Mr. D. D McKENZIE (North Cape Breton):
I am not opposed to the farmer having every opportunity of borrowing money, but I think it is objectionable to create machinery that will enable people to borrow money from a bank and that at the. same time will be different from any other methods of borrowing. If the Minister of Finance will give the banks power to lend money on such security as is mentioned in this resolution, letting them take such security as may be in compliance with the laws of the different provinces in which the banks are doing business, I think he is going as far as he can be expected to go, and I do not see any necessity for going any further. I understand the deficiency in the Bank Act was that banks were not permitted to lend money on security of this character. That being the case, of course, there is a handicap, but this legislation removes that disability and says to the bank: If your directors and managers are willing to lend money on security of this character, you have authority to do so, taking such security as you may deem advisable, subject to the laws of the province in which you are doing business. That is as far as we ought to be asked to go, and we should not be creating any machinery that will put the bank in a superior position to a private individual who may have money to lend. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) speaks of loan sharks. There may be such people, but there are other people who^are honest, who have money to lend and who sometimes are willing to lend it out at a lower rate of interest than the banks. If a man who has a few thousand dollars in his possession is willing to lend it on security of this kind to a farmer, why should a bank have a private lien so that it is put in a superior position to the private individual? I think we are creating unnecessary difficulties. Banks are well equipped to do business. Their directors and managers are the very best men they can secure; they have the best legal advice obtainable, and if they have power to lend money on this class of security, that is all they should ask from this Parliament. They should bear the burden of looking after the security and complying with forms and proceedings just as other businesses in the various provinces must do. I am strenuously opposed to going any further than that. If you place an execu-
tion. in the hands of a sheriff in any province of Canada, that sheriff, if he is a careful man, may go to the registrar and see if there is anything on record against the personal property of the man against whom the execution is issued. If there is nothing against the property, he has no excuse for not levying, but under this legislation, if it goes into force, there may he a private lien, and a man may go through the whole process of the sheriff's .sale and the whole thing may be abortive because the sheriff could not give title, because there was no title in the naan against whom he had the excution. This private lien renders the whole thing abortive. After the wool has gone through the factory and has been cut and tailored into a coat, it may turn out that the bank has a lien on the wool and a man may have his coat taken off his back because he had no title in it. This is most extraordinary legislation. I am not at all claiming that the minister has no power to compel or to ask the officers in the different provinces to file this lien, I will point him to a similar case in a different way; the registrar of deeds is under no greater obligation to the Department of Railways and Canals than he is to the Department of Finance, but if the Department of Railways and Canals wishes to take over land in the province of Nova Scotia, the engineer makes a plan of that land under Dominion legislation; he goes into the office of the registrar of deeds; that officer takes it; and puts it on record, and he in a way vests the title to that land in the Crown as represented by the Department of Railways. That is because the taking over of this land and the filing of the plan are incidental to the building of the railway. If the minister makes taking security on personal property an incident of banking,-and we have absolute power to deal with banking-I see no reason why the same argument would not apply, and when a man presents that authority from the Department of Finance, under legislation passed by this Parliament, I see no reason why an officer of any province would not be obliged to put it on record just as he is obliged to put on record the plan that comes to him from the Department of Railways.
Subtopic: BANK ACT AMENDMENT.
Sub-subtopic: LOANS ON SECURITY OF LIVE STOCK.