Mr. McNIVEN:

Those who have charge of the central mortgage bank, by a very rigid interpretation and application of what is involved in this subsection, might wreck the whole enterprise as far as we in western Canada are concerned.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Is my understanding

correct that before this act can operate in Ontario, provincial legislation will be necessary?

Mr. DUNNING:

I am not prepared to say that; no.

Mr. SPENCE:

I feel diffident about rising to criticize or even make a suggestion in connection with a bill as important as this. But I have listened to other hon. members discuss it, and even the members of the legal profession do not seem to know all about it and do not seem to know whether or not they are in order or whether or not they should discuss some particular point. I should be the last person to oppose any measure that would lower the interest people must pay on mortgages, because for many years I have advocated that interest should be brought down to five per cent. It should have been done long ago; it is overdue, and I am sorry this legislation does not apply to the individual mortgage just as it does to company mortgages.

What I had in mind, however, was that this is a gamble. I am not knocking the proposition, but the government are entering into a gamble here which may cost one or two hundred million dollars. I wonder whether people will have the same confidence in the bonds of Canada if we go into a few more of these gambles, and if they will continue to

Central Mortgage Bank

buy the bonds of this country as willingly as they buy them to-day. I hope this sort of thing will not have any effect on the sale of government bonds, which we have been able to dispose of quite easily. If we go into very many of these propositions, however, where we gamble millions of dollars and take all kinds of chances, I do not know what the result will be. I should like the minister to tell me whether this may impair or endanger the selling of the bonds of Canada.

Mr. DUNNING:

I should be out of order in answering that question, as my hon. friend has been in asking it.

Mr. SPENCE:

We are all out of order, anyway.

Mr. DUNNING:

That question might be better discussed on third reading. I can say, however, that if I believed a measure of this kind would impair the national credit I would not recommend it to my colleagues or to this house.

Mr. SPENCE:

I should not think so, but

people do make mistakes.

Mr. DUNNING:

Surely; and I may make mistakes, but I am sincere in my belief that anything which improves the general credit standing of hundreds of thousands of individuals cannot help but have a long-run beneficial effect on the credit of the nation.

Mr. SPENCE:

I hope that is true.

Mr. McDONALD (Souris):

Would it not be fairer for this government to pass legislation making five per cent the limit on mortgages of any kind, rather than to pass such a bill as the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act? I could never understand where was the British justice in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.

The CHAIRMAN:

Order.

Mr. DUNNING:

It is a question not of fairness but of practicability. If to-day this parliament passed legislation making five per cent the maximum rate of interest on mortgages everywhere in Canada, it would result in the people of a great many areas being quite unable to borrow on mortgage. It is purely a question of practicability.

Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):

Does this mean that a mortgage already adjusted under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act may be adjusted again under this act?

Mr. DUNNING:

Certainly, but this section provides that the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act will not apply to mortgages which have been adjusted in accordance with this act.

Mr. CLARK (York-Sunbury):

Is it fair that a mortgage which has been adjusted already should be adjusted again?

Mr. DUNNING:

Oh, quite.

Mr. ROBICHAUD:

Is it the purpose or intention to have the regulations published in the Canada Gazette?