regularities in connection with the pay- hesitate to give employment to that perments on these stock subscriptions. That would have seemed to have settled it, as far as giving the certificate was concerned, but much to the regret of the banking community, the certificate was granted. It was felt that the result would be disastrous, and that the bank would have to suffer the stigma of another bank failure in Canada. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-Why did the Banking and Commerce Committees of the Senate and House of Commons extend the charter to that bank? Some hon. GENTLEMEN-Order, order. The SPEAKER-The hon. gentleman is not in order. He has no right to interrupt a member addressing the House. If he wants to put a question, let him stand up and ask permission. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-It is simply an interjection. If the hon. senator does not know the difference I cannot help it. The SPEAKER-Order. Hon. Mr. MASON-It was felt that the Government's attention having been drawn to these irregularities, they would naturally inquire as to the antecedents of the proposed general manager. If that had been done in the proper quarters the charter woud not have been granted; I feel convinced of that. I know that this gentleman had applied for a position in another bank as a manager of one of the branches. The general manager of the bank in question wrote to the former general manager about Mr. Travers and received such a report that he did not feel justified in employing him. I admit, of course, that the circumstances of this application for relief are very exceptional, and the case is very exceptional. When a certificate is granted by the Treasury Department for the organization of a bank, the unthinking public, which I think form the majority of the public, do not question very closely the antecedents of those in charge of a bank, particularly if it is a branch in a small town. They see the office open there, and an engaging young man as manager, and they think it is a safe place to put their money. They feel I am sure, that with the backing of the Government certificate that their money is safe, I would like to institute a comparison; if any hon. gentleman in this House had a position of trust in his gift, or required some trustworthy person in his business, and that this trustworthy person was recommended by a friend in whom he had confidence, he would not son. But if he had found later that he had been deceived, that his friend had recommended a person unworthy of the trust, and that he had suffered serious loss in consequence, he would feel that his friend was morally indebted to him and morally bound to make good the loss. That is the idea that prevails in connection with this Bill, and had the Government taken what an ordinary business man would consider have had a charter. I am satisfied of that, ordinary precautions, that bank would never and the Government failing in their duty, seem to me to be responsible for the loss these innocent depositors have suffered. Taking that view, it is my intention to vote for the Bill. Hon. Mr. TAYLOR-I must express my high regard for the hon. gentleman for Grandville (Hon. Mr. Choquette) for the expression that he made in reference to a departed brother in the person of the late Beattie Nesbitt. He prayed that his soul might be in a good place. I am glad to hear my hon. friend use that expression. Hon. Mr. CHOQUETTE-I hope to meet him there. Hon. Mr. TAYLOR-It shows that at least there is going to be a good feeling. I feel it my duty to say a few words for several reasons: first, because I spoke and voted when a member of the other House in favour of justice being done to the depositors of the Farmers Bank; we had two branches of that bank in Leeds county, and many persons, widows and poor people had placed their all in that bank. For that reason I feel it to be my duty to support as strongly as I can the Bill now before the House granting simple justice, because I feel the late Government made a mistake in granting the certificate to allow that bank to do business. Had they not done so, these people would not have lost their all-many of them. In the next place the junior member for Halifax in the House of Commons, Mr. McLean, stated that a gentleman who had been a member of the House of Commons but who now sat in the Senate had spoken in the Commons and voted in favour of the Farmers' Bank, but was now canvassing in the Senate to have the Bill defeated. He mentioned no name but said he would give the name to the member who contradicted it in the House of Commons, if that member came to him privately. I met Mr. McLean in the corridor one day and he said I referred to you the other night' but there was an explanation made, and he accepted it. However the rumour has gone through the Senate and the House of Commons that I was canvassing against this Bill. Now I challenge any member on either side of the House to make that statement. I supported the Bill in the House of Commons and I intend to support it here. I do not intend to play double, but there are some gentlemen in the House of Commons who do, and I have had placed in my hands several copies of letters that have been sent out to people who suffered by the bank failure, promising their support, and when the vote came around they voted against it in the other House. There was a Mrs. Janet Suitter, of Millbank, Ontario, who lost money in the Farmers' Bank failure, and she wrote to the leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, on January 10, 1913, and I have the answer of Sir Wilfrid here which reads as follows: The letter makes no reference to the Chas. Murphy. Mr. Charles Murphy voted, or rather pair Farmers' Bank; it is a political letter, but ed, which is the same thing, against the Bill it is in answer to a letter that she wrote respecting it. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-That is not legal evidence. in the other House. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-What does that all mean? Hon. Mr. TAYLOR-Here is another letter dated House of Commons, Ottawa, 29-4Hon. Mr. TAYLOR-Will the hon. gentle-13-that is the 29th of April of last year. man hold his peace? Hon. Mr. CLORAN-From whom is that Hon. Mr. TAYLOR-None of your busi ness. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-I rise to a point of letter? order. The hon. gentleman is reciting a document which has no connection with the subject under debate, and he is trying to connect the leader of the Opposition with that document and this debate, as to the ruling of the Speaker. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-I rise to a point of order. Here is a gentleman reading a letter and he tells us that the Senate has no right to know where the letter comes from, and Farmers' Bank. A good many of the depoto whom it was addressed. sitors were labouring men who put their The SPEAKER-I suppose if he reads the money in the bank, not for investment or letter he will give the signature. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-I want to know to whom it is addressed. It is most unparliamentary to say that it is not the business of the House to know. The SPEAKER-In some of the letters, the address is at the head, and in some at the foot of the letter. Not having seen the letter I cannot say whether the name is at the head or at the foot. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-That is hair splitting. lows: speculation but for safe keeping. Many of small pittance five or six hundred dolthem were people who had retired on a very lars. The average loss is about $1,700. In a district where business is carried on, you extensively will find as large an amount deposited by one concern as the entire deposits of the seven thousand depositors in this matter amounted to. I shall not deal with this question from a political point of view; there have been a little to much politics brought into it, and I am not going to charge it all to one side or the other. I cannot see where the leader of this House or any one else can find in the report of the commissioner one word of fault found with the manner in wich Mr. Fielding and the Treasury Board granted the certificate to that bank. The commissioner entirely exonerates him. It has been said that the manager of the Bankers Association wrote to Mr. Fielding asking if he could not withdraw the certificate, but the commissioner says that the Finance Minister could not, at that time, withdraw There were not as many losses in Brockville riding as in Leeds, although there were it. We have heard a good deal of the warnquite a few in the former, several widows having the Finance Minister got from Mr. ing been victims of the failure. I have written House of Commons, A. L. Minthorne, Esq., Ottawa, 29/4/13. Oakwood, Ont. Dear Sir,-In reply to yours of the 28th April, the Government has been spoken to two or three times about this Farmers Bank matter and will be again, you can rest assured. I do not think the opposition would place any material objections in the way except that some of them, I think, are probably losers in some other bank troubles and might insist on the Government paying their losses as well. several of these that I would not put a straw in the way of their getting their money, but rather take the view that the Government ought to keep their pledges. Yours truly, Geo. P. Graham. Now, all these gentlemen are paired against the Bill, though they wrote these people that they would not throw a straw in the way of its passage. I hope there is not a member of this House who will do a thing to prevent these people, who deposited their money in the Farmers' Bank because they thought the Government stood behind the bank, from getting their losses recouped. I hope every hon. gentleman who takes that view-and we all ought to will do what he can to have it passed. I have no sympathy with the shareholders, because they took their chances, but the depositors who are suffering ought to be recouped. McCarthy who was solicitor for some people who had subscribed for shares. He afterwards withdrew it, and said that his clients were satisfied. Reference had been made to warnings the minister received from the member for Halton, and from Sir Edmund Osler, member for one of the Toronto seats. If the commissioners' report condemns any one for allowing that charter to be granted, it is Mr. Henderson and Sir Edmund Osler, and I challenge any one to deny that statement. It is there in black and white, where Sir William Meredith says it was unfortunate that these men, who were members of Parliament, did not rise in their places in Parliament and give the information that they were whispering to Mr. Fielding and others. They were not only members of Parliament, but they were members of the Committee on Banking and Commerce. If Hon. Mr. McHUGH-I have listened they had information that the bank was with considerable interest to the discussion being established by dishonest men and by on this Bill, and I regard it as a matter fraud, why did they not give that informavery largely of finance, and not one of great tion to the committee? If they had done public concern. It is, however, of very so, I guarantee, as one who sat for some deep interest to nearly seven thousand peo-years in Parliament, that the charter would ple whose money was deposited in the never have been reported from the Com Hon. Mr. DAVID-Although much may be said against the present Bill, and although very strong arguments have been brought against it, I consider that the managers of the bank were mainly responsible for the loss sustained by the depositors. But I take it also that the late Government was responsible to a certain extent. I am convinced that the depositors in the Farmers Bank were induced by this certificate, which was issued by the Treasury Board, to put confidence in that bank. And that is the principal reason why I shall vote against the six months' hoist, and in favour of the Bill. If we had to do with capitalists, or with business men who were acquainted with the law, and knew the result of their doings, I would be less inclined to vote for such a Bill, but we have to do with poor people in general, poor farmers who were naturally inclined to think that when the Treasury Board issued a certificate in favour the promoters had done what the law reof that bank, they would not do so unless quired. Some hon. GENTLEMEN-Hear, hear. mittee on Banking and Commerce. There limb. They raise the rope a little, and again are some 6,840 depositors who lost money drop a little, from year to year. Give them through the failure of that bank. Some of their money and let them go. them are old people and when the first blow came some went to premature graves, some to the house of refuge, and others to the asylum. It was a hard blow to these people when they found their money gone. The weaker ones, as I say, fell at the first blow; others came to the Government and asked to be recouped. If this is a bad Bill, the Senate is not responsible for it; the Premier and Finance Minister are responsible. They promised the depositors that they would give this matter due consideration, and then held them over for a year. These losers lived in the hope that something would be done at the next session, because they had the promise of the Government that a Bill would be introduced for their release. Their hopes were raised only to be disappointed; the Bill was not introduced. Then the Government said, we will bring in the Bill next session,' and that is how it comes I for one shall not by my before us now. vote keep these people leading a living death. My voice is for recouping them for the losses they have sustained. I shall not leave it in the power of anybody to promise these poor people that something will be done next session, when the Government hope to have greater control of this House than they have now. I shall vote for the measure before us, and in doing so, shall not consider myself as condemning Mr. Fielding. The hon. member from Halifax (Hon. Mr. Power), asks what is going to be come of our country, if we set a precedent of this kind. We are setting a precedent which, in my opinion, will stop such catastrophies in future. By paying the depositors who lost money through the failure of this bank. we are establishing a precedent which will bring about governmental inspection and Government audit of the banks of this country, and bank failures will not occur when we have proper investigation. It will be impossible then for people who are not familiar with finance, and who believe that the Government is behind every chartered bank, to lose their deposits. I know that at least ninety per cent of the farmers of this country, up to the time that this bank failed, had the belief that, because this was a chartered bank, they could not lose their money; they believed the Government was behind it. I hope to see this matter put out of the way, and not to keep these unfortunate people hanging by a rope over a Hon. Mr. DAVID-Then I think it is an act of justice to vote in favour of this Bill. Some say it would be a bad precedent. Well it would be a bad precedent if we do not do in future what the circumstances require. If other banks come to the same conditions, and if they can show that the depositors of those banks were induced to put their money in a bank by certificate given under the same circumstances, I shall vote to do what I am doing in the present case, in favour of the depositors of other banks. Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-I would like to ask the hon. leader of the Government about how long this bank was in operation? Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-About four years. Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-I shall not take more than a few minutes of the time of the House, after the debate which has taken place on this Bill, if I did not consider this Bill of more than ordinary importance, of more importance than it appears at first sight, I should not speak at all. According to my own judgment the question which arises in connection with this Bill is this: is this Parliament going to adopt a new departure, and a departure which may lead us very far indeed. It will be admitted that this mea sure should not be dealt with as a matter of sympathy. My sympathies, like the sympathies of other members of this House, go out to those who lost their money, but we have other duties to perform here; we have to consider whether the measure which is presented to us commends itself to our judgment. I call your attention to this, that if you apply the relief which is sought to be granted by this Bill you should do the same thing whenever any people in the Canadian community are placed in the same position, and may urge about the same reasons for help. I draw your attention to the fact that this Bill will be a standing invitation to all people who may consider themselves as occupying the same position, to ask the relief of Parliament. Some hon. GENTLEMEN-Hear, hear. Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-Now, we have not only banking institutions, but we have other institutions where this question will arise. We have all the insurance companies. Under the Insurance Act it is incumbent upon the Treasury Board, through the Superintendent of Insurance, to see that before any company can do business of insurance that so much money is deposited for one branch and so much for another branch of the business, and so on. So that you see the field that we are going to open, if we decide as a matter of policy that the Government should come to the rescue of people who may lose their money, whether with banks or insurance companies or other companies, which I might cite, is one that gives a wide vista. Now I take it that Parliament is not ready to assert that there is any duty incumbent upon the Government; otherwise we would be asserting the principle that because an employee of any department of the State may have made a mistake, relief will have to be granted to all people who may claim that they were induced to act because of that mistake. I do not think any hon. gentleman in this House would go as far as that. Now let us deal with this case in a very few words. I shall not take the time going over the findings of hon. Mr. Justice Meredith, which are very clear and very concise, and most of which have been read. I shall refer only to this part of the findings: There is in my judgment no ground for supposing that any improper influence was used to induce the Treasury Board to give a certificate or to induce the Minister of Finance to recommend the granting of it, and the most that can properly be charged against the Department of Finance or the Treasury Board is an error of judgment. An error of judgment! Well, what was that error of judgment? The error of judgment consisted in what? It was in not making a further inquiry when they had the evidence under oath that the formalities required by law had been accomplished. It is true that the Minister of Finance was notified by Mr. McCarthy that there were some irregularities, and what was the nature of the irregularities? Some of the subscribers had been induced to make subscrip. tions on the faith that other subscriptions had been given. This evidence was given to the Finance Department, and the Finance Minister at once acted on that information, and he properly acted on that information. But not only was he given an affidavit that it was not so, but he was notified by the very party who had given it, that the error had been rectified, that the parties who had complained-who did not desire to remain shareholders in the enterprise-had transferred their shares, so to speak, to other parties--because the second letter from Mr. McCarthy amounts to that. No subscriber to that capital stock had the right to withdraw, unless other parties were ready to take their places; and Mr. McCarthy, in saying that the matter had been settled, added that other subscribers had taken the stock. Well, that rectified entirely the position, and I fail to see how it was the duty of the minister to go any further. But we have more than that; we have in the report of Mr. Justice Meredith the statement that the notes which had been given by the subscribers were paid. Most of the notes, he says, were paid, and that is not the cause of the loss at all. In rising I asked the question how long this bank had been in operation, and was told four years. Well, surely it was not that certificate that was the cause of the loss of the deposits. Some hon. GENTLEMEN-Hear, hear. torious in Toronto, and it is claimed to be, Hon. Mr. BEIQUE-And if it were nothat this man Travers was a man unworthy of confidence, surely these parties who have entrusted their deposits or their savings to a man of that kind are the people to blame; surely they would be the parties who committed the greatest negligence, the greatest error of judgment? Mr. Justice Meredith says in express terms that, the loss is not due to the granting of a certificate but is due to the bank's bad administration. He says the certificate was not the cause of the loss, but it was the bad management during a term of some three or four years. Unless we are ready to adopt this Bill as a prin |