Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

should on all occasions try to obliterate the lines which have existed. That should be the policy of this Parliament, and not by sectional legislation try to keep alive these differences which divide us and prevent us from becoming one people in feeling and in fact. But, more than that, there is no portion of this Dominion, perhaps, excluding the North-West Territories, where a measure of this kind will be more acceptable to the people than the Provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. It will relieve the borrowers in those Provinces especially in the rural districts from the grip that the money lenders have upon them; it will relieve them from persons who are in the habit of shaving notes and extorting usurious interest from poor people. I will take the Province of Nova Scotia as an illustration: In Halifax, it is easy to get money at a reasonable rate of interest. Real estate

on Banking and Commerce, comprising some of the leading commercial men of the House. They allowed even the principle of the Bill to be discussed in Committee, which is not usual, and allowed amendments to be moved affecting the principle of the measure, and, as all those amendments were voted down by large majorities, and as it is not desirable that this Bill should be killed by a side wind in the shape of unimportant amendments that would have the effect of sending it down to the other House, and would possibly lead to its being defeated or dropped, I do hope that the House will see fit to adopt the Bill as reported from the Committee on Banking and Commerce, as it stands.

Hon. Mr. DICKEY - I would draw

the hon. gentleman's atten ion to the

provision in the Act that "all costs and expenses rendered neces sary for a loan or transfer shall be defrayed" by the party borrowing.

Hon. Mr. MILLER But all these

costs, by the 8th section, are to be included if the application for the loan is accepted, in the 6 per cent.

[ocr errors]

in Halifax has always a marketable value; but it is not so easy a matter in the rural districts. Halifax capitalists will hardly ever go out of the city, where they have their securities under their eyes every day of the week, they are so enterprising, and therefore the country Hon. Mr. DEVER When I spoke borrowers are thrown altogether upon against this Bill last night I really had the local lenders, and these men, in the not read it through, but after carefully different counties of a sparsely settled examining it I find that it is not of a and not a wealthy Province like Nova nature to injure the Maritime Provinces, Scotia, are few. They have the counties and therefore I shall vote for it. I regret in their grip, and charge what interest, that the last speaker has thought fit to practically, they like. If nothing more make an attack on the money lenders of can be charged openly than seven per New Brunswick, 1 feel it my duty to cent, other means are found to charge say that there is not now and has not more until the interest comes up been for many years in New Brunswick to nine or ten per cent. I say, an excessive rate of interest charged for therefore, in the Lower Provinces money. Any quantity of money can a measure of this kind will be a great be obtained there at 6 per cent. boon to that class of people who desire to During the re-building of St. John, I borrow small sums to improve their am not aware of many cases in which farms. And it is the more so on another money could not be procured at that account: We have not in Nova Scotia | rate. and New Brunswick these loan societies

which exist in Ontario, and which perform the service I have just now mentioned for the rural districts in Ontario and Quebec, and, consequently, our

farmers are unable to borrow money at reasonable rates of interest. Instead of excluding us from this legislation, we in the smaller provinces should be the most anxious to have it. The Bill has been carefully considered by the Committee

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD - If this Bill does not re-enact the Quebec Act, and there is no capital mentioned in this Bill, how can the Company borrow on a capital which does not exist?

[ocr errors][merged small]

Act.

To that extent we approve of the Quebec | to embody this amendment in the Bill? If they say, "We want to buy in the open market," 1 will withdraw the amendment; but I do not want them to profess one thing and do another.

Hon. Mr. MACDONALD

Then it is simply on an indication that we give them power to borrow five times the amount of their capital! Hon. Mr. MILLER

Hon. Mr. HOPE

Yes.

This Company somewhat ostentatiously professes to lend money at a rate not exceeding six per cent., and the hon. gentleman who addressed the House at such great length, endeavored to prove that no higher rate would be exacted for any money loaned by this Company. In order to test the good faith of the Company and the promoters of the Bill on this point, an amendment was moved in Committee binding the Company to six per cent. on all purchases by way of assignment of mortgages, but they opposed it, and said they wished to go into the open market and purchase mortgages at the best rates they could. It seems to me that this Bill just places the Credit Foncier in the same position that lenders occupied in Ontario prior to the repeal of the usury laws, when the rate was limited to 6 per cent. The way it was got over was this: If a man wanted a loan he prepared a mortgage in favor of a friend, and if it was for a year,

say for $100, at six per cent.,

he

lender

sold it to the money for say $90, and, if the lender got it at a discount of 10 per cent., he was getting 16 per cent. for his money. The Credit Foncier has a right to do that to any extent. I do not believe in limiting the rate of interest. I would leave the rate to be fixed in the markets of the world. But these people ostentatiously proclaim that they intend to loan at a rate not exceeding 6 per cent., irrespective of the price that money may command in the market. I think we should prove the sincerity of the Company, and I would suggest an amendment to this effect: To add the following to sub-section 4: "And any securities assigned to such Corporation shall not be taken by way of discount or otherwise to yield a greater rate of interest to said Corporation than six per cent. per annum, and any amount taken in excess of said six per cent. may be recovered back by the assignor in any court of competent jurisdiction." If they are sincere, what objection can they have

Hou. Mr. READ-I look upon this Bill as an exceedingly desirable one, and I do hope that this House will not by the adoption of any amendment prevent its passage this session. It is very desirable in the interest of the masses of the people of the Dominion who are engaged in agricultural pursuits that it should

we

pass. Their returns do not come round every month, and sometimes not for years, and it is a matter of deep importance to them that there should be competition amongst lenders in this country. No better security can be found anywhere than is offered by the lands of Canada. When see French capitalists coming among us, I hope we shall not by any side wind prevent them from investing their money here. I was surprised the other day, in reading a statement of the amount of bullion held in the countries in Europe, to find that France held over £70,000,000 in the banks, while England held only £27,000,000 in banks. France seemed to have more specie than all the rest of the world. They are looking round for investments for this vast amount of money, and there is no safer or better field for them than Canada. I hope nothing will be done by this House to keep them out of the country.

Hon. Mr. DEBOUCHERVILLE I do not intend to re-open this discussion, but I think I may be allowed to answer the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. He has applied the term "side wind" to the amendments which have been proposed in this Bill. What I wished to do was to send the Act passed by the Legislature of Quebec to the Supreme Court. The hon. gentleman says the more of these companies we have the better. I agree with him there, and it is just because this

Franco-Canadien Company by some means got the Legislature of Quebec to enact a clause by which no other French society can be incorporated in that Province that I opposed it and wanted to have it referred to the

[ocr errors]

Supreme Court. It was not a side wind, but merely a motion to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of such a monstrous clause, preventing French capital from coming into the Province of Quebec.

Hon. Mr. FERRIER I may say that in seconding the amendment I did so for no other purpose than to have the opinion of the Supreme Court judges for the security of both lenders and borrowers. When it was made clear to me yesterday that the Supreme Court could not take up the reference so far as the Quebec Legislature was concerned I had nothing more to say on the subject. I do not want, however, to have a wrong impression created in the minds of members of this House that this Company is not going to make more than six per cent. The hon. gentleman who has charge of the Bill stated. what is quite correct - that the Company is free to buy and sell as much as any individual. If a mortgage is offered them at a discount they will receive a proportionately higher rate of interest. The Committee had that fact before them, and the House should understand it too

the Company will get exactly the value of the purchase they make. Their object is to make as much money as they can by

their investments.

sells a mortgage to this Company, and
the view of the hon. Senator from Rich-
mond is correct, there is no doubt it will
very soon be decided in the courts, and,
if his view is correct, the
mortgagor will pay no more than six
I know this view has been
per cent.
held already - that companies who are
limited to a certain rate of interest can-
not, even when they buy a mortgage
with a higher rate of interest, collect
more than the amount to which they are
That is the
limited in their charter.
advice that has been given by eminent
counsel to some of the best companies in
Canada.

What I contend is that I believe the construction I place upon this clause is a proper one. If anybody comes and offers this Company a mortgage bearing seven or eight per cent., they can buy it if they please at any rate agreed upon. I do not believe anybody is going to sell a mortgage at 50 per cent. discount, unless it is a very bad security. This Company proposes to lend money at 6 per cent. on very stringent conditions, stated in the Bill. There are two ways in which it can loan. It must come uuder all the conditions in

the second clause before the Company
can loan at 6 per cent., and then it is
only to a certain amount. This Company
does not expect to buy mortgages in the
way the hon. gentleman supposes. It is
a Company with $5,000,000 capital, and
it is going to do business in a way that
any other company does. It will lend
money at 6 per cent., and it may buy
mortgages or bonds to yield 7 or 8
sub-section 4 of clause 1.
per cent.; that is my interpretation of

Hon. Mr. GIBBS Whilst the hon. gentleman from Montreal has very correctly stated what my opinion was, as I gave it to the Committee, I, at the same time, stated that the promoters of this Bill, one of them being then present in the Committee room, came to me, and said that both he and his partner in Montreal had come to the conclusion Hon. Mr. SCOTT - I think there can that they could only exact six per cent. be no doubt whatever that this Company under any circumstances, even when they can purchase mortgages at any price purchased mortgages, and that the view stipulated between the holder of the they held was the same as that enter-mortgage and the Company itself, and it tained by the hon. Senator from Rich- makes no difference whether that mortgage bears six, or seven, or eight per cent. The question as to their power to enact more than six per cent. on such mortgages is one that I am not prepared at this moment to answer. It will be admitted that in construing the statutes it is an invariable rule, where a subsequent clause in any way conflicts with the preceding clauses, the subsequent section prevails. The Company are given a

mond.

Hon. Mr. DICKEY If that is the case, then what is the harm of adopting the amendment?

Hon. Mr. GIBBS — It is simply this: if it is now law, there is no necessity for the amendment, and another thing, the object of proposing the amendment is to defeat the Bill, and there can be no other object in view. If any person

general power to acquire by assignment, and the clause is perfectly silent about the rate of interest. Now, in the eighth clause, the Corporation may stipulate for, exact, and take six per cent. on all sums loaned.

as

Our

way, approving or confirming the legislation of Quebec I certainly should not give it; but it is because I believe and am thoroughly satisfied that we are doing no more than enacting the provisions in this Bill that I give it my support. It leaves the question whether the Quebec legislation is within the purview of the Quebec Legislature entirely free. legislation does not lend any force to the Quebec law if it is ultra vires, and it would not, in my opinion, affect any court in giving a judgment upon a question arising under it. There would be this effect however if the Quebec legislation was shown to be ultra vires of the powers of the Provincial Legislature, this Act could not be put in operation. I think, myself, that the promoters of this Bill erred very seriously when they did not present a perfect measure to Parliament. It would not have embraced many more clauses, and it would have given to the Bill in full. I do not consider it us that degree defective that it would induce me at this stage to throw out the measure. Had 11. been introduced carlier in the session, I should have taken the ground that the promoters should re-cast the Bill, and then I would have no hesitation in giving it my support. I do not consider the objection strong enough, however, to warrant me in opposing the Bill now, and for that reason I shall give it my sup port.

[ocr errors]

Hon. Mr. DICKEY "Loaned." Hon. Mr. SCOTT-I am disposed at this moment, without expressing any decided opinion, to think that the courts would consider that the Company having acquired a mortgage would stand in the position of the mortgagee, subject to the conditions of the Company's charter, one of those conditions being the restriction of interest to 6 per cent. They are not entitled to buy that mortgage under the terms of their charter, and, there is a clause regulating the rate of interest, I am of opinion that the courts would restrict them, in any proceedings they took to recover that mortgage, to the rate they laid down themselves in their own charter. The words are not simply to stipulate for and exact but to "take." The word "take" is used in the large sense there what they may take is interest on mortgages at six per cent. The point is not one of very great significance or importance, be cause I find under the provisions of this charter they are compelled to take the principal money whenever the borrower wishes to repay it, by charging three months' interest, and if it is found that they are charging a higher rate than six per cent. the position of the mortgagor is improved in this way that whereas under ordinary mortgages a party having given a mortgage to run for ten or fifteen years is precluded from paying it off until the expiration of the term, under this Act the mortgagor can pay it off at any time, if he can get better terms elsewhere. Now, I maintain that is a safety valve. If the Company, after having purchased, say, an eight per cent. mortgage, were to attempt to exact eight per cent., it is perfectly open to the party to pay off the mortgage with interest for three months. Now, in reference to the other point that has been raised by the hon. Senator from Amherst, 1 entirely agree with the observation Chapais, which fell from the hon. Senator from Richmond, and if I supposed for one moment, in giving my vote on the second Dumouchel, reading of this Bill, that I was, in any Ferguson,

The Senate divided on the motion which was agreed to by the following vote:

Aikins,
Alexander,
Archibald,
Armand,
Baillargeon,
Bellerose,
Benson,

CONTENTS:

Hon. Messrs.

Boucherville, de,
Bourinot,
Brouse,
Bureau,

Ferrier,

Gibbs,

Girard,

Glasier,

Guévremont,

Hamilton, (Kingston)
Howlan,

Miller,

Montgomery,

Northwood,

Odell,

Campbell, (Sir Alex.) Pâquet,
Carvell,
Chaffers,

Cornwall,
Dever,

Dickson,

Pelletier,

Pozer,

[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The Bill was then read the third time only repeat that now. I cannot see and passed.

what object there can be in asking the Senate to adopt the report under the cir

CREDIT FONCIER OF THE DOMINION circumstances. It always seems objec

BILL.

THIRD READING.

Hon. Mr. ALLAN, from the Committee on Banking and Commerce, reported Bill (32) "An Act to incorporate the Credit Foncier of the Dominion of Canada," without amendment.

tionable, and it is not dignified, to ask the House to adopt a report which cannot be attended with any action. At the same time I do not oppose the motion. I would suggest to my hon. friend who has charge of the matter that it would perhaps be more in the interest of the claimants not to ask the House to adopt

Hon. Mr. VIDAL moved the third the report. The claim cannot be paid reading of the Bill.

The motion was agreed to and the Bill was read the third time and passed.

without the assent of New Brunswick, and it does not seem to me that the conciliate New Brunswick in any way. course which is now pursued is likely to I think it would be much better to THE BEVERIDGE AND TIBBITS' CLAIM. leave the matter in the hands of the

[blocks in formation]

Hon. Mr. READ In asking the House to adopt the report I have a precedent to guide me. Some years ago 1 was appointed chairman of a Committee of a somewhat similar nature to this. A report was brought in recommending the Government to pay a certain amount of money. The report was adopted and the Government did pay the money.

Hon. Mr. READ moved the adoption of the report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the circumstances of a debt alleged to devolve upon the Dominion Government by the British North America Act, and said to be now due to the Hon. Benjamin Beveridge, James Tibbits, and others, but the payment of which is withheld for some cause unknown. He said: The Committee have thoroughly examined. this matter, and have taken a great deal of pains to arrive at a correct conclusion. Hon. Mr READ. I have no doubt The report, which appears in the min- of that. That is a precedent which I utes, is very voluminous. The Com-hope the House will follow. The atopmittee were unanimous in arriving at this conclusion:

"Your Committee, therefore, after careful examination of the whole question, have the honor to report:

"1st. That a balance of £5,404 118. 2d., or $21,618.25, was due by New Brunswick to Canada on the 12th November, 1856.

"2nd. That the said balance has been re

gularly ceded, transferred and assigned to the claimants by the late Province of Canada, viz., the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec, to indemnify them and settle the claims that they held against Canada."

Hon. Mr. SCOTT-I protesting.

tion of the report cannot force the Gov-
ernment to settle the claim, but it will
show that the House, alter careful con-
sideration of the matter,
are satisfied
that if they do not pay it they should.

[blocks in formation]
« iepriekšējāTurpināt »