there can be no doubt as to the question of tolls; if we leave it to be settled by an amendment to the general Railway Act, it seems to me that it cannot apply to this Bill as it will be claimed that it has no retroactive effect. The amendment was declared lost on the same division. The Bill was then read the third time, on a division. The House adjourned at 11.20 p.m. THE SENATE. Tuesday, February 15th, 1881. The Speaker took the chair at three p.m. Prayers and routine proceedings. THE PACIFIC RAILWAY BILL. THE ROYAL ASSENT. The SPEAKER informed the House that he had received a communication from the Governor General. "SIR,-I am commanded by the Governor General to inform you that it is His Excellency's intention to proceed to the Senate Chamber to-day at 3.30 p.m. for the purpose of assenting in Her Majesty's name to a certain Bill passed by the Senate and House of Commons. "I have the honor to be, Sir, "Your most obdt. humble servt, "The Honorable "The Speaker of the Senate." The House was adjourned during pleasure, and after some time was resumed. His Excellency the Governor General being seated in the Chair on the Throne, The Speaker commanded the Usher of the Black Rod to proceed to the House of Commons and acquaint that House: "It is His Excellency's pleasure they attend him immediately in this House." Who, being come with their Speaker, The Clerk of the Crown in Chancery read the title of a Bill to be passed as follows: "An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway." To this Bill the Royal assent was pronounced by the Clerk of the House. His Excellency then retired and the House of Commons withdrew. MONTREAL BOARD OF TRADE AND EXCHANGE BILL. AMENDMENTS CONCURRED IN. Hon. Mr. ALLAN, from the Committee on Banking and Commerce, to whom was referred Bill (J) "An Act to incorporate the Montreal Board of Trade and Exchange," reported that they had gone through the said Bill, and had directed him to report the same with an amend ment. The amendment was concurred in. A CORRECTION. Hon. Mr. BULL called attention to the fact that the votes on the Pacific Railway Bill and the amendments offered to it, were very incorrectly published in the press. His own name did not appear in any of them, while an hon. member who had voted against the Bill and for the amendments was made to appear as voting with the Government. A QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Hon. Mr. ALMON rose to a question of privilege. Yesterday, a motion had been introduced by the hon. Senator from Fredericton, and seconded by the hon. member from Cumberland (Mr. Macfarlane) for the appointment of a committee to investigate certain claims; afterwards, both mover and seconder consented to have it withdrawn. He (Dr. that it could only be dropped by the Almon) objected, under the impression unanimous consent of the House, yet, in spite of his objection, the motion was withdrawn. He wished to know whether he was correct in supposing that the rule required the unanimous consent of the House for the withdrawal of a motion. The SPEAKER said that he did not understand the hon. gentleman to press his objection, but, on the contrary, understood him to withdraw it when the 390 Insolvent Act [SENATE.] Amendment Bill. mover and seconder desired to drop the ders it imperative to pay fifty cents on motion. Hon. Mr. ALMON said he had persisted very strongly in his objection, as the hon. gentlemen who were near him could testify. Hon. Mr. DICKEY thought it due to the Speaker to say that the question was put to the House and leave granted by the House to the mover and seconder to withdraw the motion. Hon. Mr. ALMON repeated that his assertion could be substantiated by hon. gentlemen who were sitting near him. INSOLVENT ACT AMENDMENT BILL. SECOND READING. to the dollar, and to re-enact the original clause by which parties will be placed in exactly the same position that they would have been in if the Act of 1877 had not been passed. In compliance with the general opinion of the country, the Insolvent Act was repealed with beneficial effects in many cases, and it will probably be some years before another Insolvent Act will be needed. In the meantime it seems to be a case of very great hardship that honest men, through no fault of their own, should be driven to adopt either one of two courses remain utterly useless to society, or as has occurred in some cases, be driven from the country. While the amendments to the Insolvent Act were pressed upon us for two sessions, and we only yielded at last to the urgency of the other Chamber and passed them, this Bill comes up with a large majority in its favor, seeking to remove the restrictions placed upon these individuals. It is a simple matter, and is one, I think, that will commend itself to the good sense of the House. It can do no harm to anyone, and will relieve honest and industrious men from their difficulties. It will simply relieve those who were drawn into insolvency before the repeal of the Insolvent Act in 1879, and they can only be relieved if the judge thinks they are honest and entitled to a discharge. Hon. Mr. MACFARLANE moved the second reading of Bill (39) "An Act to amend the Insolvent Act of 1875' and amending Acts." He said: This Bill is very short and easily understood. As gentlemen are aware, the Insolvent Act of 1875 contained a clause by which an insolvent on paying 33 cents on the dollar, and satisfying the judge that his proceedings were honest, was entitled to his discharge. By the Act of 1877 that clause (among others) was repealed, and in its stead it was enacted that no insolvent was entitled, under any circumstances, to procure his discharge unless his estate paid fifty cents on the dollar. Subsequently, in 1879, the Insolvency Laws were re- Hon. Mr. DICKEY - I have serious pealed. It left some parties in this un-objections to the passage of this Bill. fortunate position, that, while proceed- The first thing that strikes one on lookings had been taken against them and ing at it is that it proposes not merely their estates had passed into the hands to revive a section of a repealed Act, but of assignees, Parliament stepped in, and to alter the proceedings under the proby repealing the Act left the judges pow- viso contained in that repealing Act. erless to discharge them unless they were My hon. friend who has charge of this able to pay fifty cents on the dollar. Bill has not called the attention of the Cases of very great hardship have conse- House to the provisions of the Act of quently arisen in many parts of the Do- 1877. I may state briefly that the Inminion. Honest, straightforward men, solvent Act of 1875 placed the standard anxious to pay their debts, but who had of persons entitled to a discharge under been forced into insolvency during the that Act at a payment of 33 cents on period of depression, were stripped of the dollar, while the Legislature in its their property and left without the wisdom, in the year 1877, seeing the means of paying anything. Their prop-highly objectionable character of the erties were brought to the hammer when times were not propitious, and in many cases did not realize enough to pay the fifty cents on the dollar. This Bill is to repeal that clause of the Act which ren operation of that Act, thought proper to pass this clause which is proposed to be repealed that is to say the fifteenth section of the Act of 1877. Section 65 was the clause of the Act of 1875, which charge of insolvents, was amended by adding thereto the words: was applicable to the question of dis- | law passed only some nine or ten months ago, and now we are asked to alter that law and to repeal it so far as we can; not only to do that but to revive a section "Provided that the judge shall not grant any discharge unless some one of the follow-under the Act of 1875 which was repealed ing conditions be established by proof, viz :— "1st. That a dividend of not less than 50 cents on unsecured claims has been or will be paid, or "2nd. That such a dividend might have been paid but for the negligence or fraud of the assignees or inspectors, or 3rd. That the insolvent had, previous to insolvency proceedings, mailed to each creditor, an acknowledgment of his insolvency, and no proceedings instituted for one month after mailing such notices, etc." by that Act, because this Bill says: "the 14th and 15th sections of the Act (the 15th section is the one I have just read from the Act of 1877) are hereby repealed and the 58th section of the Insolvent Act of 1875 is hereby revived." That is to say, although Parliament, in its wisdom, only nine or ten months ago―― Hon. Sir. ALEX. CAMPBELLFour years ago - - in 1877. - I re-assert that although Parliament, in its wisdom, only nine months ago, had repealed that section and repealed the whole law, yt we At are asked to revive that section and make it applicable to all proceedings that were before the courts in 1877,1878 and 1879, because this Act goes on to say : Now, there are the three classes under which any insolvent could at that time have applied for his discharge, and I may say in passing it that these sufficiently met the requirements of the case. all events, it was the deliberate judgment of Parliament in 1877 that no insolvent should be discharged unless he complied with one or other of these three provisions. This remained the law of the land until 1880, and every person who be came insolvent in 1877, 1878, 1879 or 1880 until the passage of the Act to which I am about to call the attention of the House, must have complied with the conditions of that law. Then came the law of 1880, and what is that law? That "the Insolvent Act of 1875 and the Acts amending it shall be and are hereby repealed, and no acts repealed by the said Acts or either of them, shall be revived." We propose by this Bill to revive a clause of the Act which has been repealed "provided that all proceedings under the Insolvent Act of 1875, and the amending acts aforesaid, in any case in which the estate of an insolvent has been vested in an official assignee may be continued and completed thereunder." Now, in this Act of 1880 no person could be discharged or could apply for his discharge unless he was prepared to show that he had complied with the provisions of the Aot of 1877; that is to say, that he must show that he could pay 50 cents on the dollar or had complied with the other conditions. It was the deliberate judgment of Parliament that he could do one or other of the two things, to which it is hardly necessary to ask the attention of the House, because it does not enter very much into this question. That was the shall continue to apply to such proceedings, "The provisions of the Acts hereby repealed and to every insolvent affected thereby and to his estates and effects and to all assignees appointed or acting in respect thereof in the same measure as if this Act had not been passed." It is quite clear that this Bill is to the effect that it places parties in any case where proceedings have been taken before the passing of the Act of 1880 in the same position that they would have occupied if they had passed before the year 1877, because it is quite evident from the language of this Bill that although a person between the year 1877 and the year 1880 could only claim the protection of this 58th clause, yet now where, a party has applied, three years after the passage of the Act of 1877, he comes in and is entitled to his discharge, although he has not been able to show that he is in a position to pay that fifty cents. In other words, by an ex-post facto law, we put the party in a position to enable him to claim a discharge in the year 1881 or 1882 which he could not claim in 1880, in 1879, in 1878 or in 1877 after the passing of this law. Is that wise legislation? I say it is personal legislation. It is retroactive legislation of a most odious character, and, therefore, I object to the Bill before. the House. one obdurate creditor refusing to sign a debtor's discharge, although four-fifths of the creditors had agreed to it. Hon. Mr. ALMON-I feel very of The case was Hon. Mr. MACFARLANE · I do not at all think that my hon. friend enters into the spirit of this legislation. I concur with him that there was a fixed determination to repeal the Insolvent Acts. In fact they were swept out of great diffidence in speaking on this existence by force of public opinion. It subject, being neither a lawyer was useless to talk of retaining an nor merchant, but I know a insolvent act. Owing to the peculiar a case in Halifax that will bear out circumstances in which this country was the argument of the hon. gentleman who placed it was well known that numbers has just resumed his seat. of our best and most energetic business that of a gentleman who was doing men were driven into insolvency, and business in Halifax, and whose real estate while honest men were crushed it was was valued at $60,000. When the hard found that knaves and scoundrels were times came on he continued his business, as he throwing their property out of their feeling justified in doing so hands, defrauding their creditors and had so much capital; but he failed, making money. So strong was the feel- and his real estate was sold at auction for ing of the country against a law which $14,000. Now, are we to be told that permitted such proceedings that there this man is to walk the streets of Halifax was a universal demand for its repeal. the remainder of his life without the But while the Legislature was adopting privilege of earning a sixpence for his that course, sympathy was felt for those family and die a beggar? I do not know who were honest, but unfortunate what the opinion of the lawyers is, but debtors. They felt that while they were there seems to be a desire amongst endeavoring to prevent unscrupulous business men that there should be a law men from making bad use of the Act, passed to prevent preferential assignthat they were placing a heavy disability ments. If I were a lawyer, I should conon the honest men who ought to have an sider it my duty to do so, and I am satisinsolvency law to protect them. It is fied that I would receive the thanks of that class we are now seeking to legislate the mercantile community. I have been for. It may be a species of personal told by an hon. gentleman that preferenlegislation; I am glad to say it is, because tial assignments are not allowed in Onit does not extend very far over this tario; but they are allowed in Nova Scocountry under the present improved con- tia, and while legal gentlemen are splitdition of affairs. Still, it will afford pro- ting straws as to the effect of repealed tection to those who deserve it and may laws, they are condemning poor men to take advantage of it if it becomes law; beggary for alifetime, and opposing a but the judge can step in, and will step law that is required by the entire busiin when there is any proof of fraud, and ness community. prohibit a dishonest debtor from getting his discharge. While a great deal of good can result from the passage of this Bill, I cannot see any evil that can arise out of it. The only point I see in my hon. friend's argument is that this Bill is asking Parliament to revive an Act that it abolished last session. But a great change has taken place in the country since that time, and I think the Bill is one that will commend itself to the common sense of the House. I am not personally interested in this legislation, and I am not aware of any individual who has sought it, any more than I have received letters from difierent parts of the country detailing the difficulties under which individuals were laboring through Hon. Mr. BUREAU made a few remarks in French in support of the Bill. He contended that it was a measure that fortunate debtors of their disabilities and was necessary to relieve honest and unallow them to become once more useful members of society. I desire to make Hon. Mr. GIBBSone or two observations upon the Bill which is now before the House, and in reply to some remarks that have fallen from the hon. gentleman from Cumberland (Mr. Dickey). It is quite true, as that hon. gentleman has stated, that it was the deliberate will of Parliament in 1877 that an insolvent debtor should be obliged to pay fifty cents on the dollar before receiving his discharge, unless, under the circumstances enumerated in that Act, he was unable to do so in consequence of mal-appropriation, or the mal-administration of his estate. Now, that Act was passed under peculiar circumstances, and I may be permitted to advert to them for a moment or two, as they bear somewhat on the question. There was a feeling throughout the country that the Insolvent Act was a nullity, to all intents and purposes. It was said that it invited debtors to go into the court and get rid of their responsibilities rather than battle to pay them, and, if possible, overcome the difficulties against which they were then contending. It was originally supposed that this clause in the Act of 1877 would prevent parties from entering so readily into bankruptcy; that they would have to face this barrier that unless their estates were able to realize fifty cents on the dollar, they could not get their discharge, and it would remove the objections which creditors throughout the country were constantly urging against the Insolvent Act. My opinion was at the time, that it might prevent parties who, though their estates were worth seventy-five or one hundred cents on the dollar, from entering the court, fearing that after they had done so (through their estates being badly administered), they would be unable to realise fifty cents on the dollar, and they would find themselves in the position in which many honest men find themselves to-day. I opposed this clause in 1877, but it became law. Debtors continued to go into the court after the passage of the Act, and in 1877, 1878, 1879 and 1880, entered it under a different state of things. Consequently, they were subjected to restrictions which those who had entered the court previously to 1877 were not. Now, the hon. member from Cumberland says "Why should a man going into a court now do so under better circumstances than his predecessors?" I reply, why should a man, since 1877, be required to pay more on the dollar than one who entered the Insolvency Court previous to that year, except that Parliament so willed it? Now, many parties who went into Insolvency during the years 1877, 1878, 1879 and 1880, find themselves unable to pay fifty cents on the dollar. I find them in every part of the country, unable to enter into any business men who are just as honest as any of the gentlemen on the floor of this House, just as honest as the Parliament which legislated them into the position which they are in to-day, not by any act of their own, but on account of the inability of their debtors, it may be, to pay them, or on account of depression in the value of property which, when brought under the hammer, prevented these men - men of ability, integrity, industry and energy-from continuing in their business. Under these circumstances, we find many good business men, who would be useful to the society in which they move, of no value to the country to-day. There is an Act of Parliament which says "Useful though you have been, you shall continue under your disability." Why should a remorseless and relentless creditor have it in his power to say that, because a man has not been able to pay fifty cents on the dollar, he shall not get his discharge, while another party, whose estate might have paid seventy-five cents on the dollar, and be, perhaps, was guilty of fraud when he entered the Court previous to 1877, was enabled to get his discharge on payment of thirty-three cents? I say that there is an anomaly here. The state of things that existed in 1877 has passed away to a considerable extent, I hope never to return, and 1 think many of those who have gone into the Court since 1877 have suffered enough during these four years to satisfy any creditoralways provided that there has been no fraud committed by the debtor in the conduct of his business. I think, that being the case, this hon. House will reopen the door (by passing this Bill) to those who are seeking relief at the hands. of Parliament, and to whom it has been accorded by a very large majority in the other House. I certainly hope that this Chamber will not hesitate to do what it did last night in respect to another Bill |