.
If we do not adopt this clause, it means that ranchers will be deprived of the privilege of borrowing upon their cattle or other animals. The baulks in the West today take liens upon the cattle of ranchers. Some doubt has been expressed upon that point by a decision in the Alberta courts, Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
and it was thought advisable that it should be cleared up, because we believe it to be very much in the interest of the public that men engaged in cattle raising in a wholesale way should have the privilege which they have across the line, of borrowing upon their cattle and other animals. It was to make that certain that this clause was introduced. We have not gone the length of extending the privilege to the farmers. The committee, after hearing all the evidence on that point, thought that that should not be done. I think my hon. friend has the same view. There may be something in what he says as to the possibility of litigation.


Frank Oliver: We are now on the interpretation clauses, and the minister has informed the committee that there is a difference in treatment between the ranchers and the farmers in regard to identical articles. It strikes me that there should be an interpretation of the words 'farmer' and 'rancher,' if their is to be a fair understanding of how far the Bill is applicable to each class. I represent a constituency that includes a very large portion of the western provinces. It is a district in which the rearing of live stock is the principal occupation of farmers; it is a mixed farming country. As regards live stock, hog rearing is the most important industry in that section of the country. That condition prevails in the two adjoining constituencies. I did not attend the Banking and Commerce Committee; but I would have supposed, according to this Bill, that the farmers in that part of the country would have the same privilege, if it is a privilege, of borrowing against their cattle, horses and sheep, although not against their hogs, as the people in any other part of the West would have. From what the hon. minister says, I am compelled to understand that that very large area of the West is absolutely cut out of any benefit there may be in the provision, but the Bill does not say so. I think that in the interpretation clause there should be a specific statement of how far these provisions are applicable so that the people in that part of the country would not be under any misunderstanding; if they are not to get any benefit from this Act they ougnt to know it and it ought to be so stated on the face of the Act. I do not know why the distinction that my hon. friend speaks of should be drawn.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will recognize that there are certain terms that cannot very well be further defined. Such words as gold and silver for instances cannot very well be further defined. There has been a judicial decision in which a rancher has been distinguished from a farmer. My idea is that the rancher is a man engaged

more particlarly in the industry of raising cattle or sheep or horses on a large scale, that the wholesale idea is embodied. I think it would be anything but good legislation and it would not be of advantage to the small farmer to permit the banks to take chattel mortgages practically on a horse or two, so as to become chattel mortgagees on farmers all over the country. That would not be a good banking principle. What we are trying to do is to build up the western cattle raising, sheep raising and horse raising industries, but we have not been willing to go to the length suggested and I think the evidence all shows that it would be inadvisable to give to farmers all over the country the privilege of mortgaging by way of secret lien or chattel mortgage on live stock.


Frank Oliver: The provision we are now discussing is supposed to be for the benefit of the western country, but it is not applicable to a very large section of country represented by myself and the members from the adjoining constituencies and, I think, my hon. friend from Prince Albert. The farmers in my constituency have always been engaged in mixed farming. No one ever goes into the western country without telling the people to go into mixed farming, but there is no encouragement to mixed farming under this Act. As to the difference between the wholesaler and retailer, there is no more difference between the large rancher and the small raiser of cattle, sheep or hogs, than there is between the man who raises five hundred bushels of wheat and the man who raises five thousand. As long as the lien is registered it seems to me the conflicting interests that might arise are sufficiently and fully protected.


William Thomas White: The evidence before us
shows conclusively that any farmer engaged in mixed farming would be able to get bank accommodation without giving a lien and there is this difference between the cases of threshed grain and cattle, that the question of transportation and storage of grain in the West pending marketing is a very serious one. That constitutes the difference between the case of the farmer with five thousand or ten thousand bushels of grain and the farmer who has live stock which, as my hon. friend has said, can be marketed at Edmonton or some other place where they have packing plants.


Arthur Meighen: I observe that hogs are left out of the definition of animals. Is that why pease are left out of the definition of grain ? I do not know why pease should be left out.


Mr. McKAY:: Would it not be possible to insert the word ' hogs ' in the section in order that it should apply in the same way as to the wholesale ranchers?""I
quite appreciate what my hon. friend from Edmonton has said in regard to small farmers who raise a small number of hogs, but still, even if the minister did not accede to the suggestion made by that hon. member, if the word ' hogs ' were inserted it could be made applicable to the rancher who raises hogs. It still would not affect the principle referred to by the minister.


William Thomas White: I understand that there are no hog ranchers in the West as there are cattle ranchers. I would be glad to be corrected if I am misinformed on that. I did not understand that hogs were raised in the West as cattle and sheep are.


James McKay: No, they are not raised as cattle and sheep are. In some oases they do go into a certain amount of wholesale raising of hogs. In my constituency to such an extent are the people going into mixed farming and the raising of cattle on a small scale, and sheep and hogs, that local capital has gone into the erection of an abattoir on a fairly large scale and it is desirable that advantages should be given to hog raisers under the Banking Act. I think it would encourage that industry if the word ' hogs ' were inserted there, confining it to the wholesale ranchers if you like; it would not destroy the principle referred to by the minister.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I think that to extend the privileges of the banks to take liens on hogs would not have very much effect. I doubt very much whether the banks of Canada would take liens upon hogs. They might advance money and take liens on stock, horses and cattle, something which could be identified and brought in and realized on; but as hogs have only a few months' growth and as it is impossible to identify them, it would be difficult for the banker to bring them in and realize upon them. Where would you stop ? They might demand that the banks should have the liberty to lend on hens, chickens, &c.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear; and ducks.


William Wright: You must draw the line somewhere. To my mind the man raising grain can borrow enough under this Act to carry him along, without having to put a lien also on the stock he may be raising as an ordinary farmer. I am doubtful if there would be any particular advantage to the man raising hogs, because I do not believe any bankers would grant a lien on hogs.


Mr. BURNHAM:: I asked a number of
farmers about this and I know the farmers would like to have the privilege extended. If it was done for the farmers I know they would be very grateful.


Mr. AIKINS:: As I understand the amendments to section 88 are based on two prin-

100%
ciples. The bank may lend to a farmer upon the security of his threshed grain upon the farm. The reason for that is that grain is a most easily realizable security and the farmer in the West usually raises liis grain for immediate sale and it may be that he can only realize at a time when it is disadvantageous for him to do so. The purpose of this amendment is to give him the liberty to raise money from the bank without incurring much expense on the most soluble security that the farmer has, his threshed grain. The second principle is that a bank may lend money to a rancher upon the security of his cattle. The rancher is in principle in the same position as the wholesale manufacturer mentioned in the following sub-section. He raises money on his ranch animals. They are raised for the purpose of sale, and as soon as they become saleable they are sold, they are not raised for the purpose of keeping them on the farm for ordinary farming purposes. The hogs are usually raised in small numbers and they are not raised to any extent exclusively or in wholesale quantities upon ranches. Therefore it seems to me that it is better to leave the clause just as it is.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: I would suggest that the interpretation clause should be left until we have discussed the other clauses.	*


William Thomas White: I would prefer to have the interpretation clause passed on the understanding that if we desire to make any changes .subsequently such changes can be made.


Mr. CARROLL:: Some interpretation
should be put upon the word ' wholesale.' Under! seiction 83 the hanks may lend monev to a wholesale shipper of products of the sea. The words * purchaser, shipper or dealer ' in the Act are limited by the word ' wholesale.' A little merchant might send out two hundred quintals of fish and he would come under this section and could borrow money from the bank on the security of what fish he had, whereas a man who is fishing himself and curing his own fish might handle a much larger quantity of fish but would not be placed in the same position under the Act. I know many men who are handling fish in this way who handle larger quantities than many men who are looked upon as wholesale fish dealers. I think it would be a good thing if the persons engaged in fishing came under the terms of this Act. As the law stands at present I do not think they do. I submit to the minister that some interpretation might be placed on the words 'wholesale dealer in products of the sea' which would bring the fisherman within the terms of the Act and enable him to go to the bank Mr. AIKINS.	:
and raise money, say at a time when the market for his fish is not very good.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He can do
that now.


William F. Carroll: I doubt it very much.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is done.


William F. Carroll: The matter was brought to my attention by fishermen in the county of Cape Breton, and the Tight had been denied them.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the distinction drawn in sub-section 2 of section 88:
The bank may lend money to a farmer upon the security of his threshed grain grown upon the farm.
And in sub-section 3:
The bank may lend money to a rancher upon the security of hiB cattle.
I would like to point out that where I live the terms 'rancher' and 'farmer' are interchangeable. The man who is a farmer or a rancher as the case may be, raises cattle or horses or sheep, and certainly hogs and grain. I feel myself put in a very peculiar position if the interpretation of this Act remains as it is. I go back to my constituency, my constituents have access to the statute, and they find that certain privileges are set out on the face of the statute as being available to them, and yet I shall be compelled to tell them that, although available to them on the face of the statute, as a matter of fact, they are not available to them. It is a very unpleasant position for a representative of the people to be placed in, and I will not be alone in that position. I think that in the interpretation clause there should be some setting forth of the intention of the Government, whatever it may be, so that there shall be no misunderstanding on the part of the people as to how far the Act goes.
Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario:	Had the
committee extended the privilege of these loans to the farmer, I could understand the interpretation being made to include hogs, but it is confined to ranchers, as the minister has stated, and the committee were of the opinion that there were only cattle, horse and sheep ranches and not hog ranches in the West. It is news to members in the East to learn that there are ranches devoted exclusively to the raising of hogs. If such were the case there would be some reason in insisting upon the word ' hogs ' being inserted in the definition; otherwise I cannot see the force of my hon. friend's objection.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend's point is not well taken. If he looks at section 88 he will see that the bank may lend money to the farmer upon his threshed grain, and

to the rancher upon the security of his cattle. Now, the people where I live have cattle and grain, and they are'called, interchangeably, ranchers and farmers because they are engaged in mixed farming. I would have supposed on the face of the Act that the man who has a bunch of steers in the Edmonton district, and who raised wheat as well, could raise money on his horses as well as on his wheat, but I am told by the minister that he cannot. I am not quarrelling with the minister, or with the committee, about that. They have adopted a certain principle. I think it is wrong, but let it be as they have decided. What I ask is that they shall show in the Bill what they intend so that it will convey to the minds of the people the exact facts.


James Albert Manning Aikins: As I understand it, in the general acceptation of the word, a rancher is one who is raising stock in wholesale or large quantities, and not a person engaged in mixed farming. I think that the people in the East, and in the province of Manitoba, whatever they may do in Alberta, consider a rancher to be not a mixed farmer, but one who is raising live stock almost exclusively. If the principle were changed, and instead of the word ' rancher ' the word ' farmer ' was inserted to allow the bank to lend money to the farmer on the security of his 'cattle, you would get into the class of small loans on varying securities, securities that are not immediately realizable. The Act generally relates to wholesale producers and wholesale manufacturers, and the security given is of the soluble class. That would not be so if we inserted the word ' farmer ' for * rancher,' because the advances that are ordinarily made to a farmer are secured by chattel mortgage. That would not be according to the principle of the Act. There is a difference in respect to threshed grain by reason of the fact, which I have already pointed out, that grain is readily marketable. If a banker wishes to realize on his security, he can immediately do so, because the grain is almost as good as gold and is a staple article which can find a ready market. Therefore, as I understand, the committee came to the conclusion to call the individual in one case ' farmer ' and in the other case * rancher.'


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend has stepped a little aside from the point. I was pointing out the desirability of defining what the Banking and Commerce Committee or the Government or the minister desire to convey when they debar the man who has wheat as well as horses from raising money on his horses, while they allow him To raise it on his wheat. I am asking that they shall show their intention on the face of the Bill, that is all. The contention that there is better security to the
bank on wheat than on horses, cattle, or hogs, is not well founded. My hon. friend knows that. He knows perfectly well that if it is a question of security to the bank, the cattle or the hogs, and especially the hogs, are better security than the wheat. My hon. friend says we must consider the wholesaler. Under the interpretation of this Act the man whose total wealth is represented by a bunch of thirty or forty cattle can get money under the provisions of this Act. A man who has the same number of horned stock but who has an equal number of horses, we will say, a hundred hogs and five thousand bushels of grain, could not secure the same money on his horned stock. This is such a palpable absurdity that I cannot understand the minister wanting it to pass. If he says that it is difficult to make the interpretation, all I have to say is that he occupies his position for the purpose of meeting and overcoming difficulties and he should not put legislation on the statute-book which is so absurdly discriminatory and which is discriminatory without reason or purpose.


Mr. EDWARDS:: What would be the
average value of marketable steers in the West on the ranch?


Frank Oliver: I could not answer that, because the price has varied very greatly, but at the moment I think that a good three year old steer will cost about $70.


William Cameron Edwards: The reason I ask the
question is that it has never appeared clear to me why there should be discrimination between a rancher who owns cattle and a farmer who owns cattle. There are any number of farmers, especially in the dairying districts of eastern Ontario and western Quebec, whose dairy cattle will provide a better security than the rancher's cattle. Why they should be deprived of the right thai is possessed by the ranchers is something that has never been clear to me.


William Thomas White: Not to go over the ground that has already been covered, I may say that the committee was of opinion that the farmer engaged in mixed farming, not only in the West but throughout Canada, should not be permitted to give a lien upon his live stock or chattel property to the bank. That has Deen the attitude of all legislation up to date in regard to the matter and it has been discussed very frequently in this House. We desire to give the man in the West, and elsewhere in Canada, who is engaged in the wholesale raising of cattle the privilege of securing a loan on the security of the live stock which he is engaged in raising. My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver), as I take it, thinks it possible to define the term. That occurred to us, but we have been unable to find a satisfactory definition for the word ' rancher.' There are a num-

ber of matters of this kind that cannot be defined without really adding to confusion. The word ' wholesale ' has not been defined in the Act and cannot be defined. It is better to leave it exactly as it is. We are engaged in considering section 2 in which the word ' rancher ' does not appear. But, it does appear in section 88, and when we come to section 88 we can discuss further this question to which my hon. friend has now drawn our attention and if it is found possible in the meantime to define the word ' rancher ' then I shall ask the committee to be allowed to insert in the interpretation clause the definition which may be agreed upon. I am not very hopeful of being able to do it. It is a very difficult matter, but, as my hon. friend says, it is the duty of the Government to overcome difficulties if it is at all possible to do it. It has not been found possible in the past to define the word ' wholesale ' and no untoward results have followed from it. There has not been much difficulty on the part of the commercial community in obtaining these liens, and it has been done without any very great loss or inconvenience. I would suggest that we pass section 2 now, subject to this, that if we find it necessary to change the interpretation clause of the Bill we may reopen it for that purpose.


Frank Oliver: I wish always to facilitate progress and I do not wish to seem to be too persistent, but this is a case in which there is a palpable and serious discrimination against the part of the country which I represent, and for that reason, while I do not intend to protest any longer, I am unable to agree that this section defining the word 1 cattle ' should be passed at this time. I would ask that it stand until we have considered section 88.


William Thomas White: I am as strongly of the
view that it should stand as I was at the beginning, and I have the greatest pleasure in agreeing that it should stand.


Frank Oliver: I wish only to emphasize the position I am in.
Mr. WHITE; I understand; the hon. gentleman is not unreasonable at all.
Section 2 stands.
On section 43-conditions for transfer of shares:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We are entitled to explanation why clause (d) of this section is retained in the Act. I may be told it has been in the Bank Act for years, but we are now trying to make a better Act than we have had heretofore. I can, for example, buy one share of bank stock- that is about the size of my finances-and after I pay my $100 I get a certificate for the share and I suppose I own it, but I go to the bank to have the transfer made to me and I am told that the previous owner Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
of the share owed the bank fifty dollars and the bank refuses to transfer the shares to me. I know a case in the province of New Brunswick within the last year, in which a man, who is good for anything he might owe, assigned $20,000 worth of bank stock as security for a loan, and when that stock was taken to the bank to be transferred, the bank would not accept it because the previous owner owed the bank that money. That is unreasonable. This provision seems incompatible with the provisions of sections 45 and 46. Suppose under section 1 there is a public auction of bank shares and a man buys them in good faith at the market value, he goes to the transfer office and he is told: 'You cannot get the transfer because the original owner owes us money; true, we have security by an endorsed note, but we are a little afraid of the endorser; true, you bought them in. good faith at public auction and true you did not know we had a claim against the previous owner of the shares, but we will exercise the right which the law gives us and we will refuse to transfer.' In that case, the man who bought these shares in good faith at public auction finds he is gold-bricked. If I have $100 of bank stock it ought to be mine and if I become bankrupt the bank would not be entitled to a first lien on that to the exclusion of all my other creditors. It is an unfair, unreasonable, and unjust preference which the banks of this country have over and above the rights of all other creditors. It is nothing short of legal fraud on other creditors. I give notice that I shall test the opinion of the committee on this section, at whatever time is most convenient to the minister.


William Thomas White: I do not think my hon.
friend was present at the committee when the evidence with respect to this section was given. I did have the same opinion as my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Did the bank managers convert you?


William Thomas White: No, the evidence convinced the committee. This is known as the bank's lien upon its own shares as against the shareholder who is indebted to it. The hon. gentleman knows that the certificate the shareholder gets as to his holding of bank stock is not a scrip certificate with a power of attorney in blank upon the back which passes from hand to hand the same as in the case of other stock. The transfer of a bank share is made by the holder of the share giving a power of attorney to the broker or other person to transfer, and he goes to the bank and makes the transfer on the books from the seller to the buyer. The shares are not paid for until that is completed, in other words, until the legal title in them is vested in the seller or the lender as the case may be. The case

is therefore different from that of hypothecating or selling shares evidenced by scrip stock certificates which pass from hand to hand, and by estoppel give title. Therefore in the first case the loan has not been made until the shares have been actually transferred into the name of the lender, and in the second place the money would not be paid until the shares were transferred into the name of the purchaser. That is the usual course. It has never been brought to my attention that there have been abuses of this clause to the prejudice of lenders or purchasers in good faith. Now, on the fact of it, I admit this is an anomaly. In the case of incorporated companies there is no such lien, nor do I know of any other case in which the lien exists. When the matter was before the committee, we had a great deal of evidence along this line, which convinced the committee that it would probably be wise to let this lien stand, anomalous as it appears. The reason is this: the banks are not allowed to lend upon their own shares or upon the shares of other banks. Partly on account of the double liability and for other reasons, there is not a great deal of money seeking investment in bank shares; and it is desirable that that form of investment should be encouraged, in the interest not only of the banks, but of the country generally. It was pointed out, for example, that a holder of bank shares might desire to obtain a loan from a bank; but, by reason of the fact that banks are prohibited from loaning money on bank shares, he cannot get a loan upon his shares. If he cannot get it from private individuals or private or trust companies, he must sell his bank shares upon a very depressed market. The evidence given along that line convinced the committee that it would be in the interest of investors in bank shares and consequently in the interest of the community, in order that investment in bank shares might be promoted, if this clause were allowed to stand. Personally, I have an open mind on the matter. If, after hearing this explanation, my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman desires this clause to stand so that he may move an amendment to strike it out, I shall be very glad indeed to allow it to stand. The argument which I have given was really the argument which convinced the committee.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend states
he has an open mind. I fear he has been mesmerized by the bank magnates, just as other gentlemen of the committee have been. As I understand his explanation, it means that, because banks do not issue scrip certificates the same as other incorporated companies do, they should be allowed to take advantage of a wrong in order to possess a right which the holder of shares in an ordinary joint stock company does not hold. He says that the banks do not issue a certificate in the form of a scrip certificate; that they only issue a receipt. That is true. I would say: Go back to the beginning and make the banks issue a certificate.


Mr. McLEAN (Sumbury and Queens):: How would you deal with the double liability?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The man who is on
record in the banks as holding the certificate is the man who pays the double liability.


Angus Alexander McLean: Would you make the
banks issue certificates as ordinary companies do?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am trying to answer
my hon. friend. I would make the banks issue a certificate just the same as is done in a joint stock company. I would make the man in whose name the certificate stands liable for the double liability. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that, because the banks issue receipts for money and not certificates, they should be allowed to take advantage of this and to have a lien upon their stock, a right which no other companies have.


William Thomas White: I was pointing out that,
under the practice, the untoward results that my hon. friend thinks would follow from this section do not occur, because, as a matter of fact, the loan is not made or the purchase price paid until the shares under power of attorney are transferred into the name of the pledgee or the purchaser as the case may be.
The Committee suspended the sitting and the House resumed.



ROYAL ASSENT.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Administrator by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod:
Mr. Speaker:
His Excellency the Administrator desires the immediate attendance of this House in the Chamber of the hon. the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, with the House, went up to the Senate Chamber.
And the House being returned:
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have the honour to
report that the House having attended His Excellency the Administrator in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal assent to the following Bills:
An Act respecting the North Empire Fire Insurance Company.
An Act to incorporate the New Westminster Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to incorporate the North Fraser Harbour Commissioners.

An Act to incorporate the Canadian Medical Protective Association.
An Act to amend the Exchequer Court Act.'
An Act to incorporate the Grand Lodge of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the Dominion of Canada. _
An Act for the relief of Minnie Edna Brownenll.
An Act respecting Ottawa and Montreal Transmission Company, Limited.
An Act respecting the Hudson Bay, Peace Eiver and Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Pacific and Peace Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of Charles Albert Flower.
An Act for the relief of Otto Clarence Peterson
An Act for the relief of Harold Moss
Hampson.
An Act for the relief of Alexander Zepherin Gonier.
An Act respecting The Nipissing Central Railway Company.	.
An Act respecting Patents of Frederick Jacob Newman and others.
An Act respecting a Patent of the Honourable Ambrose D. Richard and others.
An Act respecting the manufacture, marking and sale of articles composed of gold or silver, and of gold-plated and silver-plated
ware.	_	_ .	_ ,
An Act respecting the Alberta Inter-Urban Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Brantford and Hamilton Electric Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Manitoba Radial Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Read Estate Loan Company of Canada, Limited.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Provident Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the Southampton Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate The Athabasca and Grande Prairie Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate the Pacific and Eastern Mortgage Company.
An Act to amend the Quebec Harbour Commissioners Act, 1899.
An Act respecting The Buctouche Railway and Transportation Company, and to change the name thereof to ' The Moncton and Northumberland Strait Railway Company.'
An Act to incorporate Beaver Fire Insurance Company.
An Act respecting the British Columbia and White River Railway Company.
An Act respecting certain patents of the Standard Paint Company of Canada, Limited.
An Act for the relief of Pierre Zenon St. Aubin.
An Act respecting Imperial Underwriters' Corporation, and to change its name to ' Imperial Underwriters' Corporation of Canada.'
An Act respecting an agreement between Canada and certain of the West Indian Colonies.
An Act to provide for further advances to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners.
An Act to amend the Ottawa Mint Act.
Mr. SPEAKER.



BANKS AND BANKING.

[Stage Direction]
Ho-'-se again went into Committee on Bill No. 36, respecting Banks and Banking.- (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When the committee
rose I was pointing out to my hon. friend the Minister of Finance that I was unable to follow his line of argument. It has been said that because the banks issue a receipt and not a stock certificate, they should be allowed to treat this receipt in a different manner from that in which the stock certificate of any incorporated company is treated. My hon. friend also said that as the bank cannot loan money on its own certificate or on the certificate of any incorporated company, in times of stringency the -man who owns a stock certificate and nothing else would not be in a position to obtain advances, because that, being his only security, could not be used in the bank. If my hon. friend had followed that line of reasoning as fax as he had intended, I presume the next step would have been to admit that a man could go to a bank and obtain money on his own responsibility, without any security whatever, simply because the bank knew that he had a hidden secret lien upon a certain amount of bank stock. On account of that hidden lien, the bank would make an advance to that party without any other security whatever, although the man himself might be financially worthless, except for the few dollars of bank stock he held. I will admit that that is an advantage to the man who happens to own bank stock, but I want my hon. friend to follow this same individual a little further. We will say that this business man is absolutely bankrupt, except in his ownership of the bank stock which he holds. He goes to the bank and they surreptitiously loan him on his own responsibility, practically the full value of that stock, because they know that the stock is in his name and that he cannot put in any other man's name without their consent. But the same man might go to his friend, neighbour or solicitor and say: I have got so many shares of certain bank stock, worth so much a share, and I would; like to get an advance on them. The person to whom he applies makes the advance, and takes the certificate as collateral security. In due course the loan is not paid, and the person who has made it takes the certificate to the bank and asks to have it transferred. But the bank officials say: No; we have a lien against that certificate. See the position in which you have placed the third party. The whole question hinges upon the matter of the registration of farmers' notes and liens, which was the subject of a heated discussion when the matter was before the committee. It is a bad principle; you have

no right to allow the bank to loan money on cattle, horses, grain, sheep or anything else, unless it is put on record, so that the public may be aware of the fact. Following the same line of argument, you have no right to allow the bank tp loan money on its own stock unless the public know something about it. If you do, you are giving to the hank and to the owner of stock a right which you do not give to the ordinary public, and you are giving them a chance to be dishonest if they so desire. I do not say that this privilege has been very much abused, but I have given the hon. minister an illustration to -show that it has been abused. I do not think anybody suffered very much, because fortunately the parties we-e perfectly solvent, and they had no difficulty in arranging the matter satisfactorily. I am only pointing out to my hon. friend what may happen if this clause is retained in the Bank Act. The hon. minister has submitted the explanation made to him by the bankers, which apparently converted him, but I can only say that in offering this explanation he "has not succeeded in converting me.


Mr. LANCASTER:: I did not have the
advantage of being associated with the Banking and Commerce Committee when this matter was discussed, but I have in past years given the matter a great deal of attention, and in this clause I fail to -see any injustice. The hon. member for Car-leton (Mr. Carvell) eliminated from his argument the well-known principle that in this country a man is supposed to know the law. He mentioned as an illustration the case of a man who loaned money on a bank certificate, but if that man had known the law he would not have suffered. He should have known that the share could cnly be transferred subject to the lien held on it by the bank or at least the bank s consent. His own carelessness and recklessness are to blame if he lends money upon that certificate without making inquiries from the bank.
Mr. CARVELL. Does my hen. friend think that that is reasonable from a business standpoint?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Wa have had this law since Confederation, and I do not think that a man who encounters difficulties bv lending money carelessly and recklessly is suffering an injustice.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend will admit that it is one of the cardinal principles of banking that the private affairs of a customer shall not be disclosed. If I went to the bank and inquired whether the hon. member for Lincoln had obtained a loan, does the hon. gentleman think they would tell me?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman
means that the confidential relations between a customer or stockholder and the banker would prevent that information being given. Even so, the man should still be on his guard and get the bank's consent. Using the illustration of my hon. friend, the gentleman in question should find out whether the hon. member for Lincoln was indebted to the bank to the extent of an amount which could be set off against his share. He should say: What sort of a man is this; is he likely to be a man who would do this? Supposing my hon. friend were in some business, and I bought a share in the business, would my hon. friend say it would be unfair, if I became insolvent, that he should be allowed to set off against my -share in the business any amount he had loaned me because I had that share in the business? Certainly he would be allowed to do so. My creditors could only get what was coming to me over and above what my hon. friend was entitled to take out of it. If I bought a tenth share of any business owned by some other man, a dry goods store or a sheep ranch, and because I had that interest in that business the owner allowed me to get some money from him, on my insolvency, my assignee or the sheriff could only force that other man to pay what was owing by virtue of a settlement of accounts between us and because the men in question here has a share in that bank or an interest in any bank, whatever it may be, surely it is no injustice that that bank should say: You have an interest in the bank, you owe us some money and the one should be set off against the other. I could never see any unfairness because among other people where the banks are not concerned the .thing would work out in the same way on the insolvency of the man who had the share in the other business.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The
representatives of the bank expressed themselves as indifferent whether this clause was left in or out. Jhey did not very forcibly defend it. Their reasons against the elimination of the clause was that it might discourage the purchase of bank shares. That might be said about any clause of the Bank Act that is in the interest of the bank. I quite agree with what the hon. member for Carleton said in regard to it being undesirable from many points of view. In the first place it makes the Bank Act the medium for collecting debts to the bank from the shareholders. The present clause allows the bank to lend practically on their own shares and my opinion is that that is not desirable legislation. There is no such provision in the company law and as the bank managers did not defend it I think it would be in the

interest of proper and good legislation to have this clause eliminated.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am in favour of eliminating what I would call a preference that is sui generis with regard to the business world. I see no reason why the hanks should be placed in a preferential position as against all other concerns.


William Thomas White: I would suggest that the
clause be allowed to stand. The arguments presented have been weighty, the committee came to this conclusion having regard to the interest of the shareholders rather than the interest of the bank. I have an open mind in the matter and at first was strongly in favour of striking it out


William Cameron Edwards: Is not the principle
involved in this sub-section involved in section 77 ?


Mr. RAINVILLE:: In the oase of insolvency of a bank we find that some shares have been transferred, as in the case of the Bank of St. John and St. Hyaeinthe to insolvent people, or charitable institutions. Is there anything in the law Which would give power to the directors to refuse a transferee who was not in good financial standing, so that in the case of a bank failing the shares would not be held by people against whom the double liability could not be enforced? In England transfers are not valid until they have been posted up for thirty days in the bank and the directors have the right to refuse or accept the transfer and no transfer is valid unless it is accepted by the board of directors. I think this is most essential because in ease of failure of a bank we find people giving shares to charitable institutions for nothing, or perhaps to some man who is quite worthless.


William Thomas White: Our legislation does not
go as far as the legislation to which the hon. member refers. The principle has been that the owner of shares can transfer his share but the transferee must accept under the provisions of section 43. There is a provision that the double liability shall attach to all parties who may have been shareholders within sixty days of the suspension of a bank and in that case a party transferring shares within that period for the purpose of avoiding the. double liability would not escape if the bank suspended within the sixty days.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course,
according to the rules, bank shares are transferred under certain formalities. The transfer cannot be valid unless these formalities are complied with but a transfer of shares to avoid the double liability would be considered fraudulent. In Quebec there would be no question about it being declared invalid by the court. That has been Mr. SHARPE (North Ontario).
done, any transaction made by a debtor which has in contemplation to avoid responsibility is null and void and can be voided by the court.
Section 3 stands.
On section 54-annual and special statements :


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would suggest to the minister that sections 54, 55, 56 and 56a stand. The hon. member for Queens-Shelbourne (Mr. McCurdy) is not here, and he took a very active interest in this legislation. I think he will be back on Monday or Tuesday, and I suggest that the four sections I have mentioned should stand.
. Mr. WHITE: I shall be glad to acquiesce in the suggestion.


The CHAIRMAN:: Sections 54, 55, 56,
and 56a stand.
On section 60-cash reserves:


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
meaning of the added words 'which it has in Canada ' ?


William Thomas White: I understand that the
practice has been, even under the present Act, which has not these words, to require tile banks to hold Dominion notes only to the amount of forty per cent of the cash reserve which they actually have in Canada. One reason is that Dominion notes are legal tender only in Canada; they would not be legal in the United States, for instance. This particular clause has been a dead letter for a great many years.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 61-issue and circulation of notes:
Wilfrid Laurier: There are
new provisions in this section. Will the minister explain them?


William Thomas White: The matter of note circulation of banks was given very full consideration in the committee. In a word, the circulation privileges under the present Bank Act, both ordinary and emergency, have been continued in the present Bill, and one further provision has been added, that in addition to the ordinary power to issue up to the amount of their fully paid-up capital, and power of emergency circulation during the crop periods, the banks may issue an amount of notes equivalent to the gold deposited by them in a central gold reserve, for the establishment of what provision is made in this section. A great deal of evidence was given before this committee, and I think there was no dissent by any banker, or by anyone else, so far as I heard from the

advisability of the provision herein made. In the result, the banks will deposit gold in this central gold reserve, and up to the. amount of that deposit they may issue their notes when required for the carrying on of their- business, but not exceeding the amount so deposited.


Frank Oliver: Is this done without
Government supervision?


William Thomas White: I have provided in the
Bill that the Government shall appoint one of the trustees, and the Bankers Association the two others, and that the gold reserve shall be inspected periodically by the Finance Department.


Frank Oliver: Does that mean that the Government will have knowledge from day to day of the amount of gold and of the amount of notes issued for circulation against that gold?


William Thomas White: I would not say from day to day, except that the Government's trustee would have knowledge, and the Government would have knowledge through their trustee. Books, of course, showing precisely the position would have to be kept by the trustees. It is very well safeguarded along the lines which I think my hon. friend has in mind. In addition there is an inspection by the Finance Department provided.


Frank Oliver: This is a provision to enable banks to issue increased circulation without their assets being increased.


William Thomas White: In substance, I think my
hon. friend is correct, but I would rather put it this way. A bank, let us say, has today two million dollars of gold. Of course it can pay that over its counter, but the public do not take gold. The gold is not in general circulation, so the bank can go to the office of the Receiver General and obtain Dominion notes to circulate, these being at its disposal. We are providing that the bank may deposit a large amount of gold in this central reserve which can be issued up to the amount of that gold but not beyond it. It makes a more flexible situation. Under the present Act the bankers for fear of finding that they have come to the limit, or close to the limit, of their circulation stop. They do not go to the very apex of their circulation, because they are operating over a very large field, and they are afraid to exceed the circulation. If a bank had, say, $5,000,000 in gold, lodged in the central reserve, it would never have any fear. The result will be more circulation available for the needs of the country. It was clearly shown before the committee that one of the needs of the country was additional circulation, especially at particular periods of the year, to meet the requirements of commerce and trade.


Frank Oliver: I just want to fix the point thoroughly that this provision is for the purpose of increasing the circulation of bank notes, without placing any charge upon the banks, and without any increased assets or any increased gold to meet these notes. However desirable it may be to have increased circulation, it is even more desirable that there should be an adequate amount of gold behind that circulation. The arrangement up to the present time has been such that in my opinion we have never had too much gold behind our circulation, certainly not too much to meet times of stress and difficulty, which must always be considered. We are now preparing to increase our circulation, without increasing the gold behind the circulation.


William Thomas White: The present Act does not require that a certain percentage of gold shall be kept; that is in the discretion of the bank. There has been no provision in the Bank Act that they must keep a certain percentage of gold although, as a matter of fact, the practice of bankers has always been to keep a certain amount of gold. Under the present legislation the banks go to the office of the Receiver General, get Dominion notes and circulate those. We are providing that they may deposit gold and issue their own notes. They make no money out of that. The only advantage I see to the banks in allowing them to issue circulation as against gold, is this: At the present time, when they come up to the peak load, so to speak, of their circulation, they are afraid of ex- -ceeding the limit and of being fined, so they stop short of it. By depositing a certain amount of gold in this gold reserve, they will be relieved of that apprehension and the benefit will be that they can circulate to the extent of their paid pp capital, their emergency circulation and the amount of this deposit that they make. Consequently, there is less danger of the bank being fined and there will undoubtedly be an advantage to the public in getting increased circulation.
On section 68-Treasury Board rules:


Frank Oliver: We, have been passing certain sections relating to the security of circulation. The question of security for depositors has been up more or less. Is there anything in the Bill dealing with that point?


William Thomas White: That came before the committee, but not in a strong way. The question was raised in the House as to whether it would be possible to compel the banks to create a fund by a contribution to the Government which would guarantee all deposits. I think that the committee almost unanimously came to the conclusion that such a plan would not be feasible.

The matter was given a great deal of consideration and a great many arguments were advanced which it is not necessary for me to rehearse unless hon. gentlemen desire that I should do so. I think I can say that the committee did not consider it possible that such a fund should be created to protect the depositors.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I understood that my hon. friend from Middlesex (Mr. Ross) wanted to bring the matter to the notice of the committee when the Bill was under consideration. He is absent from the city now.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I was present when this matter came up in the committee and he said that he had no amendment to propose and consequently the clauses were passed. In other words, he felt that, in view of the overwhelming evidence before the committee, there would be no possibility of amending the Act so as to provide for a depositors' guarantee fund.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: He withdrew it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: He withdrew it. The
best guarantee the depositors have is the efficient system of outside audit which the department has provided. In view of the splendid audit that is provided I do not think there should be any loss to depositors in future bank failures.
- Mr. EMMERSON: I understood my hon. friend from West Middlesex to say that he withdrew it at the Banking and Commerce Committee with the view of having it considered here. He did not feel that it would be of any possible use to bring it before the committee at that time.


William Thomas White: There is nothing in the clause now under consideration to prevent my hon. friend from West Middlesex raising the question if he so desires. This section deals only with the fund which is a guarantee of the circulation and he may raise the question and make any motion he desires before the committee concludes.
On section 73-'bills or notes, binding though not sealed; directors may depute officer to sign.


Frank Oliver: I do not know whether
I would be Tight in raising the point on this section or not, but a circumstance was brought to my notice which I was requested to bring to the attention of the minister in connection with this Bill. A cheque had been issued for, say, $7.75 and it had been taken to the hank and marked as good. It had afterwards been raised by the insertion of a cipher after the figure ' 7 ' and then the two letters ' ty ' after the word ' seven ' where it was written, Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
raising the cheque to $70.75 from $7.75. The cheque was passed at a mercantile house and the person presenting it received the larger amount. The merchant, of course, took the cheque in good faith and paid the money. It was a marked cheque, you will understand. When it was taken to the bank, the bank recognized at once that it had been raised and the merchant was out that much money. What he wants to know is if any provision can be made to guard against the raising of a cheque after it has been marked by the bank. I am not very familiar with the banking business, but I have seen cheques, or bills having the effect of cheques, upon which were stamped in perforated letters the words, ' not exceeding a certain amount.' The gentleman who brought this matter to my attention asked me if it was possible to have some legislation passed that would secure the protection of such marked cheques. I bring the matter to the attenion of the minister. I am sorry that I did not have this information when it was possible to bring it before the committee. Thi3 is a case that did occur, and it is a case that is liable to occur. I presume that provision is made to meet a case of that kind, whether by law or practice in the United States.


William Thomas White: The matter to which the hon. gentleman has called my attention should be dealt with, if at all, in connection with the Bills of Exchange Act, and not the Bank Act. What happened in the case in question was simply a forgery.


Frank Oliver: I quite realise that.


William Thomas White: And, of course, the party who raised the cheque would be liable to the penalties of the Criminal Code.


Frank Oliver: He is in jail now, but that will not help the man who paid the money.


William Thomas White: 
Frank Oliver: I referred to cheques drawn on the banks which had been accepted by the banks.


William Thomas White: I think any legislation of
that kind should be had by amendment to the Bills of Exchange Act.

Mr. EMMER80N: This suggestion refers to an accepted cheque by a bank and charged up against the account of the customer and marked ' good.' That cheque goes into circulation and it is raised, and I think there should be some provision in the Bank Act which would oblige the bank to perforate such cheque.


William Thomas White: I suppose it would be
possible to provide for it in this Act, but I am not prepared to give a decided opinion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The moment this cheque is accepted by the bank it practically becomes a bank note.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I agree with the minister that the proper place to make the amendment would be in the Bills of Exchange Act which deals with every detailed action taken on a bill or cheque or other negotiable instrument.


Frank Oliver: The status of a marked
cheque is so exceptional that it ought to have special protection. Whatever may be in the Bills of Exchange Act it would seem reasonable that such a provision should be inserted in the Bank Act. Does not the minister consider the matter of sufficient importance to warrant the introduction of such an amendment in the Bills of Exchange Act?


William Thomas White: I think the suggestion is well worthy of consideration, but I cannot pass an opinion on it offhand. I shall be glad to give it consideration.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The whole subject of bills of exchange, accepted cheques, promissory notes and so on is dealt with in the Bills of Exchange Act, and the question ot forging and raising of cheques is also dealt with by that Act. The amendment would be more properly to that Act.


William Thomas White: I shall consider the matter.
On section 72-no tom or defaced notes:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have doubt as to the
meaning of this clause. The clause refers to the payment out, of money by the bank, but has it occurred to the minister that clause 2 might be broad enough to cover payments made by any person? Suppose I went to the bank to pay a note and tendered them unclean or tom money, would not the bank under this section be justified in refusing to accept it? They are of course bound to accept their own notes, but if I tender them the note of another bank or a dominion note, which was unclean or torn, could they not refuse it?


William Thomas White: I have no doubt that if a court were called upon to interpret subsection 2, the court would relate it to subsection 1 and hold that the payment refers to payment by the bank.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There is something in
that contention but it would be plainer if the words ' by the bank ' were inserted.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Or the words, ' no
such payment.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think that is better.


James Albert Manning Aikins: If the words ' by the bank ' were inserted after the word ' may,' it would be sufficient.


William Thomas White: Yes, that would do. I will amend it in that way if it is considered worth while.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 76-business and powers of
bank:
James McKay: Did the committee consider the question of bank clerks' salaries? It Is a matter that has been discussed in the press and in which the public are interested to a large extent.


William Thomas White: The committee did not
consider that question. Speaking for myself, I think it would be very difficult indeed to incorporate provisions in the Bank Act to deal with the question of salaries of bank employees. Banks carry on business in all parts of the world. The question of wages which they would pay would be determined by local and consequently by varying conditions. The question would arise as to the qualifications and abilities of the different employees. The matter is so complex that I doubt very much whether the House would be justified in attempting to introduce legislation dealing with it. So far as managers are concerned, my experience has been that they are underpaid, with the exception of managers of the head or principal offices. I do not wish to make a general statement as to that, but the men out in the firing line are not paid as well as they should be. The banks themselves should take the matter up and see that their employees are well paid, because it would be in their interest to do so. During the past few years there has been a considerable advance along that line, some of the banks being more generous than others. There seems to be some room for complaint that the ordinary bank clerks and managers in small branches are not paid as well as they should be. A provision was introduced by the committee that bank managers should not be allowed to engage in insurance or business of that kind. The idea is that they might use their position in order to force clients to insure with companies for which they might be agents for the purpose of mak

ing a commission for themselves. I have received some communications from bank managers protesting against that, on the ground that they are underpaid.


Mr. TUEGEON:: In regard to the question of the prohibition of managers from doing insurance business, I have had protests from bank managers in small towns and villages urging that it is an addition to their salaries, which are small. As the minister says, I do not believe that legislation could fix the salaries of these managers. Meanwhile could not the amendment, which we shall come to look into later on, be changed so as not to hurt bank officials in small villages and towns where the population is small and where the salary is correspondingly small?


William Thomas White: When we come to the other clause, that question will be dealt with.


Frank Oliver: I wish to say a word in support of what my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. McKay) has said, that there is a general belief that the salaries of bank employees, especially in the lower branches, are not as they should be. In evidence of that, it will be recalled that not very long ago-and I think the practice is still going on-certain of the banks systematically imported clerks from the Old Country. It may be said that the law of supply and demand should govern, and I am not going to say that you can advantageously interfere with that law in this particular instance. It has been found necessary in most mechanical employments for men to band themselves together in unions and to take measures in order to maintain a fair wage. Bank employees are not in a position to do that. While I do not know that those who are employed in banks are more entitled to sympathy than any others, that is one of the cases where it seems to me that a minimum wage should be established by law.
The public have an interest in this matter which they do not have in some other employments owing to the fact that bank employees, as a matter of fact handle the money of the country. It is necessary, for the proper protection of public business, that that money should be handled honestly. It is a recognized fact that there has been a considerable amount of dishonesty among the minor bank employees throughout Canada. It has been stated very frequently that that measure of dishonesty is largely due to the fact that these young men are underpaid considering the responsibilities of the duties which they have to perform and the conditions under which they are expected to live.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not so sure that
my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) is giving the real reason for dishonesty on the part of certain bank clerks. Neither Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
am I so sure that bank clerks are not as well paid as clerks in other walks of life which require the same ability. If we could get it out of their heads that the burden is oast upon them to be social leaders in the towns and villages, perhaps we would get rid of some of the cry about the smallness of the salaries, and possibly in some cases take away the necessity of bank clerks becoming dishonest. I have no intention or desire to interfere with their social duties. I think bank clerks as a rule are pretty well paid.


Mr. BENNETT (Calgary):: Not the juniors.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot agree with
that.


James McKay: What is the hon. gentleman's experience as to salaries in banks?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I never was employed in a bank and I do not have a son in one. Not long ago a boy of about fifteen or sixteen years of age went into a bank. When I inquired what he was getting, I was told that, he was receiving $1.50 or $1.75 a day. I do not know in what other line of business he would earn anything like that in Canada at that age. Because a boy is in a bank which handles large sums of money, he seems to have an idea that he ought to get a large salary. The banks should not be judged harshly in this matter. I believe they are paying their clerks a pretty fair wage compared with what other business institutions are paying.


James McKay: I do not think the junior
bank clerks are paid a sufficient salary. I understand that not only in the West but in the East as well, the junior clerks are paid only $250 a year.


Mr. MICHAUD:: It is $300 a year in the Bank of Montreal.


James McKay: At any rate, I think the
general experience is that the salaries are not sufficient.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not think the
criticism that has been made with regard to the salaries of bank clerks is justifiable. The acceptance of a clerkship is a splendid opportunity for a young man sixteen or seventeen years of age to learn banking and business methods generally behind the counters of our foremost financial institutions. If there are dishonest bank clerks amongst the juniors, it is because there are too many facilities for their going to the bucket-shops in order to get rich quick. I think the Minister of Justice should attend to that end of the matter, and see that the brokers are not permitted to allow young men to dabble in stock-jobbing operations. In my experience as a practising lawyer and as Crown prosecutor in Montreal, I have found that the bucket-shops

and the brokers' offices are the places where the young bank clerks begin their fall. The young man of seventeen, eighteen or twenty years of age, who gets, as they get in the Bank of Montreal, $300 a year, with a yearly increase, cannot complain too much, after all. Having regard to the learned profession of the law, lawyers of undoubted ability, after a course of study of eight years at college and three or four at university, sometimes get less than $500 a year after they have been admitted to the Bar, and, after a practice of three or four years, the lawyer who gets $1,200 a year is very lucky. On the whole, therefore, I think that our young bank clerks cannot complain.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I submitted a number of amendments to the Bill when this matter was discussed by the Committee of Banking and Commerce, and it is not my purpose to delay the passage of the Bill at this stage by re-introducing them. There are one or two amendments however which I desire to ask the committee to consider in connection with this section. I would suggest that the section be amended by adding thereto, sub-section (d) as follows:
(d) Lend money or make advances in excess of ten per cent of its paid-up capital to any one foreign person, company, or corporation or upon the securities of any such foreign person, company or corporation.
. Perhaps the minister desires that the section shall stand?


William Thomas White: I think it had better be allowed to stand.
.Mr. SHARPE:	The section could pass
with this notice of amendment.
Section stands.
On section 131-penalties:


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that this is in
italics; is it new?


William Thomas White: That is a new provision
to which I called attention when I introduced the Bill. It provides penalties for an offence against the Act in paying out any moneys paid by subscribers to bank shares prior to the issue of the treasury board certificate. There are clauses at the beginning of the Act providing that the moneys of subscribers shall only be paid out on certain conditions and this section provides a penalty for the infringement of those provisions.
At six o'clock, House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 85, respecting the Board of Management of the Church and Manse Building Fund of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, for Manitoba and the Northwest, and to change its name to the Church and Manse Board.-Mr. Sharpe (Lisgar).
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Mary Arabella Young.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 197, to incorporate the Glengarry and Stormont Railway Company.-Mr. Alguire.
Bill No. 203, respecting the Burrard, Westminster Boundary Railway and Navigation Company.-Mr. Taylor.
Mr. MACDONELL moved the second reading of Bill No. 202, respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.
Frank Oliver: What is the purpose of
this Bill?


Mr. MACDONELL:: Simply to substitute three new directors for three of the old directors who have died, and to increase the capital from $2,000,000 to $10,000,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 190, for the relief of George Sentis Deslandes.-Mr. Warnock.
Bill No. 191, for the relief of Daisy Madeleine Peterson.-Mr. Nesbitt.	[DOT]
Bill No. 194, for the relief of Sarah Lillian Attwood.-Mr. Meighen.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration in committee of Bill No. 36, respecting Banks and Banking.-Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance.)
William Thomas White: We vi ill now go back to
the sections which have been allowed to stand and perhaps we shall be able to settle something to-night.
On section 88-loans upon live or dead stock; grain; cattle:


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This clause
was not in the Bill as originally introduced, providing for the registration of security taken by the bank and considered in the abstract, I admit that it is very difficult to argue against that principle. My idea was that this amendment was perhaps more to meet transportation conditions in the West than a matter of banking. I have always been of the opinion that if this were confined to grain it would be only fair to all interests concerned for the bank to take its security and not to register it. I am still of the opinion that if it were

restricted to grain it would meet the demands of the West for the present and in that case it would not be necessary to have any registered security. As was pointed out in the Banking Committee on many occasions, the loans made by bankers are not ordinarily made on the security offered but rather on the character of the borrower. I cannot get rid of the apprehension that if borrowers are obliged to register their liens the section will be of little value to anybody. That is my own personal view. I know there is a very strong opinion to the contrary. If it were possible to restrict this to threshed grain, it would possibly meet the conditions in the West for some few years and eventually we could hope to see it stricken out of the Act altogether


James Albert Manning Aikins: I agree entirely with what has been said by the hon. junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean). The purpose of the introduction of these two subsections, 2 and 3, was, as I mentioned previously, to give further bank facilities to the farmers in western Canada. We all know that in western Canada the time between the threshing of the grain and the closing of the season for doing fall work is very short. Ordinarily it does not exceed a month. If the farmer is obliged to haul out his grain for any long distance from his farm to the elevator or railway station, it occupies a great portion of his time and by reason of that he is not able to do his ploughing or other fall work which is necessary before the ground freezes up and he cannot do anything further on it. It is almost impossible for him to do his fall work if he has to haul that grain a distance of say five or six miles, but if it could be stored in his granary and if he could borrow on the security of his threshed grain so stored, the funds necessary for the payment of the employees who have helped him during the harvest and threshing time, it would give him an advantage which otherwise he would not have. It is quite consistent with the policy and principle of the Bank Act that advances or loans should be made on such security because it is of all the securities in the farmer's hands the most soluble, the most easily realizable. In addition to the advantage that it will give to the farmer in the way that I have mentioned there will also be the advantage that if he can store his grain on his farm during the winter months, and obtain a loan on it there he will save the elevator charges which otherwise he will have to pay if the grain remains in the country unshipped or unsold. As we all know a very large proportion of the grain does remain in the West because the farmers are unable to get it to the lake front for export before the season of navigation closes
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
It seems highly desirable that the farmers of the West should have the bank facilities provided by this Act, and power should be given to the banks to lend on this class of security, the best class of security and equal to the goods, wares and merchandise mentioned in other parts of the section upon which the bank makes advances.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the hon. gentleman think that it will be of any practical benefit to the farmer? If it will not be of any advantage to the farmer, it is better not to have it at all.


James Albert Manning Aikins: The evidence that was
given before the committee by men from the West showed that it was very important to the western farmer to have the privilege of borrowing from the bank on his threshed grain. It will be appreciated by him and the advantage that he will derive therefrom will be great. Now comes the other point of the registration of the lien. As I have pointed out, the loan can only happen after the grain is threshed. There can be no lien filed before that. The debts, the wages of those who have done the threshing, are all incurred prior to the threshing. Therefore, they are not incurred on the credit of the threshed grain. In order to pay these wages and obligations facilities should be given to the farmer to raise funds so that he will not be obliged to part with his grain at an inconvenient time, at a time when it will not be profitable for him and when he cannot obtain a suitable price. Consequently if the registration took place at the same time it would not be a protection to other creditors. It would not protect any of his creditors because his creditors have already given the credit and the debts have prior to the threshing of the grain been incurred. He then could raise the amount that the bank would feel disposed to advance to him to pay his creditors and in addition the creditors would have an equity of redemption in the pladged grain on which, if necessary, they could realize. If registration were made obligatory it would be inconsistent with the other parts of the Act because there is no lien required to be registered in any other section, and it would be discriminating against the farmer. The grain would be sold in the course of five or six months at the very utmost and therefore, to oblige the farmer to give a warning to others that he had raised money on his grain by registering the lien, would be unreasonable and unnecessary under the circumstances. It would also be expensive and is not required for Quebec. I hope that section concerning the registration will be struck out.


James McKay: May I ask if this section would override the provincial legislation we have in the West whereby the thresher

would have a lien on the grain for a certain number of days.


James Albert Manning Aikins: I do not think so


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to
me it might.


William Thomas White: The legal members of the committee were of opinion that the word ' remuneration ' in sub-section 8 of section 88 was sufficient to cover the point raised by my hon. friend. The matter brought to our attention by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) is one about which there would be great difficulty in coming to a conclusion; you have to weigh the advantages on one hand and the disadvantages on the other. It is, I think, a sound principle in the legislation of the provinces that if the individual in visible possession of a property makes a mortgage of that property to secure a loan, publicity shall he given to the mortgage and hence we have in all the provinces, with the exception of Quebec, chattel mortgage legislation providing in substance that no security by way of chattel mortgage or bill of sale shall be valid as against creditors of the mortgagor unless registered in accordance with the legislation on that point. In Quebec a chattel mortgage of personal property is not valid and consequently there is no provision made for registration. The exception to that class of legislation which is general except in Quebec is contained in section 88 of the present Act, and in the interests of trade and commerce it has been found to be very beneficial. I think few if any abuses have grown up under it. The exception was made in the case of the wholelsale manufacturer or dealer and he was permitted to give a secret lien to the bank upon raw material, or product in progress of manufacture, or upon the manufactured article. That legislation is many years old. The lien that is given is not registered in accordance with the principle that exists in the chattel mort gage legislation of the several provinces. We now come to this particular section and I might say it was with very great reluctance that I introduced this provision giving a lien to the banker upon security of threshed grain because the whole principle underlying the Bank Act has been that the bank shall make its loans upon personal security: the standing and credit of the individual to whom the loan is made. Up to date, that has applied to every one with the single exception of the wholesale manufacturer or dealer to whom I have referred. By virtue of the provisions of section 88,_ he was entitled to borrow upon a secret lien. As I explained before, the reason, why we gave this privilege to the banks of lending money by way of bankers' liens upon threshed grain, was on account of the peculiar conditions existing in the 320
West which have been fully explained by my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Aikins), and of which all hon. members are well aware, namely, transportation, storage and the desirability that the farmer should not be obliged at once to throw his grain upon the market. That is the sole reason that led me to introduce this clause which widens the class from whom the secret lien may be taken. In the Bill as originally drafted, no provision was made for registration. I weighed, on the one hand, the disadvantage that might arise to creditors of the farmer, because it is possible that a creditor or creditors may be prejudiced by reason of the bank obtaining a lien unregistered upon threshed grain. On the other hand I had to weigh the advantage to the farmer who might desire to borrow in order to cope with conditions existing in the West. When the matter came up in committee, the question was discussed very fully, and I enunciated the view that my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) has taken, stating that it would in my judgment, largely defeat the purpose we had in view if we compelled the registration of these liens, because I had been informed by the banks that in all probability, the clause would not be taken advantage of if the liens had to be registered. In the first place, I doubt if the banks would desire to lend as freely as they otherwise would. In the second place, the farmer would be put to some extra expense. In the third place, an exception has been made in the case of the province of Quebec, as hon. members will observe by looking at sub-section 9. I left the matter open to the committee, stating that I realized it was a question on which there might be a difference of opinion. It vvas not a political or controversial question in any narrow sense, and I simply expressed my view. The committee were of the opinion, I believe by a comparatively small majority, that it would be advisable that these liens should be registered. All I desire to say is that in the. House the matter is in the same position as it was in the committee. My view is that it is in the interest of die western farmer, whom this clause is designed to assist, that we should not insist upon the registration of the lien


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When was
clause 36 put in? What were the reasons tor empowering banks to lend money to ranchers t Were the grounds given for that as strong as those in regard to lending money on threshed grain?


William Thomas White: No, they were not The
reason given was this: The banks under existing legislation have been lending upon hankers' liens to cattle ranchers, that is to say, to men engaged in cattle raising in a wholesale way. They thought they were justified in doing that, particularly because of the wholesale idea involved. In other words, while they would not lend to a



farmer upon his cattle, they would lend to a rancher or a man engaged in the raising of cattle by wholesale. That is the existing practice to-day. Some doubt was thrown upon that practice by a decision in the Supreme Court of Alberta, I think, of Chief Justice Sifton. It was to make certain the banks' right to lend upon cattle to a rancher that this clause was first introduced. As I brought it down I think it did not go quite as far as this definition would imply; perhaps some words have been added in committee. It is unquestionably in the interest of the cattle-raising industry that the banks should have the right to take a lien, as they do in practice to-day. That principle applies now in section 88 with respect to threshed grain. I believe it is a sound banking principle that has underlain the Bank Act for forty years, that makes a bank Iook rather to the personal security of the farmer or the retailer; but where the wholesale principle exists, then it has been found by experience that the legislation had been beneficial, has served the needs and purposes of trade and commerce, especially in connection with the manufacturer and wholesaler. So far as I know, there have been no abuses by reason of lack ot publicity through want of registration. It would be unfortunate if the banks of Canada., because this legislation is general, should become chattel mortgagees of the personal property of small holders as well as large, and should have to resort to proceedings in the wav of selling out bv chattel mortgage sale in order to realize their security. In addition to that, the sound principle of banking is to loan upon a short date pro" missory note giving quick returns whioh prevents the locking up of money for a longer period. The tendency is to look to the chattel and its value rather than to the individual. That would lead probably to somewhat unsound banking and to a good deal of dissatisfaction in the_ community. It is entirely a matter of judgment, however, one way or the other, as to whether or not it is -advisable to register this lien.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Could we not have a
definition of the word 'rancher ? I think that point was raised, hut I thought there was some definition. On looking at the Bill, I find that the word ' farmer _ is defined, but the word ' rancher ' is not defined.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word
[DOT] rancher' would not be susceptible of any exact definition in a Bill of this character. The history of the section is, shortly, this: The liens that hanks had under the common law not only extended to title deeds anrt securities that -were deposited with them, but were extended by decisions of the House of Lords to funds that a man might have in Mr WHITE (Leeds).
the bank. The banks had a habit of taking title deeds and securities from a person to whom they made a loan. When our statute was passed, we attempted to give a statutory lien that embodied the principle of the common Jaw lien that had grown up, instead of providing it by a chattel mortgage or a mortgage in form of a lien. We established in the original statute a lien known as Form C. That security carried with it all the rights that were given to a bank by reason of its common law lien that has grown up by the development of the common law through many years of history. I think originally it came from the Lombards and extended from there to the Old Country and came to us from London, England. Then, having given a statutory lien that was equivalent to the common law lien to which I have referred, the question was whether or not that should he extended to any parties other than wholesale dealers. If you look at the first portion of the section, you will find that it is expressly limited to:
Any wholesale purchaser or shipper of or dealer in products of agriculture, the forest, quarry and mine, or the sea, lakes and rivers, or to any wholesale purchaser or shipper of or dealer in live stock or dead stock or the products thereof, upon the security of such products, or of such live stock or dead or the products thereof.
In the case to which the Minister of Finance has referred the right of the bank to take a lien on a single horse was in issue. The trial judge held that this section did not apply, and that the security taken under section 88, from the farmer by the bank in relation to a single horse was illegal. Representations have from time to time been made by farmers and ranchers of the West as to the necessity for passing some legislation that would enable them to give security that would be practically of the same effect as the security given by their wholesale neighbours. I can only say that in the province of Alberta, where the larger ranching operations have been carried out, ranchers who have not sold a single animal by retail have been held to come within the terms of the first part of the section, and have been deemed to be wholesale dealers in live stock. That is to say, if a man had a large ranch with a thousand head of cattle on it he was warranted in giving the bank security under section 88 of the Bank Act, by reason of his being a wholesale dealer. If, on the other hand, he was a farmer who had about his premises perhaps one hundred head of cattle, the bank would decline to take that security because he was not a wholesale dealer, and the question arose as to how we could extend to that man the right to give security by what the Minister of Finance has described the creation of a secret lien, but which I prefer to designate merely

as the ordinary banker's lien extended by the operation of a statute. In my judgment sub-section 3 of section 88 should be amended, and I was going to suggest that it should be done because of the observation made by my hon. friend the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). We should say that the bank may lend money to a rancher or a farmer upon the security of his cattle, because the very difficulty that has been^ referred to in defining the word ' rancher ' will, as was suggested by the hon. member for Guysborough, be coming up every day in actual practice. I do not know of any definition of the word 'rancher' that could be considered applicable to the purposes of the statute. I understand that the hon. member for Red Deer is a rancher.


Mr. CLARK:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he is a farmer
now; when he came to this country he was a rancher. It is a fact that he has neighbours who are ranchers, and who do not call themselves farmers, although they may not have as many cattle as the horn gentleman has. On the one hand there may be a man who has twenty-five or thirty head of cattle and who calls himself a rancher, while on the other hand a man who claims to be a farmer may have one hundred head of cattle. If we concede that the bank is to lend money under section 88 of the Bank Act to other than wholesale dealers, in my judgment that privilege should be extended not only to the farmer upon his grain, but to the mixed farmer upon his cattle, as well as to the rancher. It was because of the difficulty suggested by my hon. friend the member for Guysborough that I was going to ask the committee to insert in this clause the words ' or farmer,' to make the clause read:
The bank may lend money to a rancher or farmer upon the security of his cattle.


Wilfrid Laurier: The question of my hon. friend was, what is a rancher?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say that in
practice a rancher is one who raises live stock and cultivates his farm lands, if there be any, in order to supply grain and fodder for his cattle, and not for the purpose of selling the grain as a product of his farm. Is that not a fair definition?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is a long
one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot define it
shorter. You cannot say a rancher is one who deals in cattle; that would not be sufficient. He is more than a raiser of cattle; he raises stock upon his farm and cultivates an area for the purpose only of supplying food for his stock. A mixed farmer, on the other hand, is a man whose
320.}
primary business is farming, who cultivates his farm for the purpose of raising cereals or other crops for sale, and who incidentally raises cattle. If I recollect aright, in some of the cases that arose in the United States, the word * rancher ' was defined as applying to a man whose primary business was the raising of cattle.


Mr. MORRISON:: Why not strike out
the word ' rancher ' altogether, and say that the company may lend money to persons engaged in the raising of live stock?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was discussed in the committee; that is already conceded by the first part of the section; the bank has the right to lend money to the wholesale dealer in live stock. I am, perhaps, more familiar with the practical than the theoretical side of the question. I know that some of the banks in western Canada of which I have an intimate knowledge have been in the habit of taking from ranchers security under section 88 of the Bank Act in cases where the ranchers did not sell only one or two head of cattle at a time, but rather dealt in wholesale quantities. [DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What was the point and the decision in the case referred to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The issue turned upon the question of interest, which was applicable to another section, and as to whether or not in the exercise of its rights under the chattel mortgage, the bank could charge [DOT] more or less than is provided by statute for the services rendered in connection with selling the cattle under the chattel mortgage. I submit that if we are going to extend the right to deal with cattle under section 3 of the Bank Act, we should at least say that the farmer who has twenty or fifty head of . cattle should have just the same rights as the man whom we call a rancher, and who may have no more cattle than he has. If that be so the best method to express it is for the committee to consider. As I remember that question did arise in committee and there was considerable discussion of it and the suggestion of my hon. friend from Macdonald was considered that all these words should be struck out and we should simply leave it ' a bank may lend money upon the security of live stock.' That is true now but it applies only to the wholesaler. The reason that that is now safe is that we have in the West a brand law and under the criminal code a brand upon the side of an animal is prima facie evidence of ownership; and when the bank takes such cattle as security under section 88, with the registered brand of that owner, such animals are the property of the bank, and if anyone exercised acts of ownership over such animals other than the registered owner there would be a

prima facie case against him. So a bank lending money to a rancher on the security of his live stock is safe. Registration of the security, I think, would serve no useful purpose, and in fact, in my personal view, would destroy the practical value of the provision.


Wilfrid Laurier: I wish that
my hon. friend had defined the word 'rancher.' I find it in the Century dictionary, which applies to the United States, that the word is so defined that in my opinion the word farmer would include it. I believe that the word farmer wouid apply to every kind of tilling of the soil or getting anything from the soil.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In New Mexico they
do not refer to farms at all, and in parts of British Columbia and in Montana they speak of different kinds of farms, fruit farms &c. as ranches. On the plains of Alberta in the early days they referred to them all as ranches, but that word has now been replaced by 'farms.' The word ' farm ' is not comprehensive enough to cover ' ranch.' I think that the word ranch is used in practice very much in Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to make a suggestion that in defining farmer we say that farmer includes rancher.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would cover it.


John Howard Sinclair: And allow the farmer
to borrow on his grain and cattle.


Mr BENNETT:: Of course we do not
undertake to define farmer, we simply say that it includes certain things. I said I do not believe that registration would serve any useful purpose. Neither the farmer nor the banker desires to have registration of chattel mortgages or securities of this character.


Mr PUGSLEY:: What about the trader
who sells to the farmer, not knowing of the existence of such a lien?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is no more than the ordinary banker's lien is to-day. The trader has no knowledge of it, it is a statutory development of a common law principle! A farmer has certificates of ownership of his property. He goes in to the bank, he has no grain or stock on his property and he says to the banker: I desire to discount a note for $1,000; I have nothing to give you as security under section 88 of the Bank Act, but I hand you my certificates of title to my real estate. That is thereby constituted a banker's lien.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: I would rather think that is' an attempt to lend money on the security cf real estate.
Mr. BENNETT (Calsarv'


Richard Bedford Bennett: In this case there
would be no negotiation at the time, but the bank would take it subsequently or even at the time as collateral security.


Mr. PARDEE:: He could not make a
loan of that kind from the bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The banks do not take that at the time of negotiating, but they take it right afterwards as collateral security for the advance that has been made.


William Pugsley: I thought my hon.
friend meant that they were taken simultaneously.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That might be under
the Torrens title, but in our province we would not refer to the certificate of title but would go to the registry office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only thing is that
the man in the maritime provinces who would attempt to make a sale under those conditions would be liable under the criminal code.


Wilfrid Laurier: Some one is
punished anyway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. In the case of a
loan on cattle borrower executes the pledge. Form C, when he makes the loan. There must be a contemporaneous pledging.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: On
personal property there are no certificates of title, threshed grain, cattle and horses in Ontario.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is not in our
province except in the case of a brand.


William Thomas White: I do not think I have
quite made myself clear. This matter has been discussed, I think, on previous occasions in this House. I think it was discussed in 1891 and in 1901, and the conclusion was come to, I believe, that it was not desirable legislation that the ordinary farmer engaged in mixed farming should be allowed to give to the bank a lien upon the security of his live stock. The committee, I believe, affirmed that view, that, so far as the farmer in Nova Scotia or Ontario was concerned, it would not be good legislation that he should give to the banks what is in effect a chattel mortgage upon his live stock. The intention of this sub-section 3 of section 88 was, as I pointed out before, to meet the case of the wholesale cattle raiser. The words ' wholesale cattle raiser ' are not a very accurate definition of the class of people engaged in the raising of cattle to whom the banks have made loans in the past upon receiving a banker's lien, and, therefore, the word * rancher ' was intended to represent the description of the person engaged in cattle raising on a wholesale scale, to whom the bankers had in the past made
10:29

advances upon a lien upon their cattle. There are two matters to be considered, first is it advisable to give the bankers the privilege of taking, upon the security of their cattle, a lien from the farmers all over Canada. On more than one occasion this House has decided that that would not be good legislation, having regard to the principle I referred to a little while ago that the banks should look to the standing and reputation of the firm or person to whom it lends, and not to a chattel mortgage security. If the committee is of opinion that we should depart from that principle and give to the bank the privilege of taking a lien from mixed farmers upon the security of their live stock, then the question of registration becomes a very live and important question.


Wilfrid Laurier: It seems to be conceded now that the banks should have a lien upon the farmer's property.


William Thomas White: So far as threshed grain
is concerned, they took that view, but so far as live stock is concerned, they took the view I am now giving. My right hon. friend has probably a different definition of ' rancher ' from what the committee had. The committee had the idea that a' rancher meant a person engaged in the wholesale raising of cattle, and not in mixed farming. There are two things to be considered, first whether it is desirable to give mixed farmers all over Canada the right to give to the bank a lien upon their live stock. If that is not advisable, I submit that we should not put in the word ' farmer ' in sub-section 3. It may be necessary to define the word * rancher ' so as to cover the class of people I have mentioned, and as it is a matter of very great importance I would suggest that we have a pronouncement upon the question of registration of the security, and by the time this comes up again I will see if it is possible to give any definition of * rancher,' or otherwise to describe the class of person we have in mind.


Wilfrid Laurier: If I understand my hon. friend correctly, he said he agreed to the farmer giving security upon his threshed grain.


William Thomas White: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: But he will
not allow the same man to give security upon his cattle?


William Thomas White: That is my view.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I ask the reason why?


William Thomas White: The reason is this:	we
have given the farmer the right to give security upon his threshed grain under a banker's lien by reason of the exceptional
considerations which prevail in the West in respect to transportation and storage. These considerations, which make that desirable, do not arise in the case of cattle or live stock, and we have to have regard to the situation existing in other provinces, to the rights of creditors, and to the other matters that I have mentioned. As to the inadvisability of banks becoming really chattel mortgagees on live stock of the farmers all over the country, 1 am aware that the argument has been put forward very strongly upon the occasion of the two last revisions of the Act, and the sense of the Llouse in the past has been against it, for the reasons I have given.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I agree to a very large
extern with my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), in regard to the difficulties as to the definition of a rancher and farmer which surround this section. I think that in passing the Act in this way you are leaving yourselves open to create a good deal of trouble for the banks and the borrowers. It is a matter which will bring about a considerable amount of litigation. The whole question seems to centre round whether you will or will not have registration. The theory is advanced by the Minister of Finance that registration means . that the banks will not lend money as freely and that it will entail consideraoie expense to the farmer. With neither of these propositions am I prepared to agree. I cannot understand why the bank should refuse to lend money on something that is to them an absolute security. That security will De enhanced by reason of the registration, and as for the expense, it would be merely nominal. What I wished to refer to particularly, however, was that you are using the argument that the banks should have a secret lien while by this section you are not giving it to them, because no time is provided for registration. If the right is to be given to the bank to lend upon this class of security, surely, as in the chattel mortgage Acts, there ought to be a time given for registration of the security upon which the money is advanced.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is only
valid when registered.


William Pugsley: It might be held back
as a secret sale.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: If you are going to put
through a section of this kind, you certainly ought to have a time limit within which the security ought to be registered or filed. It seems to me to be the gist of the whole section. You are endeavouring to do something, and you are not doing it at all.


Hugh Clark: I have not
yet been convinced, and I doubt if the Committee on Banking and Commerce were convinced, that this is very good legislation to start with. I doubt the advisability of giving bankers the power to lend

money to farmers or ranchers on the security of horses or cattle, but if we are going to do so, I do not see why the lien should not be registered for the reason advanced by my hon. friend for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) that the tradesmen and any other men who 'have 'been giving credit to the farmer in the past ought to be protected just as well as the banks. They tell us that the banks lend money to their customers on personal credit, that a man can go into a bank and get what money he requires if his face is a letter of credit. He does not need to give any secret lien. Therefore this legislation must be advanced for the purpose of assisting the man who has not that personal credit, who is either dishonest, or so hard up that he is liable to become dishonest. It opens up an entirely new avenue for fraud. I am opposed to these two sections for that reason. I know it was asked for by the western farmers, but the committee had at least one memorial, in which the Grain Growers' Association, in the neighbourhood of Saltcoats, Saskatchewan, I think, asked that it should not go into effect. I think that we would perhaps save ourselves a good deal of the trouble of wrangling over these smaller points if we were to decide at first whether it was possible to put this legislation into effect at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I agree with my hon.
friend from North Bruce (Mr. Clark), although I cannot see any reason why a bank should not be allowed to lend money to a farmer on his threshed grain or on his stock if it wants to do so. The bank, as a rule, does not lend money to the ordinary individual. It requires something else. I know that in large transactions, men who are dealing in large amounts of money, are probably able to go to the bank and get a certain amount of credit themselves, but this legislation is not intended to help that class of borrower. It is the small man, the man who wants $200 or $300 to whom this legislation will apply. In the portion of Canada that I know anything about a man, in order to procure a loan, has to get an endorser. No man can go to the bank and get money unless he is prepared to go around bothering his neighbours or friends in order to find an endorser.


Hugh Clark: It is very
rarely that the banks ask for an endorser.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman
should go down East. In New Brunswick you could not get $25 on your note without an endorser. Talk about getting money without an endorser!


Hugh Clark: I am referring to farmers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They want your wife's
name on the note also, especially if they suspect that she has a little money in the savings bank. It may be all right in Ontario but it will not be down East. I see Mr. CLARK (North Bruce).
no reason why banks should not be allowed to advance money to a farmer on his cattle or his grain. If they are allowed to do that then I submit that they have no right to do it by a secret lien or mortgage. They make that loan the same as I would or the same as any man who loans money. If I want to take a lien upon a man's horse I must record it within a certain number of days or hours. It would be all right between the borrower and myself but as between the borrower and an innocent third party, or a judgment creditor, the lien is of no value unless it is recorded. I do not see Why a bank should be placed in any different position from that of any other lender. If a bank lends money and takes that security it should be required to record that evidence of title the same as any other lender would be. However, I do not think this will' cut any figure one way or the other. I doubt very much if the banks will loan money to a farmer on his threshed grain or his live stock. I cannot see any objection to compelling them to record their evidence of title. I would not find any fault if the whole thing were eliminated. I do not think it would do the farmers of the West any good, but I believe that it is only holding out to the people of the West a false hope that it will be a benefit to them when it will not be because the banks will come back to the personal security and if they are afraid of the personal security they will ask for an endorser. I do not care whether you elminate the whole thing or not.


Mr. STEVENS:: Would you place the
farmer in a different position from that occupied by the wholesale merchant? I understand that it is not necessary to register the security of the wholesale merchant.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think that a
wholesale merchant will come under the provision of section 88. It is applicable rather to the manufacturer of lumber and people of that class. Then, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett), if it is extended to the Wholesale dealer in live stock you encounter a difficulty in interpreting the words ' farmer ' and ' rancher.' That is the difficulty which seems to have led to this discussion. I quite agree with the hon. member for Calgary as to the difficulty of intelligently interpreting the words * farmer ' or ' rancher.' I do not believe it is possible. The hon. gentleman gave a splendid illustration. He took a man living in Red ' Deer, my friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who would be classified as a farmer. Another gentleman living alongside of him does not have as much stock as he has yet he would be classified as a rancher. There you see the difficulty. I strongly contend that it will be a great mistake if you leave section 88 as it is; it will lead to great difficulty if you do not strike out the word

' rancher.' I believe you ought give this privilege to the farmer as well as to the rancher and I would not feel very much aggrieved if you took it away from both.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to put on record my proposal so that if the minister redrafts the section he will have the benefit of it. Assuming that this committee is in favour of retaining sub-clauses 2 and 3 of section 88, my proposal is that we amend sub-section (G) of the Interpretation Act by adding the words ' or ranch ' so as to make it read:
Farmer, includes the owner, occupier, landlord and tenant of a farm or ranch.
That dispenses with the use of the word ' rancher ' later on. Then I would amend section 88 by striking out sub-clauses 2 and 3 and substituting:
2.	The bank may ilend money to a farmer:
(a) Upon the security of his threshed grain grown upon his farm;
(h) Upon the security of his cattle.
That would make it clear, and we would have no difficulty as between the words * farmer ' and ' rancher.' I agree that if we are to make this concession it ought to be registered. My difficulty is that the registry offcers in the different provinces are provincial officers and it would be quite open to a registry officer if his friend were interested agaist the bank to refuse to accept the document. He would be liable to no penalty if he did refuse. The provinces prescribe regulations as to the indexing and filing of different documents that are required to be registered under provincial law, but these regulations would not necessarily apply to the documents filed by the bank. I suppose we could not provide that such officers .should keep a registry book so that a person going to the bank to search would be able to find out whether a certain farmer did mortgage his grain or his cattle to the hank. I would like to be informed as to how these difficulties may be overcome.


Mr. REID (Minister of Customs):: If a
chattel mortgage were given under the Bank Act in Nova Scotia, could the provincial registrar refuse to record the mortgage?


John Howard Sinclair: We are passing federal legislation and we have no power to compel that officer to receive or register this document at all.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In Ontario, and it
would doubtless be the same in Nova Scotia, a provincial law could not override a Dominion law on banking, and the bank is not obliged to register what otherwise would be a chattel mortgage, because the Dominion Act does not require it to do so. Any other lender but a bank, in doing the same thing and taking a chattel mortgage,
would have to register it within five days. That is where the anomaly comes in.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The committee should strike out the clause altogether or else leave it in and insist upon a proper filing and regisration. It is a very dangerous principle to allow a bank or anybody else to take secret liens or securities to the detriment of others. In the United States there is no such system as .a secret lien under their banking laws.


James Albert Manning Aikins: Would not my hon. friend be satisfied if we struck out sub-clause 3 and left clause 2 without registration? That would give to the farmer of the West the advantage it was intended to give him of raising money on his threshed grain.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would not wish my
opinion to prevail with regard to any condition existing in the West. I am speaking of the conditions in Ontario and as they would affect my own constituents. If clauses 2 and 3 are to remain, I cannot see why the bank should not be allowed to loan, not only upon security of threshed grain upon the farm and to the rancher upon the security of his cattle, but also to the farmer upon the security of his live stock. My amendment which I moved in committee and which was voted down, would include the Ontario farmer, whose money is invested largely in cattle, horses, and hogs; it would give him an opportunity to get a loan from the bank to carry him over the period of marketing his stock. Mr. Powell, who was manager of a bank in Weyburn, deposed that he would lend to no person with a lien to whom he would not loan without a lien; he would lend on the personal character of the borrower. He, with others, was totally opposed to secret liens; he testified that in the interests of the general public the lien should be filed and registered for public notification. In the province of Ontario landlords will be prejudiced by the operation of this lien, because this law would over-ride provincial legislation, which gives the landlord a priority under the Landlords and Tenants Act.
Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax); Are you sure of that?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I argued in the committee that in legislation where the Dominion has undoubted jurisdiction its law would over-ride the law of the province, and it will give the bank priority over the landlord, and Mr. Wallace Nesbitt, counsel for the bankers, agrees with my contention.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would not the effect
be that the lien which we allow the farmer

to give to the bank would be worked out under the laws of the province?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have no power to
interfere with property and civil rights.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, we have, where we have jurisdiction.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Where security is given
in pursuance of Dominion legislation in matters over which we have exclusive jurisdiction, in my opinion there is no doubt that would take priority over a landlord's lien. I would suggest, if we are going to allow this in the Bill, that the lien to the bank should be subject to all the priorities now given under the legislation of the provinces. This committee should stand by the matured deliberation and judgment of the Banking and Commerce Committee, which, after careful consideration of the evidence submitted came to the conclusion that this clause should remain in order to extend the facilities for loaning, but at the same time I believe the lien should be registered so that the public should not be prejudiced by the existence of such lien.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: The western farmer
has been getting considerable advice in this House and out of it to the effect that he should go in for mixed farming. Since this Bill has been introduced in the House, I have had occasion to talk with bankers in western Canada. They think the provision for the farmer should include not only threshed grain but live stock. In the interpretation clause of cattle, hogs are left out. In my part of the country, farmers who go in for mixed farming, go in almost wholly for hog-raising, and raise very few cattle or sheep. I think hogs should be included in order to enable the farmer who goes in for mixed farming to raise money on his hogs. In my part of the country, a rancher is known as a person distinct from a farmer. A rancher is a man engaged absolutely in raising live stock; any hay or grain that he raises is simply for his stock. I have the opinion of bankers that such a provision would be along the right line and would assist farmers by enabling them to borrow money on their live stock.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I would suggest that sub-section 3 of section 88 be amended by striking out the words in line 35, 'to a rancher,' and in the last line, ' his cattle,' and substituting therefor the word ' livestock.' That would make the clause read in this way:
The bank may lend money upon the security of live stock.
Mr. CARVELL.
As regards the matter of registration, I was not a member of the Banking Committee. but I am absolutely in favour of the idea that a lien of this kind should be registered. I would consider it eminently unfair to creditors of a farmer or any man, who might secure a loan from a bank under this Act, that he should do so privately without registration and to the detriment of creditors who had previous claims against him. The clause should stay in with that registration clause added, and some clause should be inserted whereby the registration would be according to the laws of the province in which the registration occurred, with the same safeguard. When I use the word safeguard, it means that, if a man gives a chattel mortgage upon his cattle with intent to defraud his creditors, that mortgage is null and void with regard to the province of Ontario and may be annulled. I think the banks should be in the same position with regard to a chattel mortgage in this or any other province where a loan has been negotiated.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: At first glance, I did
not quite agree with my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) on the question of landlords' rights, but on a moment's reflection I think he is probably correct. If this clause remains as it is, the rights of a landlord will be very seriously jeopardized in the case of a dishonest tenant. In my county, and I suppose in every county in Ontario, there are hundreds of retired farmers who have come to the cities and towns, and who are dependent upon the rentals of their farms which they have retained. If it is possible for a tenant to pledge his grain and stock to a bank and thus deprive, the landlord of the right to distrain in order to collect his rent, it is a most serious matter. A dishonest tenant could realize by loan on his stock or grain, leave the farm and thus leave the landlord in the lurch. He cannot do it now, because the landlord can seize as soon as he sees any evidence that the tenant desires to leave the farm.


William Thomas White: Does my hon. friend see
any objection to loaning to farmers throughout Canada on a lien, whether registered or unregistered?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think registration would help in this case, because if the bank registered a lien, it would come against the landlord. I would rather see the clause struck out.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend has come upon one of the many reasons which have influenced the House in the past to decline to allow the lien to be given in respect of live stock owned by farmers. I desire to point out further for the consideration of the committee that in the province of

Quebec there is no machinery for registration at all. The banks aTe all in favour of getting permission to loan money on live stock owned by farmers, as my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Buchanan) has said. They desire to get all the security they can. If in the province of Quebec the right is given to a farmer to borrow upon his live stock, there can be no provision for registration there, because there a chattel mortgage is not required to be registered and there is no machinery for registration. The result will be that the banks will have liens upon live stock of the farmers of Quebec, possibly to the prejudice of their landlords and other creditors. It is a very difficult question. The view reached was that it would not be good legislation to extend this privilege to farmers all over Canada, although a good many arguments in favour of it might be advanced. The discussion has been a very useful one. Personally I would like the clause to stand over in order to see if it is possible to give such a definition of the wholesale cattle raiser in the West as would get over the difficulty raised by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver). He and others have clearly shown that in the West it is difficult to say who is a farmer and who is a rancher. It is very difficult to give a definition that will make clean-cut the distinction. If the committee will allow the clause to stand over, I shall be glad to give it further consideration and endeavour to reach some satisfactory definition.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was going
to ask my hon. friend what was the meaning of the provision at the end of subsection 9, which says:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply in the province of Quebec.
You can eliminate that provision, not because in the province of Quebec chattel mortgages are not required to be registered, but because chattel mortgages do not exist in that province. The pledge in the province of Quebec to be valid must be accompanied by delivery to the mortgagee. Therefore there is no necessity for this provision. If you say, as it says here, that sub-section 9 shall not apply in the province of Quebec, the consequence will be that the farmer in Quebec will be able to give a secret lien without registration.


William Thomas White: If the farmer is given the privilege, which he is not, as the Bill is drafted.


Wilfrid Laurier: You provide
in sub-section 8 that the farmer can pledge his grain.


William Thomas White: His threshed grain, not his cattle.


Wilfrid Laurier: This pledge to be valid everywhere must be registered except in the province of Quebec. The consequence is that in the province of Quebec the farmer can pledge his grain without registration, and the creditors of the farmer are exposed to loss because they will find a secret lien upon the property of their debtor. That is another difficulty which has not been looked into, and which is very serious indeed.


William Thomas White: My right hon. friend
will recall that when the Bill was first presented to the House there was no provision for registration in any of the provinces. When the committee decided that the lien should be registered then, as there was no machinery in the province of Quebec for effectuating registration, that proviso was inserted, otherwise the liens could not have been taken by the banks in the province of Quebec. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has brought up another difficulty which I discussed before the Banking and Commerce Committee: that is as to whether the Dominion has jurisdiction to compel an official of the provincial government to register, because the offices for the registration of chattel mortgages in the several provinces are provincial. My own view is that the Dominion has such jurisdiction; I think the Dominion can order a certain person to do a certain act, persona designata; therefore I do not think that objection is a valid one. In the case of any one bank it was declared that the Dominion had jurisdiction by reason of the Bank Act coming within the provisions of section 91 of the British North America Act. With regard to the other point raised by my hon. friend with regard to registration in the province of Quebec, it is perfectly clear that as chattel mortgages do not exist in that province, and no machinery for registration has been provided, it will not be possible to carry out the recommendations of the committee as to registration in that province. If the privilege of borrowing upon the security of their live stock is given to mixed farmers all over Ganada, I think that the securities should be registered, but right at the outset are all these difficulties with regard to the granting of this privilege. The first question to be settled- is, it seems to me, having regard to all the questions which have been raised and the considerations which have been mentioned-whether the farmer is. engaged in extensive or in comparatively small and unimportant operations ; whether he has a thousand cattle or but one-whether it is good legislation to give the farmer the right to pledge to the bank his live stock as security for a loan. In coming to a conclusion, regard should be had to the argument advanced by the hon.

member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie)-which I think was a very strong one -that landlords would be prejudiced and would probably take chattel mortgages to protect themselves; that creditors would be prejudiced, and that in the province of Quebec the chattel mortgage is unknown. These are the considerations which seem to me to bear on the question as to whether we shall extend to the farmer the privilege of borrowing upon his live stock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I said that
I thought it was not desirable to compel registration of the security taken by the banks under this section, if it merely provided for the loaning of money upop grain to meet western conditions, and I still adhere to that. I do not think registration would be necessary, or that it would serve any useful purpose. There is clearly a distinction between advances made upon grain and advances made upon cattle. I rise chiefly to make the suggestion to the minister that he take into consideration between now and Monday whether the old clause should not remain in the Bank Act instead of the amendments which were inserted by him when the Bill was presented. Personally I cannot see that they will serve any useful purpose to the citizens of this country; on the contrary they are surrounded by very many difficulties, and I think the minister should give the matter his careful attention and, I hope, come to the conclusion that it would be better to withdraw these amendments altogether.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: This clause, as I understand it, was introduced largely for the benefit of tbe western gram grower. As was stated by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) there is a period of stringency -a period of from thirty to sixty days-between the time the crop is gathered in and the time it can be sold and placed upon the market. I think there was a unanimous desire on the part of the committee to help the western farmer to such an extent that he would not be forced to drop his work before his crop was entirely harvested for the purpose of selling a certain amount of grain to meet immediate liabilities. It was thought, therefore, that if the farmer had the right to borrow money for a certain period of time, say thirty or sixty days, it would make matters easier for him until such time as he could place his grain upon the market to better advantage. Of course this led to further difficulties, which have already been dwelt upon. I quite agree with a good deal of what has been said by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) to the effect that we are perhaps giving rise to as many difficulties with regard to the farmers of the other provinces as we are extending benefits to the farmers of the West. I desire to draw Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
the attention of the committee to the latter part of subsection 2:
The bank may lend money to a farmer upon the security of his threshed grain grown upon the farm.
What is the idea of inserting the words ' grown upon the farm.' If a farmer in Ontario wants to raise money, it is very likely that he will raise it upon grain that has not been grown upon his farm. Suppose for instance, there is a large amount of damaged wheat in the West, and one of the farmers in Ontario, who has a large amount of stock during the season, desires in October or November to buy a carload of damaged grain to feed his stock through the winter. Under this clause, as I understand it, he would be prohibited from getting a loan from the bank on the grain which he considered he had been obliged to buy to carry his stock through the winter. If he is the possessor of grain and has got it in his granary, surely that is all the banker requires. Why should the farmer be obliged to prove that his grain has been grown upon his farm? That applies not only to wheat, but to western corn. Many of our farmeis in Ontario buy a large amount of western corn to feed their hogs and cattle. If there is a time when they are likely to require an advance, it is when they are laying in enough feed to carry their stock through the winter season. I do not think that any useful purpose can be served by these words ' grown upon the farm.' I have not heard the minister refer to them, but it is clear that these words can in no way enhance the bankers security, and are a distinct disadvantage to the farmer if he has been obliged to purchase grain from his neignbour for the purpose of feeding his stock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There would not be much security afforded by that grain if it were eaten by the cattle the next day.


William Foster Cockshutt: The farmer has to
prove that the grain is there or he cannot get the advance. The average farmer in Ontario feeds his grain, whether it is grown upon the farm or whether it is bought. Whether the grain he possesses has been grown upon his own farm or whether it has been purchased from his neighbour or from the grain grower in the West, why should he be debarred from pledging, as security for a loan, grain that has been bought as well as grain that has been grown upon his own farm? I think myself that the difficulty that has been caused through the introduction of these sections counterbalances any good that we will be able to do to the western grain growers. I doubt whether it will be largely taken advantage of and if it is it will lead to complications in other provinces. I do not think the Act would suffer very much jf those two clauses were omitted; but if they remain I do not think

it necessary that the grain should be only grain raised on his own farm.


Mr. DONNELLY:: The clause that appears in the Act at present is especially drafted for western conditions but it is well to remember that with-the exception of the province of Quebec its application i3 general. Our experience in western Ontario is that where a man is engaged in the live stock business he has little or no difficulty in securing a loan from the bank to carry on his business. It is not an uncommon thing for a farmer to grass forty or fifty head of cattle and to ship a carload. In that case he would come under the description of a wholesaler, and in my opinion the amendments as drafted are unnecessary and will lead to considerable trouble.


Frank Oliver: In the afternoon I drew
attention to the definition of cattle in section 2 and asked that whatever might be the intention of the Government there should be a definition of the word ' rancher.' Since we have come to the discussion of section 88 I want to say that as we have now come to the principle of the question I would go a great deal further than I did in the afternoon when we were only discussing the definition. In the afternoon I explained why it was desirable from my point of view that there should be a definition of the intention of the Act, and of its scope. As it stands at present it carries on its face an injustice and a discrimination against the farmers of the part of the West which I represent and which I think, for the credit of the minister and of his legislation, it is desirable should be removed. But on the merits of the question I agree with the hon. member for Brandon wiien he explained the peculiar and special conditions existing in the Western country which makes it very desirable in the interest of the farmer himself in regard to the matter of transportation and in every other way that he should be enabled to realize or partially realize on his grain at the earliest possible date. That being conceded, the condition is entirely different in regard to live stock. The special conditions that prevail with regard to grain do not prevail with regard to livestock; and when the minister sees fit to introduce the provision regarding live stock it must be for reasons other than and different from those which exist in regard to grain. I shall not discuss the propriety or necessity of introducing this provision in regard to live stock, that is .here on the responsibility of the minister and of the Government, and it is to their credit if it is beneficial and it is to the contrary if it is not beneficial.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the
hon. member in favour of the principle of the legislation?


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to express any opinion as to the principle.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think we are entitled to his opinion.


Frank Oliver: I have given my opinion in regard to the grain. In my opinion the principle of the legislation with regard to grain is desirable; the conditions in regard to live stock are entirely different. The same conditions do not exist and I do not express any opinion in regard to live stock, I do not express an opinion in regard to the principle underlying the legislation with respect to live stock. If it is considered by the Government desirable to make provision such as contained in this section in regard to live stock, that provision should be applicable to all live stock and there should not be a distinction between the rancher and the farmer. My views were expressed very clearly by the hon. member for Parry Sound in the amendment which he proposed, as it struck me that that would be a satisfactory expression of the idea if it is intended to be adhered to. I wish to strongly emphasize my objection to the principle that has been expressed by the minister of drawing a distinction between the rancher and the farmer. He admits himself that such a distinction is difficult to draw in words. I must say that it is still more difficult to draw in actual facts. There is no reason, so far as I can see, from any point of view why there should be a distinction and there are many reasons why there should not. If there is any advantage in the permission to the banks to advance money in regard to live stock, from every point of view the mixed farmer of the Northwest is entitled to that advantage. He is the man who can give the banks the best security and the sort of farming that he is carrying on is entitled to the greatest encouragement at the hands of this Parliament. There is no interest that can possibly suffer, so far as I can see, by giving to him that advantage if it is to be given to anybody in regard to live stock.
As to registration, I would say that in regard to advances on grain it is quite possible that the conditions are such as have been suggested by the hon. member for Brandon, that the security taken on grain would not, in the public interest, require to be registered. On the other hand, I would say that undoubtedly if there is to be a security taken on live stock that security should be registered. I think it would be a fair suggestion to make. the lien without registration of grain, and with registration of live stock, as suggested by the hon. member for Parry Sound.


William Thomas White: If granted at all.


Frank Oliver: I am not offering any suggestion on that point. I understand there are good reasons why it should be granted. There may be reasons against it being granted, but I am not familiar with them. The same reasons do not exist in regard to cattle, as in regard to grain.


William Thomas White: We will consider it at
the next session of the committee. I am afraid we shall not be able to make further progress to-night on account of the absence of many hon. members who took a keen interest in these matters in the Committee on Banking and Commerce. I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
The following sections stand: 2, 43, 54, 55, 56, 56a, 76, 77, 88, 91, 93, 94, 99, 112, 117, 146.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, House adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

Monday, May 19, 1913.