No, the minister is right. It was in connection with the Bank Act. The Insurance Act was codified in 1910, and this happened in 1912 or 1913. As the minister is dealing with the Insurance law as it refers to insurance companies, I thought it my duty to bring this matter before him. I do not propose an amendment, because if the hon. minister would not accept it it would not carry, but I call attention to the circumstance, and say that matters are getting worse instead of better, although there was a pledge given that this particular condition of things would cease to exist. I know, from talking with members, that this condition of affairs exists to some extent in very many parts of Canada. I do not think it is right for a man occupying the position of manager of the bank, who necessarily has certain direct or indirect control over very many people who do business or get accommodation from the bank, to have the 278i
right to say to them either directly or indirectly, or even by inference: If I give
you the accommodation you require, I shall expect you to give me your insurance. It gives him a very great leverage over the agents of the other insurance companies, and insurance has become a great business in Canada. This is an unjust discrimination. I think the chartered banks of Canada pay their agents pretty good salaries, and if they do not, they should pay salaries large enough so that the agents could get along without depriving other people of a legitimate source of revenue. I think even if there were no cases as extreme as the one to which I have called the minister's attention, the principle is wrong to allow the manager of a bank to carry on an insurance business, and indirectly and surreptitiously take away from other men business which rightly belongs to them.