Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Lunenburg):
I beg to move that the third report of the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries be concurred in.
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):
If I recall correctly, the chief subject of this report is a recommendation for another roving commission. If the report is to be concurred in, I ask that it be concurred in on division.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):
May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to postpone this motion until next sitting?
Mr. SPEAKER:
Of course, this motion was only by unanimous consent, because notice had not been given. Therefore, the matter will stand.
Motion stands.
Bankruptcy Act
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :
I should like to direct the attention of the government to a despatch which appeared in the daily press this week to the effect that the delay in naming Canada's envoy at Washington is due to pressure from the Imperial authorities at London., It is stated that this question will be taken up at the forthcoming Imperial Conference at London, and that an interchange of correspondence has taken place between this government and London with respect to the matter. Is the government in a position to give us any information.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):
The report is wholly
without foundation as respects any one of the features mentioned by my hon. friend.
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MURRAY MacLAREN (St John City):
I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland) to an answer that was given in reply to certain questions of mine. I refer the minister to Hansard at page 2297. The first question I asked was:
Were the services of any men in the employ of the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment at Vancouver, British Columbia, dispensed with on or about March 1st, 1923?
The answer to that question was: "No." I have in my hand a communication stating that the following: Captain R. C. Cruit, Captain W. R. Elewin, M.C., Mr. H. Irvine and Mr. W. A. Beattie were given notice and left the service on February 28. They were all married men with dependents; they were of good overseas' service, and, as I state, they were given notice and left the service on February 28. Would the minister be good enough to look into the matter and ascertain if there has not been some inaccuracy in the answer?
Hon. H. S. BELAND (Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment):
The answer was prepared by officials of the department. I shall be glad to make an inquiry as to the apparent inaccuracy in the answer given.
Sir LOMER GOUIN (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 139, to amend the Bankruptcy Act. He said: When introducing the bill I explained the purposes of the amendments. The main amendment is to change the system as to the trustees. Under the present law we have authorized trustees who are appointed by the Governor in Council. We propose to have the trustees chosen by the creditors. Under the present law the debtor assigns to the trustees. We change this system; we propose that a debtor should assign to the.creditors. He will assign willingly through an official receiver who will be a judicial officer in one or another of the different provinces, or he will be forced to assign on a petition granted by the court. In either case a custodian will be appointed-by the receiver when the assignment is made willingly, and by the judge on petition. The duties of the custodian are to take charge of the assets of the estate and to call the creditors to appoint the trustee. We propose to amend the law for various reasons, among others for the purpose of authorizing the sale of real estate properties that are subject to hypothec in the province of Quebec in the same mode as we now proceed in that province in connection with sales by the sheriff. Another amendment is to restore to the landlords the privileges which they enjoyed, before the law of 1919, under the legislation of the different provinces. We propose also to provide that the debtor shall not be authorized to propose a composition between his creditors and himself until after the assignment; while another authorizes the official receiver to compel the appearance of the debtor before him for examination in regard to the causes of his assignment, the disposal of his property, and so forth. There are minor amendments, consequent upon the main ones which I have just outlined.
Mr. W. A. BOYS (South Simcoe):
In
committee I shall probably have more to say than on the present occasion, but I desire to take the opportunity now of making an observation or two upon the proposed amendments. It seems to me that if what the minister suggests is carried out we might just as well go back to the provincial law as it previously obtained in the various provinces. We were getting along fairly well in Ontario, and the only thing we required was a law providing for discharge, which has been the feature of the bankruptcy law, so far as I know. I hold in my hand the act as originally introduced, together with a mass of amendments; now we have a further bill, with another extensive collection of amendments. If the law is to be changed so frequently and extensively it seems to me
Bankruptcy Act
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (George Etienne Cartier) :
I do not understand that these proposed amendments are intended to interfere with the discharge of the bankrupt. As I understand the matter, the provisions proposed relate more to procedure than to anything else, and I gather from a cursory reading of the bill that the amendments now introduced rather strengthen the act in many respects. The substance of the bill appeals to me as being an improvement, with the possible exception of one' of the clauses, which restores to the landlord all the rights that he had prior to July 1920, when the act was put into force. I am against the provision in that clause, because I fear that as a result of it the landlord will walk away with the entire assets of the estate.
Sir HENRY DRAYTON:
They often do.
Mr. JACOBS:
In one province, which I know most, the province of Quebec, the privilege of the landlord in some cases extends to twenty-eight months' rent. In a large city like Montreal, where rents are pretty high, we can conceive of cases where a landlord not only will rank as a privileged creditor and walk away with everything, but will be a creditor to a considerable extent even after the entire estate is wound up. Let me read section 2,005 of the Civil Code:
The privilege of the lessor extends to all rent that is due or to become due under a lease in authentic form.
But in the case of the liquidation of property abandoned by an insolvent trader who has made an abandonment in favour of his creditors, the lessor s privilege is restricted to twelve months' rent due and the rent to become due during the current year if there remain more than four months to complete the year; if there remain less than four months to complete the year, to the twelve months' rent due and to the rent of the current year and the whole of the following year.
That is to say, the landlord would be entitled to sixteen months' accelerated rent and twelve months' past due rent. Where the trader has been paying $1,500 or $2,000 a month rent, this privilege claim will run up to some $40,000 or $50,000 in some cases, whereas the whole estate might not be worth more than $15,000 or $20,000. I think the
Bankruptcy Act
minister ought to consider this amendment carefully before finally putting it through, because there is no reason so far as I can see why the landlord should be placed in this exceptional position. The creditors are all more or less in the same boat. A merchant who has sold goods to a trader expects to get paid, otherwise he would not have given him credit, and when the trader makes an assignment this class of creditor ought reasonably to get something out of the wreck, instead of the landlord being given the preference and perhaps gobbling up the entire estate. To my mind it is a relic of feudalism that the property-owner should have everything and the ordinary creditor nothing. In that respect I am opposed to the bill.
I am in favour of the other amendments. I am glad that the rights which a married woman had before the passing of this act are to be restored. Under the act of 1920 a married woman who has advanced money to her husband has no claim whatever against his estate until all the creditors are paid in full, which means that her claim is wiped out. We can easily conceive of a husband in trade who upon becoming financially embarrassed would naturally look to his wife to lend him whatever means she possessed. She would be the very first to whom he would apply for assistance. Simply because she is a married woman she gets absolutely nothing, whereas if she happened to be unmarried or living in concubinage with the debtor she would be entitled to her full rights as an ordinary creditor. I think it was a mistake on the part of this parliament to enact such legislation, and I am glad to see that under the proposed amendments this injustice is removed.
Mr. HANSON:
What is the effect of the laws of the province of Quebec with relation to marriage settlements?