June 24, 1938 (18th Parliament, 3rd Session)


Thomas Vien



As sponsor of Bill No. 7, at present under study, a good purpose might be served if I summarily gave the committee the genesis of these bills.
The Industrial Loan and Finance, the Discount and Loan and the Central Finance corporations are small loan companies incorporated under the laws of the dominion. Their charters are on our statute books. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat (Mr. Tucker) addressed himself to the subject under study as if we were introducing here a new principle; as if we were raising the rate of interest which, if this bill passes, these small loan companies could charge their borrowers. Nothing is further from the truth. In the first place we are not granting these small loan companies or any money-lender the power to charge an interest of two per cent per month. There is nothing to that effect either in this 'bill or in the general legislation recommended by the standing committee on banking and commerce.
Last year, contradictory decisions were rendered with respect to certain lawsuits, originating in Quebec and Ontario, regarding loans made by small loan companies. My learned and hon. friend quoted a judgment in the Kelly case, in the circuit court, Montreal. I am sorry he did not proceed a little further and quote judgments of superior tribunals. I have the greatest possible respect for the circuit court of the district of Montreal, but that court is limited in its jurisdiction to matters not exceeding $100. It is a tribunal of inferior civil jurisdiction. There is no appeal from its decisions. This shows that, generally speaking, in the province of Quebec, we do not consider matters coming before that court to be of more than trifling importance, not important enough, at least,

to warrant the right of appeal. In a subsequent case, in the Jackson case, which my hon. friend has quoted, and in which the Industrial Loan was interested, in the superior court. Hon. Mr. Justice Casgrain rendered a decision very different from that of the circuit court, in the Kelly case.

Full View