Mr. G. P. LAURIN (Jacques-Cartier):

Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I should like to put this question to the Minister of Labour: Has anything been done to help the city of Montreal in matters of relief, pending the checking up of the accounts of the city by the provincial officials?

Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour) :

Mr. Speaker, the position of the city of Montreal has upon a number of occasions

been the subject of some interrogations in this house. I have tried to make it clear that with respect to direct relief and other matters the province of Quebec is functioning under an agreement couched in the same terms as the agreement which prevails with the province of Ontario. During the past year, and particularly in the year 1933, great difficulty seems to have been encountered by the province of Quebec in rendering account to the dominion in order that the share of the dominion under the agreement could be promptly transmitted to the province of Quebec for payment to the city of Montreal. Just what the difficulties are I am not fully prepared to state, but the fact is that the dominion has not been receiving accounts from the province of Quebec.

Undoubtedly one of the difficulties is that the city of Montreal and the auditors of the province of Quebec have not been able to settle upon the proper amounts that are payable to the city of Montreal. The question has become acute, and for some time past this government has had under consideration some method which might be adopted in order to assist the city out of its present troubles. The province of Quebec as late as November last was urged to try to have its accounts submitted to Ottawa without the undue delay which had been experienced for many months prior to that date. But very little headway seems to have been made. The government, therefore, acting through myself, has to-day caused a message to be dispatched to the premier of the province of Quebec, reading as follows:

By reason of the prolonged delay which has occurred in respect of the completion by your provincial officials of the audit of the city of Montreal's relief accounts, and the acute financial difficulties which that city is experiencing by reason of the consequent nonpayment of the dominion and provincial proportions of the same, the dominion on the assumption that there will be approximately $3,000,000 payable by the dominion and an equal amount by the province, under the terms of the agreement, is prepared to make an accountable advance to the province of Quebec of $3,000,000 which with an equal amount from the province in respect of its share would provide the city of Montreal with $0,000,000, and greatly improve its present financial position. The proposed advance by the dominion would be made on the same terms as similar advances have been made to other provinces for similar purposes. At the same time I would again stress the importance of the provincial audit of Montreal's accounts

Bank Act

being carried out with all possible expedition in order that a financial adjustment of the dominion's accountable advance above referred to can be made with the least possible delay.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

There was an amendment before the committee when it rose last night along the line of the amendment which I proposed in the committee on banking and commerce, and which I reintroduced in committee of the whole last night. The amendment was left over at the request of the minister for consideration and discussion. My purpose in moving the amendment is to protect the unpaid vendor as against the claim of the bank. The object is to put the unpaid vendor on the same basis as all the other persons mentioned in this clause, which has in view the protection of the wages, salaries or other remuneration of persons employed by any wholesaler, purchaser, shipper or dealer. I submit the amendment for the consideration of the committee.

Mr. RHODES:

Mr. Chairman, there is

nothing that I feel I can usefully add to what I said in the committee last night. For the reasons then given and given also when the bill was under consideration in the committee on banking and commerce this amendment cannot be accepted.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

Last night's reasons still hold.

Amendment negatived on division.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

Again, Mr. Chairman,

I have an amendment to propose which I also proposed in the committee on banking and commerce, and which is also for the purpose of protecting the unpaid vendor. It will be noted that this section gives the bank a claim prior to that of the unpaid vendor. That is the evil I want to cure, and which I tried to cure with respect to the

74726-240 J

previous clause, but without success. Although this amendment may meet with the same fate it is my duty to propose it. I therefore move that subsection 2 of section 89 be amended by striking out all the words commencing with the word "who" in the fourteenth line thereof down to the end of this subsection and substituting therefor the words " of or in respect of such products, goods, wares and merchandise to the amount remaining unpaid." This amendment goes with the other.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

It certainly will.

Amendment negatived on division.

Mr. CASGRAIN:

I have done my duty,

Mr. Chairman.

Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take up a few minutes-

Mr. CASGRAIN:

He may have more success than I had. He is on the right side.

Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):

I am very fearful of it'. I want to bring to the attention of the committee a matter that did not receive that full consideration that was intended in the committee on banking and commerce. If hon. gentlemen will turn to volume No. 11 of the proceedings of the committee on banking and commerce they will find the following minute on page xi:

Mr. Fraser (Cariboo) proposed that subsection (19) of section eighty-eight be amended by making it possible that the notice of intention provided for by this section shall be registered not in the office of the assistant receiver but at some appointed county office.

It was agreed that the subcommittee should consider the advisability of amending those subsections of section eighty-eight which deal with the registration and cancellation of the notice of intention. The matter of the subrogation of the rights of a guarantor to be considered at the same time.

May I say that the first part of this minute was attended to by the committee but for some reason which I have not had explained the last part of it "the matter of the subrogation of the rights of the guarantor to be considered at the same time," was not dealt with and no report was made by the subcommittee to the committee on banking and commerce. I therefore move the following amendment:

That section eighty-nine of Bill 18 be amended by adding thereto the following subsection :*-

(4) Where payment of a loan made by a bank under the provisions of section eighty-

Bank Act

six or section eighty-eight of this act is guaranteed by a third person and such loan is paid by the guarantor, such guarantor shall be subrogated in and to all of the powers, rights and authority of the bank under the security which the bank holds in respect of the said loan under the provisions of the said sections eighty-six and eighty-eight.

Mr. RHODES:

Mr. Chairman, I have consulted the Department of Justice with respect to this proposed amendment which was moved by my hon. friend in the committee on banking and commerce, and while I have not a final opinion from them they raise the question as to whether it is really competent in a matter having to do with banking to go beyond the bank and attempt to provide by way of legislation with respect to other creditors, having in mind the fact that the question has a bearing upon property and civil rights, which is a matter under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. For that reason alone I feel that it would be unwise to place an amendment in the act which might prove of no avail.

I might point out further that the difficulty which my hon. friend has in mind in moving his amendment has not arisen in practice to any appreciable extent. The section in question has been in force for some fifty years. There was some question bearing upon this point which arose in the decision af the case of the Victor Varnish Company, in re Clare's claim, reported in 16 Ontario law reports, 1908, but that is some twenty-six years ago. Notwithstanding that decision there has not been any demand made upon the department nor any suggestion offered, except that made by the hon. member for Cariboo, that the section should be amended. Under all the circumstances I feel that the amendment should not be entertained.

Mr. RALSTON:

Has the minister any

objection to the spirit of the amendment on its merits?