[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that at the next sitting the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
inat it is expedient to amend The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934, to make provision for the establishment of more than one board of review m any province, to provide that no new proposals shall be filed in a province after a date to be fixed by proclamation, more adequately to define the meaning of the word creditor as used in the act, and to extend the
farmers ^ aCt m tlle CaSe of deceased
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recoinmends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]


Canada-UjS. Trade Agreement

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) a question in reference to the accuracy of a statement appearing in a London paper which reached me last night, to the effect that Canada has submitted an extended list of articles which will be considered for tariff reduction during the negotiations in connection with the revision of the Canada-United States agreement. It goes on to say that the list includes certain specified kinds of grain, fruits, vegetables, fish, furs, paper and pulp boards, cattle and timber. Is that an accurate report, and if so have the industries affected been made aware of the fact?


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I had not known that the question was to be asked. We have information that a list of commodities has been published by the government of the United States upon which they are willing to negotiate. I assume that is the list referred to in the article. While I do not at the moment recollect all the commodities contained in the list or enumerated therein, I presume they are correct.


Grote Stirling: The point of my question is that it is stated that Canada has submitted a list on which Canada is willing to consider reductions in duties, and I want to know if that is correct.


William Daum Euler: No, it is not correct; it is quite inaccurate. Canada submitted a list on which they desire the United States to make concessions, and then the United States submitted a list on which they agree to negotiate. As yet however we have not received any request from the United States for concessions from Canada. I think probably that is the information the bon. member wants.
'	COST OF LIVING



REPRESENTATIONS OF TORONTO HOUSEWIVES' ASSOCIATION-INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) a question, of which he has been given notice. Hon. members from Toronto have been receiving batches of letters from

what is known as the Housewives' Association of Toronto with regard to the high cost of food and all other necessities. Will the minister consider setting up a committee during the life of this parliament to study the question? I know there are limitations under the decisions, and this matter may be considered to be partly under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but we have the provisions of our criminal code with respect to restraint of trade and combines; and the various groups which I have described are holding meetings to fix prices. I do not ask the minister to reply to-day, but perhaps he will take this as notice.
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) was kind enough to give me notice of this question, but as I received it only a short time ago I do not think he will expect a final answer at this time. I shall be very glad to bring this matter of increased prices of commodities, particularly those entering into domestic budgets, to the attention of the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act and inform the hon. member as soon as possible as to what action, if any, can be taken under dominion jurisdiction to deal with the complaints to which he has referred.



THE PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The hon. member for
Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) inquired yesterday as to the distribution of the Parliamentary Guide. He said that he would like to know who gave instructions this year to have the Parliamentary Guide distributed free to members of the house. In answer I may say that the Parliamentary Guide for the year 1938 was purchased from the king's printer on a requisition signed by the Clerk on instructions from Mr. Speaker. Payment will be charged against the item "contingencies" in vote 31 of the House of Commons' estimates for the year 1938. It is usual to purchase the guide when it is published.



CATTLE SHIPMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for
Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) asked a question yesterday with respect to the provision of additional space on boats for the shipment to Great Britain of cattle which were shipped

Corrupt Electoral Practices
from western Canada to Ontario and are now ready for the British market. Her question was as to whether sufficient cargo space would be provided and what steps the government were taking toward that end. The answer is that the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Trade and Commerce have been actively exploring the possibilities of securing additional space for the export of cattle to the United Kingdom. It is expected that further accommodation for export cattle will be made available.



THE UNION JACK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Would the Prime Minister
(Mr. Mackenzie King) be good enough to lay on the table the dispatch from Colonial Secretary Harcourt to the governor general concerning the flag to be flown in Canada, to which reference was made last evening?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT, 1934 SICK MARINERS AND MARINE HOSPITALS-LEVY, COLLECTION AND REMISSION OF SHIP DUES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934 (part V, sick mariners and marine hospitals), in respect to the levy and collection, and in certain cases the remission, of ship dues.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
Mr. POWER:: The bill to be based upon
this resolution will cover minor amendments to the section of the shipping act which deals with sick mariners. One amendment will clarify the definition of the word "voyage" in order that it may be quite clear that vessels shall not be compelled to pay dues twice during the same voyage. The second amendment deals with scows or barges which carry no crews and which hitherto had been charged dues for the benefit of sick mariners. This latter amendment applies particularly to British Columbia.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Power thereupon moved
for leave to introduce Bill No. 23, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CORRUPT ELECTORAL PRACTICES-AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I desire to move an amendment to this motion, but before reading my amendment I have a few remarks to make. The amendment deals with the question of levies or alleged levies made in connection with Canadian National Railways contracts. I hasten to add that I am fully aware of the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) appears to believe that I am rather insistent upon this point, but he may hold that opinion simply because I have never yet had the opportunity of expressing exactly what I have in mind, and that I propose to do now.
I am introducing an amendment at this time because there should be absolutely no delay with reference to so grave a matter. Just picture the situation: an hon. member declares to the house that he knows that certain levies are being made in connection with contracts of the Canadian National Railways. Before making that definite statement he had said that political corruption was never so rampant in Canada, and it was while emphasizing that particular point that he mentioned the Canadian National Railways. To anyone who desires to know the truth, what do these statements mean?
I believe we should refer again to what has been said in this house in order to get a clear picture of the situation. For example, we find this statement:
Never in the history of this country has corruption been so rampant electorally as it is to-day. It is not a case of $5,000 or $10,000 in a constituency, but it is a case of large sums of money for corrupt purposes.
We go on a bit further and we find this:
When an organizer goes to a contractor and says that he wants one or ten per cent, that is a levy and not a contribution. What is more, I say that it threatens the very life of this state at this moment.	.
And further on we find this:
In view of what I know of the character of the methods by which contributions are made -they are no longer contributions but levies-
I pause here to underline the words "no longer." When a member makes a statement
Corrupt Electoral Practices

to the effect that these are no longer contributions it conveys the idea that some time in the past things were different. He is saying that to his knowledge at the present time things are no longer what they used to be-they are no longer contributions, but levies. Further, he says:
I say the time has come when we must provide methods under our electoral law which will not permit such a situation to continue.
Further on we find these words:
A contribution is one thing, but a levy of
a certain per cent is another. The time has come when this must stop because the contractors themselves are complaining.
If this does not imply that the right hon. member who made the statement knows definitely whereof he speaks, then my knowledge of the English language is not as perfect as I think it is. But in order to prove definitely that he really meant a good deal, we find the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) saying to the right hon. leader of the opposition :
The right hon. gentleman has said either too much or too little.
And at that very moment, as all members of the house will recall, there arose an anxious cry throughout the house for the government to set up a committee, and my hon. friend from Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), whom I do not see in his seat at the moment, was the very first one to say: Let us have one "right now." Therefore at that particular time it was definitely understood that there certainly was something very wrong. Let us see what the Minister of Transport said:
Mr. Howe: As one who places a great many contracts for this government I ask the right hon. gentleman to give me a specific instance of a levy.
Mr. Bennett:	I can give the minister as
many as he wants, but I am not going to do it here and now.
Then here is the important part. The leader of the opposition went on to say:
What is more, I know of levies being made in connection with Canadian National Railways contracts.
Further on we have the right hon. leader of the opposition saying this:
It can be threshed out any time you want any committee of this house that you desire to appoint to go into the matter.
It was then that the hon. member for Cochrane interjected, "right now."
It may be all right, Mr. Speaker, to try to hide behind words, but when I heard those statements of the right hon. leader of the opposition-and I have gone over them very carefully-I had the definite impression that

a certain meaning was to be attached to them, and I know definitely what meaning the people of this country are attaching to them. When the right hon. leader of the opposition makes a statement to the effect that ward bosses and political organizers have developed such a boldness'of approach that their demands are no longer simply demands but amount to levies upon contractors, then I think it is time this house looked into the matter.
But the right hon. leader of the opposition did not stop there. He even named the amount of the levies in a case he knew about, and he said they had reached such proportions that even the contractors themselves were complaining. Now, those words of his are perfectly clear. They mean exactly what they would have meant if said outside this house or if printed elsewhere than upon the pages of Hansard.
When I heard those statements, Mr. Speaker,
I did the only thing I thought I should do. I got up in the house and asked the Prime Minister if it was his intention to set up a committee to investigate the charges, and in a prepared statement the Prime Minister replied in this vein. He first reviewed the various statutes of Canada under which charges of alleged political corruption may be investigated. He pointed out that parliament had made statutory provision for the investigation of corrupt practices at elections. There was the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, chapter 50, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, under which, he said,
-any person who has the right to vote may present a petition to a judge of a supreme or superior court, setting out these practices, and, if a deposit of $1,000 is made, an investigation may be held.
That is one method which the Prime Minister said could be followed to investigate the charges of the ri^ht hon. leader of the opposition. There was also a second way, Which the Prime Minister outlined as follows:
Under the Corrupt Practices Act, chapter 51, revised statutes of Canada, 1927, twenty-five or more electors may present a petition to the House of Commons charging the existence of such practices, and, if a deposit of $1,000 is made-
Again I point to the SI,000-
-the house may direct the government to appoint a commission for the purpose of making an inquiry. The commisison in either case must submit a report to parliament and under standing order No. 79 it is provided that if it appears that any person lias been elected by corrupt practices the house will proceed with the utmost severity.
Before pointing out these steps that might be taken the Prime Minister was very careful to remark that as I was a young member of

Corrupt Electoral Practices
the house possibly I was not familiar with the procedure in connection with charges of this kind. In reply I simply state, Mr. Speaker, that it is possible to know everything and yet understand nothing. I am not concerned with questions of law, nor do I propose to permit legalities to stand in my way. I cannot consider that such legal steps must be necessary or even advisable when all that needs to be done is for the house to appoint a committee of inquiry into the charges of the right hon. leader of the opposition.
Furthermore, we already have our standing committee on privileges and elections, and we all know that any question, whether concrete or academic, may be referred to a committee of this house fully empowered to investigate it.
It might also be suggested that the public accounts committee could very well look after this matter. But I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are not now dealing with one particular charge, as was mentioned by the Prime Minister; we are dealing with something which is undermining the political life of our dominion, and the scope of the public accounts committee is too narrow, in my opinion, to enable them to investigate a matter of this kind as it should be investigated.
I would also ask this question: Why should the responsibility be placed upon the public? In order to clear away this stigma on the house it seems to me that the Prime Minister and the government should move heaven and earth to find a method by which these charges can be cleared up. I know the Prime Minister to be a man of honesty and courage. I know him to be a man who does not hesitate to perform the task before him, but sometimes I think he might flinch and be reluctant to take action in a matter of this kind because he sees upon the horizon, perhaps, the shadow of another Beauharnois. I do not know, but if such should be the case, knowing the Prime Minister as well as I do, I am sure he realizes as everybody does that these charges have gone out to the country and to the people who have sent us here, and I think that the Prime Minister will help me out and do all he can to see that the people of Canada are well informed in the matter.
If the Prime Minister sees these threatening shadows upon the horizon, may I say to him that I sympathize with him and will do all I can to help him ward off any blows that may come; but if blows should come, let us face them fearlessly, let them fall where they may. I sympathize with the Prime Minister because he is not only the leader of the Liberal party but also the prime minister of all the people of Canada, and should corrupt practices be found to exist elsewhere than in
the Liberal party I know that will grieve him just as much as if they were found within the ranks of his own party. If we allow these clouds to remain over this house, great will be the people's wonderment; they may begin to ask themselves whether we in this parliament have lost in a cloud of personal fear, the traditions of those who came before us. and they may lose their last glimmer of faith in our political life.
What of the youth of this country? The allegations made by the leader of the opposition have been read right across Canada and have definitely left an impression on the minds of the young people. Are we going to smash the idealism which they possess at the present time, destroy their faith in our institutions and our political life by hushing up these charges and letting them go untried? We should not be doing our duty towards the youth of this country if we permitted such a thing to continue.
I do not intend to discuss this question at great length-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


René-Antoine Pelletier: -because I feel that it is unnecessary. Some hon. members say "hear, hear." Perhaps that is the way they feel about it, but I believe they thereby indicate that they do not fully recognize their duty to those who sent them to this house. They should be more ready to support me in a matter of this kind.
I have a plea to make to-day. I make it on behalf of the people in general but especially on behalf of the youth of this country, and even in the interest of those who have to pay the deficits on the Canadian National Railways. I ask the members of the House of Commons to see to it that the stigma which clouds this house at the present time is swept away. Before we begin to look after somebody else's business affairs we should see to it that our own skirts are kept clean, and make it clear that we know what we are talking about. Therefore I take pleasure in moving the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by leaving out all the words in the motion after "that" and the following be inserted:
This house is of the opinion that charges of levies in connection with Canadian National Railways contracts as well as statements concerning electoral corruption should be referred to a select committee of this house with power to send for papers, persons and witnesses and to take evidence under oath and to report to this house.
Corrupt Electoral Practices


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: On February 1, I spoke against corruption. I pointed out that money and propaganda were used to deceive the people; that consequently the will of those who were struggling to have their desires expressed in and carried out by their governments was being overridden by secret, hidden influences that were apparently drawing their support from the wages of corruption; that red herrings were being dragged across the trail in a great many constituencies throughout this country, with the deliberate object of confusing the people. Among other things, I condemned the People's League for its activity in Alberta last summer. I pointed out with reference to the Lethbridge by-election that, strange as it may seem, the People's League was able to hold together until the election was achieved and that then the leader of the Liberal party immediately withdrew; and everybody who has been thinking at all about that matter has wondered why in the name of common sense the Liberal leader did not give the people of Lethbridge a ghost of a chance and make his statement three days before the election instead of three days after. This thing has offended and disgusted to a greater degree more people than hon. members have any conception of, because the object of the whole intrigue-shall we call it

was so manifest.
I believe that hon. members would be interested in a further development of the Lethbridge by-election. I am going to read to them, in case they have not seen it, a passage from the Lethbridge Herald of February 5, 1938, page 4. It is an editorial, and I am quoting it because it indicates the kind of thing with which we in Alberta are confronted all the time.
Perhaps the advertisements appearing in the Herald on Wednesday setting forth the campaign expenses of Doctor Campbell and A. J. Burnap in the recent by-election tell the true story. Perhaps they are a little misleading. The figures show that Doctor Campbell's committee spent $1,049, while Mr. Burnap's committee spent $237.
The figures of course do not take into account a few rather important facts.
Before I read further may I ask hon. members to weigh quickly in their minds, as I know they can do, the principles which the Lethbridge Herald is laying down in the following words:
They do not show how much it cost the taxpayers of Alberta for Premier Aberhart to make two trips to Lethbridge and spend practically a week here during the campaign.

Are we to assume that the premier of a province is not supposed to go out and do what he can towards enlightening the people as to his point of view?
No doubt Mr. Aberhart was drawing his salary of some $200 a week during that time. No doubt also Hon. Mr. Low, Hon. Mr. Tanner, Hon. Doctor Cross, Hon. Mr. Maynard and Hon. Mr. Manning, who receive from the taxpayers of Alberta some $150 a week, also drew their salaries while they were campaigning here.
I wonder if there is not an intimation there that these gentlemen were not going to do a full year's work because, upon the invitation of the people of Lethbridge, they spent a few days in the constituency.
Mr. Speaker Dawson and Mr. Popil, two members of the legislature, also helped in the campaign. No doubt the expense accounts of the various members of Mr. Aberhart's ministry would show that they had very important business in Lethbridge during the election campaign.
The insinuation is obvious.
We leave it to the people of Alberta to judge whether the social credit campaign in the by-election cost only $237.
In view of such remarks as were made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and in view of such evidence as comes pouring in from a wide variety of directions, to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel, as is indicated by this editorial, must strike any calm mind as being utterly revolting and disgusting.
So much by way of beginning. I should like once more to make it perfectly clear, as I endeavoured to do in my speech on February 1, that I am in favour of election reform. At that time I pointed out the way in which, since 1921, Alberta has grappled with this problem, teaching its citizens to form great people's organizations and contribute the money with which they fought their campaigns; to keep an open account in order to show where the money came from, how much they had, how it was spent and all those matters which are so necessary to keep an electorate informed and satisfied that those who are chosen to represent them are not in the pay of certain big interests. As I also pointed out, it repels us to think that, after all the effort we have put forth, which cost the people of our province an incalculable amount in anxiety, in money that they could ill spare, and in various other ways, the results should be overborne or nullified by people who are assisted from nobody knows where.
I contend that what the leader of the opposition implied is, as regards this country, absolutely true. If democracy is to continue in

Corrupt Electoral Practices
Canada, we must have wholesale, genuine and thoroughgoing repentance on the part of all the leading organizations who stand for election to the governing bodies of this country as well as on the part of all who stand behind the organizations. In what I have to say there is nothing personal and nothing partisan. Both parties must change. I am not deceived into thinking that because the leader of the opposition made the charge, or the intimated charge, the other side is therefore the only one that is blameworthy. I think it is a fairly good illustration of the old saying about the pot calling the kettle black. I believe that the history of both sides going back a few generations in Canada will reveal a sufficient number of unsightly incidents to make each party very reticent about levelling charges against the other. And I say this realizing fully that the present leader of the opposition and the present leader of the government may be completely innocent; indeed, I am inclined to believe that they both are. It is not their desire in any way to condone this sort of thing. What we must do, however, is to make matters different so that they will have a chance to lead the country without such intimations being thrown out and such unsightly things occurring.
It seems to me that there is a giant octopus hidden somewhere, and it is nourished somewhere near the centre of Canada. It extends long, hidden, treacherous tentacles wherever the people begin to get any sort of insight into the truth and any sort of idea of what to do about it. Whenever that happens it quietly and clandestinely strangles any movement which the people have built up. What is the cause of this? There is little use in our railing against the malady unless we seek the cause. Railing against the malady until you learn the cause and endeavour to remove it is as profitable as trying to cure smallpox by painting over or scratching off the pimples. Let us see if we can find out what the cause of the difficulty is.
Personally I believe that the first cause of the trouble is bewilderment. There exists uncertainty among the people of Canada. As a new member of parliament, I judge that it is because of the great amount of misinformation that exists everywhere throughout the country, and the misunderstanding, delusion and prejudice. If any hon. member of this house thinks he can successfully challenge the statement that throughout Canada there exists a great amount of misinformation, misunderstanding, delusion and prejudice, then it will be interesting to hear his defence. On top of all this and aggravating the whole situation there is selfishness everywhere at work
confounding the confusion. Each party is in a false position. I believe it was the hon. member for The Battlefords (Mr. Needham) who last year read a letter that was rather interesting. I am not saying that I entirely agree with what was in that letter, but there was in it a thought-provoking passage. The writer said that the Liberals have been false to true principles while the Conservatives have been true to false principles. The result is that, of course, the country has suffered all these generations.
Inasmuch as I am of Liberal tendencies myself, and inasmuch as I find that in consequence the Liberal members of the house have been and are now, shall I say, more congenial- or perhaps I understand them better-may I talk to the Liberal members for a few minutes. In the first place, are the Liberals to-day false to true principles?


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Horne Blackmore: Let us not answer the question too readily. It is easy to answer it at once; but, are they? Let us discuss the question for a moment or two. Someone asks, who is to judge? Well, before you decide who is to judge, the first thing to do is to fix upon a standard of judgment, and that is what we shall have to do now. In the first place, Liberals for some generations have, at least ostensibly, committed themselves to the principles of laissez-faire.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: By no means.


John Horne Blackmore: If they have not committed themselves to the principles of laissez-faire let us acknowledge it frankly before the people so that everyone will know exactly where the Liberal party does stand. One of the chief reasons for the difficulty that faces us to-day is that no one knows where either party stands, and apparently each party is studiously and assiduously endeavouring to prevent everybody from finding out.
Let us deal with the question of laissez-faire. Laissez-faire involves four fundamental principles: first, free trade; second, free export of capital; third, no interference with contracts between employer and employee, or free association; and fourth, a metallic currency.


Mr. DUNNING:: Whose definition is that?


John Horne Blackmore: What Canada is
waiting to hear is a definition from someone in the Liberal party-a definition other than this. It only illustrates what I said a moment ago. We want to find out where these parties do stand; we want to know what the difference is between the Liberal party of to-day
Corrupt Electoral Practices

and the Liberal party of fifty years ago. When we know that we shall be in a position to judge.
Let us consider to what extent the Liberal party to-day agrees with these four principles and to what extent the principles themselves can be accepted. The first is free trade.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about social
credit?


John Horne Blackmore: Some hon. members
are anxious to hear about social credit. When we turn on the social credit guns they will wish they were not hearing about it. A most interesting statement-interesting not only to all parties in this house but to the people throughout the country-is to be found in the words of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) when, speaking on February 7, he said:
You cannot move to extremes in tariff policy without endangering national unity and without undermining the very foundations of federal public finance.
In other words, the principle of free trade apparently has gone by the board. The next question is, what is going to be the effect on the people when a man who has been an avowed free trader stands up in his place in parliament and makes such a statement? The effect is to destroy the confidence of the people in that man and in the party. There is no escaping that conclusion and the result is great chaos in ideas. For instance, suppose we take the question of sugar. I will discuss that question to illustrate the present chaotic thinking among the parties. Does the Liberal party as a party favour the protection of the sugar industry, or does it not? If it favours the protection of the sugar industry then it favours the protection of other industries; if it does not favour the protection of the sugar industry how can it favour the protection of others? The result is that, since we are not able to give consistent answers to these questions, we are simply in a state of chaos so far as the whole question of protection and free trade is concerned.


Malcolm McLean: What has graft
for the sugar industry to do with the resolution before the house?


John Horne Blackmore: All	these things
indicate why there is graft in Canada. I say that the chief reason for graft is simply the fact that neither party dares to come out before the Canadian people and tell them what it stands for. The result is that they try by every means to get power, regardless

of what they will do when they get in, or what the people think they are going to do, or what the people demand, or what the effect is going to be on the morale of the people. All they are concerned about is getting into power. The chief cause of this result is this very thing I am talking about; consequently I maintain that this is strictly bearing out what I set out to say.
As a liberal party what are we going to say regarding price spreads? Western Canada suffers the gravest disadvantage and disability in that connection, because the people out there sell their produce in an unprotected market, while everything they require in order to produce those goods they have to buy in a protected market. For instance, the manufacturers of agricultural implements during the depression cut their prices only six per cent and limited their production so that they would be able to sell all they produced at a tremendously high price, while the farmer who must have agricultural implements in order to be able to produce his wheat saw his prices forced down and down and down according to world market conditions until he was producing a great deal more wheat than before the depression-or trying to-and therefore forcing the price level further down. Until that situation is faced frankly and dealt with by parliament in an effective way, there can never be justice between east and west. That is just one example. Where does the Liberal party stand on that, and what is it going to do? Nobody knows. The result is a great deal of attempted deception, and this very kind of corruption or attempted corruption which we are discussing to-day.
The next principle of laissez-faire is the export of capital. I am not going into that in any great detail, but I want to show how greatly the people become confused by all this. Capital, we are told, is exported to enable us to export goods, and the idea is that if we have free trade and get plenty of export markets war will be avoided. May I read a passage from a book published recently by a young man who is attracting considerable attention? I am not saying he is an authority, but his writings are observed on the American continent at the present time. His name is Christopher Hollis, and the title of the book is The Breakdown of Money. He uses the following words, which ought to be impressive to all those who are seeking the causes of war. I read at page 93:
The Boer war, the Russo-Japanese war, the troubles in Egypt, on the further African coast, in the Balkans-all were terrible warnings of the inevitable nemesis of a world of exporting capitalists, each convinced that his

Corrupt Electoral Practices
money had a right to find its own level. Nineteen fourteen was the conclusion of the story.
Any party seeking the support of the people of Canada in an election at this time is invariably asked: What stand are you going to take on war? What are you doing about it? Are you committed to participation in a European war? Have you any entangling alliances with Great Britain? Hon. members know that is true. Why is this so? Because people are so completely bewildered with regard to the causes of war they are trying to the best of their ability to understand those causes and avoid them.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the remarks of the hon. member are not being directed to the motion before the house. I would ask the hon. member to confine himself to the motion.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall endeavour to confine my remarks more closely to the subject before the house, although I think I could easily prove that these observations are strictly applicable to the causes of corruption in Canadian politics. But of course I submit to your ruling.
I hope you will permit me, sir, just to mention the other two principles of laissez-faire. One is free contracts, which would simply mean, for example, the abolition of trade unions. The other is metallic currency, which has been the cause of the most deplorable series of disasters which the human race has ever undergone. I shall leave the discussion of these until another time, but they bear most cogently upon the question we are discussing.
Now may I go on to show why these things have brought about this condition of corruption? There prevails a wide diversity of misconception. What do we mean by economic nationalism? Is it good or is it not? Is it the cause of war or is it not? There is general confusion in regard to the attitude on foreign relations. There are doubts as to the value of foreign trade, doubts as to the value of certain industries.
The Conservatives on the other hand are endeavouring to be true to their principles. I have not time to discuss that, and I gather from your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that it would be unwise for me to attempt to do so at any length. But I wish to show that the Conservatives also hardly know where they are at; nobody knows where he is at; nobody knows where either party is at. The result is that to come before the people and educate and train them so that they can think about real
issues instead of red herrings is to-day next to impossible.
The question then is, what are we going to do about it? I say that the cure for all this difficulty is the truth. Are the representatives of the parties that are in this house to-day, are the supporters of parties who are outside the house, willing to let the people know the truth and let the people judge and let the people rule? If the answer is yes, then it is indeed a simple matter for us to remove this outrageous blot of corruption. Let us in this parliament set to work an an earnest attempt to discover the truth; never mind playing politics, but find what is right, what is in the best interests of this country, what are the ideas which are advocated to-day and what are the points in favour of or against each of them. That is what should be done, without any confusing of the issue. Let me say that I greatly appreciate the attitude taken by hon. members of this house; I believe they are inclined to seek and follow the truth, although previous parliaments have been less inclined to do so. Very well; if we in this parliament are satisfied that it is the truth we want, that is the first point. Then are we willing to allow the truth to go over the radio-the truth and only the truth?


Mr. MARTIN:: And in the press.


John Horne Blackmore: And in the press, the truth and only the truth. Are we willing to have the bankers in the little branch banks in every community throughout this country know the truth and tell the truth, pure and unvarnished? If we are, it seems to me it is a proposal worthy of consideration that parliament should set aside for this purpose a sum of money before each election, on the principle that it is in the interests of this country that the people should know the truth; for a people who are uninformed, ignorant, deluded by misconceptions and false propaganda, are in an exceedingly dangerous state and are likely to do all sorts of unexpected and unaccountable and irresponsible things. Since, then, it is greatly in the interest of all concerned, and especially of governments, that the people should know the truth in the fullest possible degree, parliament should calmly and upon due consideration decide how much money may be necessary to permit the dissemination among the people of the various ideas entertained and put forward by the different political groups which seek election.
How much would it cost? We should set down a certain amount. Then suppose there
Corrupt Electoral Practices

are four parties facing the country at the next election, we say each of those parties shall be allowed a certain number of national hook-ups over the radio. Let each party have free speech over the radio, and let parliament pay for it; because parliament is interested in spreading the truth. There is grave danger, I say, in the people not having the truth; such a condition is likely to lead to communism, or fascism, or perhaps worse. Then, how much do the parties concerned require, within reasonable limits, to attend to stationery, advertising, pamphlets, letters and that kind of thing, all of which is necessary in conducting elections? Parliament will estimate the amount; it will set a figure, issue to the various parties the sums determined upon, and then allow them to go ahead and conduct their campaigns. Under that system the best party, according to the opinions of the people, would win.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about a new party just breaking in?


John Horne Blackmore: Then, we must consider newspaper advertising. To a great degree this type of advertising enters into the campaigns in many constituencies. If that is thought advisable, money could be set aside for that purpose. In addition, there are halls to be engaged. If halls are necessary-and we all agree that they are-and if a certain number of meetings are to be held in the halls of a certain community, let us set aside certain moneys for those halls.
We must consider also transportation. At the present time there are very strict rules in connection with the transporting of people to the polls. So far as I have heard, it is well recognized that those rules are largely ignored. In my opinion that is a most unhealthy condition. If we are going to transport people to the polls, then let us make allowances for doing so. Let us have it attended to in an open and aboveboard manner.
If these things are done we would be prepared to approach the concerns the leader of the opposition has mentioned. He implied that there were organizations in the country which were making substantial contributions to election funds. I am going to assume-and I think it is only right that we should-that those organizations are making contributions because they want their particular ideas to prevail. Perhaps their ideas are the correct ones; who knows? If they are willing to contribute certain moneys in order to have their ideas prevail, why not allow them to make those contributions in an aboveboard
fMr. Blackmore.]
and open manner? Let the names of those who contributed be stated. Let the amounts be known. Let the purposes for which the contributions are made be stated. Let it be known whether it is the desire of the organization in question that the fund be allocated to the Conservative party. If it is so allocated, well and good. If it is given to the Liberal party, well and good.
That is the only way we have been able even to approach the solution of the problem in Alberta. Such having been done, we can now turn in this parliament to the task of determining the situation here. If investigations are made we will be able to go back, every one of us, and tell the truth, so far as we have been able to acquire it, and matters will be in a much healthier position when the next election comes along.
In this way we would be in a position whereby we might bring about a more enlightened Canada. I am satisfied about this, having lived in Alberta, where this thing has been done. There are plenty of people who are prepared to sneer at what has been done in Alberta, but the people who have been in the province, people who have been through those movements and know how an election is carried on out there, realize that the people's method is a great benefit. Improved practices tend to purify political life. I confess I can see no other way in which we can possibly purify and cleanse the public life of Canada, and in any way enable the people to register their will at any election.
Such being the case I take great pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) that an investigation be conducted into the corrupt practice charges which have been made.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on the motion now before the house. First of all, as a member who has sat in his place for the last twelve years may I say here and now that I do not hold my seat through any kind of corruption or forced subscription of any kind to any corporation or interest.
I have read the words of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as they appear in Hansard, and I believe he said either too much or not enough. I must state sincerely that so far as I am personally concerned no strings are attached to my own activities. There has been no corruption in connection with my election, personally, and I believe this applies to all hon. members of the house.
To show how this matter may work out may I say that only a few days ago I received a request for a subscription to be made to one

Corrupt Electoral Practices
of the best Protestant churches in my part of the country, and I was only too pleased to subscribe. My only regret at the time was that I could not give more. I was in a position to know of the good work that church was doing for a large number of people in that pioneer section of my constituency.
Although the suggestion is made that democracy is at stake, I must say that it ill behooves members of parliament to make the statements which have been made to-day, and I think the atmosphere must be clarified. In this connection may I point out one or two things the Social Credit party has done in the province of Alberta, both provincially and federally. May I make reference at this time to the rash promises which were made in that province? Those were promises made by a party to gather the votes of the electors.
I vividly remember the first emergency session in 1930 when, for the first time, the previous parliament was assembled in Ottawa to deal with unemployment. I well remember that on that occasion the then prime minister, the present leader of the opposition, coming from the senate after hearing the speech from the throne, entered the door of the chamber behind Mr. Speaker's chair. Walking from that point to his seat in the house he received an ovation from every section of the House of Commons. But at the same time, walking with him, over and above him, were the promises he made during the previous campaign. Regardless of his work and regardless of the energy he exerted for his country from 1930 until 1935, the fact remains that those promises remained with him, so far as the electors of Canada were concerned, and the electors would not forget them.
The mover and the seconder of the amendment belong to the new Social Credit party. I have no personal grievance against that party. My sincere and earnest wish would be that from the activities of that party we might eventually find it possible to solve some of the great questions now confronting us and, if I may use the term, to humanize the monetary system of Canada and remove some of its anomalies. At the same time I must point out to hon. members of the Social Credit party how they won their election in Alberta, and also how the federal members attained their seats in this house. I well remember that some of the electors of that province sang the verses of that song:
We'll build a sweet little nest Somewhere in the west,
And let the rest of the world go by.
Social credit was going to solve all their problems. That was to be brought about through the politics of the Social Credit party
which were propounded to win the election. I say that it is the very worst kind of corruption for political parties to make promises that they know they cannot fulfil. I do not want to see any one party trying to outbid another in order to catch votes. I do not like to see them making appeals to the electorate and attempting to outbid one another in rash promises which could not possibly be implemented. I well remember that when the hon. member who formerly held the seat for Labelle, Mr. Bourassa, spoke some years ago he referred to the promises made by the then prime minister during the election campaign of 1930, and his statement was this: "Out of those promises will come one of two things; if you fulfil them you will bankrupt the country, and if you do not fulfil them you will go down in Canadian history as the greatest promiser the country has ever known."
What happened to the Social Credit party? I hold in my hand what is known as the Social Credit Manual in which is set out the system of social credit as applied to the province of Alberta and to all Canada. It purports to have been written by William Aber-hart, B.A., and was copyrighted in 1935. At page 14 of the manual we find a reference to basic dividends, and I quote:
To enable each citizen to secure these bare necessities, each of them will receive a pass book in which at the beginning of each month will be entered the basic dividend for that month, say $25.
If ever a corrupt appeal was made to the electors of a province or a country, certainly it was made right there by the Social Credit party. I am absolutely-


Mr. POOLE:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Yes.


Eric Joseph Poole: This is, after all, only the hon. member's opinion, is it not?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No, it is Mr. Aberhart's.


Eric Joseph Poole: It is your opinion.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No, it is Mr. Aberhart's.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member may put a question, but that is all.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I beg the hon. member's pardon; I am not giving my opinion. As I said, I am reading from the Social Credit Manual, copyrighted in 1935 and written by William Aberhart, B.A., the present premier of Alberta. That was the spectacle we had in this country. We had a political party absolutely bribing the electors.


Eric Joseph Poole: No, sir. I object to that
statement.
Corrupt Electoral Practices


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It was a bribe. They
were told that they would receive at least $25 a month. That is what was promised to every adult living in the province.


An hon. MEMBER:: Read it again.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I will read it again in
order to be absolutely sure. The second paragraph on page 14 of the manual reads:
To enable each citizen to secure these bare necessities, each of them will receive a pass book in which at the beginning of each month *will be entered the basic dividend for that month, say $25.


Mr. LANDER  YOU@: Explain.


Eric Joseph Poole: Explain the corruption.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That was the worst
possible kind of corruption.


Eric Joseph Poole: Explain why.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: No political party has
the right to tell the people that if they are put into power they will dip into the public treasury in order to pay a definite dividend in good Canadian dollars. That is absolutely unfair to our Canadian spirit. A little further on in this same manual, at page 21, I read:
Basie dividends should be $25 a month for every bona fide citizen, male or female, twenty-one years or more. Children of bona fide citizens sixteen years old will receive $5 a month. Those seventeen and eighteen years old will receive $10 a month. Those nineteen, $15, and those twenty, $20 a month.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Increasing the bid.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is the worst kind
of election corruption we have ever heard of in Canada. Immediately after he was elected, Premier Aberharl asked the people of Alberta to give him eighteen months to implement his policies. I ask the members of the Social Credit group if Mr. Aberhart has implemented the promises he made in the election of 1935?


Mr. MITCHELL:: He tried very hard.


Eric Joseph Poole: Did the Liberal party carry
out its promise to keep its hands off our government?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Question 20 in the
same manual reads:
Will dividends always remain at $25 per month?
I w'ant hon. members to pay particular
attention to the answer:
No. We believe that the dividends will increase as the standard of living increases. We are not in favour of increasing the dividends, however, very rapidly at first. We would be more favourable to the distribution

of greater purchasing power by means of public works or price discounts. We feel certain that the amount of dividends per month will, however, be soon increased above $25.
That is the gospel and the policy that was spread, not only throughout Alberta but also throughout British Columbia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. It did not get into the east, but I want to tell my hon. friends that the east has been very fair to the idea of social credit; we wanted to study it. We wanted to find a solution for some of the problems we were facing. I remember attending a meeting at the Chateau Laurier at which Major Douglas, the founder of social credit, made an address. I listened attentively and open-mindedly to what he bad to say and I hoped to find something useful in his formula. However, even with all his formulas I have never been able to find in them a solution for our social ills.
Major Douglas appeared before the banking committee of this house and again he brought forward his equations. We must be very careful about all these new economic equations brought forward by the theorists. Two and two does not make four according to them; it is much more complicated than that. You have figures on one side and then some letters and other symbols on the other, for the simplest questions. I was quite open-minded as far as Major Douglas was concerned, but for the life of me I never could plumb the abyss of social credit, and neither can the hon. members who have been elected on that policy.
A number of social crediters found it possible to be elected during the last dominion election. As far as they personally are concerned I have no doubt that they are a credit and an asset to our Canadian parliament, but we must remember that they were practically elected upon false promises and policies which they themselves found impossible of application when they were in power.


Mr. QUELCH:: Prove that statement.


Mr. HANSELL:: I ask the hon. member to withdraw that statement. I was elected by the people of Alberta not on false pretences, and I demand that that statement be withdrawn.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I say that hon. members were elected on- the promise of $25 per month to every adult in the province. The people of Alberta have given this provincial government all the leeway and latitude possible. Premier Aberhart has been given every opportunity to implement the promises

Corrupt Electoral Practices
he made and to demonstrate this wonderful new thing which was to take the people out of the depression, namely, social credit. At that time he was not worrying because he had asked the Albertans for eighteen months within which to implement these promises. That looked like a long time, but those eighteen months have elapsed and I do not think the social credit members as a group have been able to convince other hon. members of the wonderful benefits of social credit and that they have applied it to Alberta. I direct their attention to the old saying: Save yourself before you try to save anybody else.
Personally I have an open mind on these questions; I believe I would be remiss in my duty as a member of this house if I said that everything was all right and that we had no difficulties to surmount as far as the economic and financial situation is concerned. But there are serious problems which we have to face, and this is not tfie time when a political party should be prostituting itself by making irrational and passionate appeals to the people in the form of bribes.
I have been informed by good authority as to just what went on during the last provincial and federal elections. The social credit candidate would be addressing an audience in the rural section of the province. Naturally there would be some married women in the audience. The speaker would turn to a married woman and ask her if she were satisfied. She might reply that she was, that she had a good husband. He would then ask her, " Have you all the money you want?" The answer would be, " No, my husband is poor." Then the candidate would say, " If you vote for us we will give you $25 a month for your own money." If that was not the worst kind of bribery, I do not know what it was.
Then a social credit candidate would be addressing a group of young girls, no doubt most of whom were thinking of marrying- after all, that would be quite logical. They would be asked, " Have you all the money you want? Would you not like to have a nice hat or a nice pair of shoes?" The reply would be, " Yes, but I have not the money." Then the statement would be made, "Vote for us and we will give you $25 a month." Again I say that that was the worst possible kind of bribery.
I repeat what I said at the beginning. I believe in a hundred per cent confederation. What we want is purity as far as politics are concerned. Party funds there are, and there is no need to blush for that. I give to my own church and to other churches. That is not a fault; I am still loyal to my own
church, but I also know of good work done by other's. I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that there is no stigma attaching to any member of this parliament, no matter on which side of the house he sits, in connection with party funds. But if corruption were rampant I would be the first one to hold up both hands for the amendment.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) upon his courage in bringing this resolution before the house. I think it is unfortunate that so far, since his speech, the debate has tended to become a purely party affair.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Oh, no. You make promises too.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman is not going to divert me by a suggestion of that kind from the few words I have to say. I would hope that the great Liberal party would have some better answer than merely to hurl charges at the social credit group, little as I agree with the theories of that group. But I would like to bring the house back, if I may, to the resolution now before it.
No one can sit in this house as I have done for some sixteen years without hearing a good many charges of political corruption. No one can go through a number of campaigns east and west without being fairly sure that vast sums of money are being spent in elections. The trouble is that it is extremely difficult to secure definite proof, and most of us are not in a position to carry out the court actions which would be necessary. But two things are apparent. First of all, very large sums of money have been spent in elections, and extremely large sums in certain recent byelections. Further than that, under the present elections act we have no means of ascertaining whence these large sums come. Some years ago when that act was being revised some of us tried to have inserted an amendment under which we would have a record of the sums given by local people and also the sums given to the central campaign funds, but the government would not accept an amendment along that line.
It is only a few days ago, as the hon. member for Peace River has pointed out, that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) made some very serious statements. It is true he did not make any very definite charges, but he made some very serious statements. I would point out to the house that he is in a somewhat different position from that occupied by the ordinary member of the house. He is a recognized official of the house, and when he
Corrupt Electoral Practices

makes a charge in the house it cannot lightly be set aside. As has been said by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), he said either too much or too little. The impression that there is something radically wrong in the conduct of elections has gone abroad from one end of this dominion to the other. In my own city the Free Press, which is generally acknowledged to be a Liberal organ carried a cartoon representing the two leaders as the kettle and the pot, and the legend was, "The pot calls the kettle black." That is rather a cynical way of dealing with the matter. I do not think that charges should be made in this house by the leader of the official opposition without some investigation being made of them.
I recognize that even though this matter should be referred to a committee, it might be very difficult to secure all the evidence desired. I presume members of the government may say that they are not going to allow us to set up a committee that might go on a fishing expedition or something of the kind. I know there are limitations to the work a committee can accomplish. At the same time I feel that it is in the interests of clean government in this country that charges of this kind should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. Unless democracy can work in an atmosphere of something like reasonable freedom, democracy becomes a veritable sham. An impression is abroad throughout the country that to-day it is money that rules in elections as in a good many other fields. I think, Mr. Speaker, that when charges as serious as this, even though they are not specific, are made, they should be investigated by this house. I have therefore very great pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Peace River.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Woodsworth) expressed regret that the discussion which has taken place this afternoon should have partaken of a partisan nature. If he had that regret I must say I wish he had been wise enough to advise those around him as to the consequences of bringing in the motion on the subject to which it relates in the form in which it is. Just an hour or so ago I moved that the house resolve itself into committee of supply in order that the government might obtain the wherewithal to carry on the business of government. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) has moved an amendment to that motion, which is to the effect that the house shall not go into supply but shall do something else. What that something else is I shall remind 
the house in a few moments. But what would be the effect of the amendment were it to be carried? The effect would simply be that the government would be defeated, no supply could be voted and there matters would end for a time at least. It is a motion of want of confidence in the administration, and as such it is necessary that the administration oppose it so as to make possible its right to govern in this country, with the loyal support of its following in this house.
Had hon. gentlemen opposite desired a discussion in a manner which would not involve a vote of a want of confidence, there being no charge of any kind against the administration, they might have given notice of a motion in the regular way upon which the subject matter of the resolution might have been fully discussed. There would then have been perfect freedom on the part of all to discuss the matter regardless of their relationship to the government or otherwise. It is necessary, however, for me to point out clearly that the motion in the form in which it has been presented is a want of confidence motion in the administration, and if it were to carry, the government would be defeated. It is a want of confidence motion based on what? On nothing whatever in the way of substance.
May I remind the house what the hon. member said about his own amendment? I shall read the amendment first:
This house is of the opinion that charges of levies in connection with Canadian National Railways contracts as 'well as statements concerning electoral corruption should be referred to a select committee of this house with power to send for papers, persons and witnesses and to take evidence under oath and to report to this house.
After he had read his motion, he asked over and over again: Is it not desirable that we should remove these shadows which are on the horizon? Is it not necessary that we should remove the shadow which is over this house? Is it not necessary that we should do away with the stigma that has been placed upon this parliament? Are we not here for the purpose of preserving the honour of this parliament, of saving it from dishonour? Let me ask my hon. friends who have spoken on the other side of this house: Who have created this shadow? Who have spoken words which have cast reflection upon this parliament, other than the hon. member who moved this resolution, the hon. member who seconded it, and I regret to say also, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett)? It is a new alliance that we have, this Conservative-Social Credit alliance, which has

Corrupt Electoral Practices
taken also into its fold the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (Mr. Woodsworth). These gentlemen have been spending their time since this parliament opened to see how far they can go in manufacturing shadows-


An hon. MEMBER:: That is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -shadows
which, in their attempt to discredit the institutions of parliament, will discredit themselves more than anyone else. It is impossible to deprecate too strongly the kind of suggestion which has been made by hon. gentlemen opposite. They have not preferred a single specific charge of any kind. If they have preferred such a charge I should like them to get up and repeat it.


An hon. MEMBER:: And risk their seats.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is not a member of this house-neither the leader of the opposition, the mover of the amendment, the seconder of the amendment, nor the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group-who has had the courage to stand up in this house and say that he has a specific charge to make against any member of the government or of this house or against any one of those who have been carrying on the public business of this country. I say that, until a specific charge is made, the duty of this parliament is to go on with its regular work and not permit itself to be diverted from the business of the country by shadows which are the creation of minds too full of darkness to bring forth the truth they talk so much about.
What is the kind of language which we have been obliged to listen to this afternoon? Let me refer to what we heard from the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) who seconded the amendment. He talked about an octopus-about some general feeling throughout Canada that somewhere or other there was an octopus whose long, hidden, treacherous tentacles were clandestinely getting a grip on the whole country. I wonder if that is patriotic language? I wonder if that is language calculated to create pride and esteem in the breasts of young Canadians, who he says need good examples in all these matters. The effort to besmirch parliament and to dishonour the names of men in public life is to my mind the most contemptible of all possible actions. I say that hon. members who have nothing specific in the way of charges to bring before this house had better remain silent when it comes to seeking to discredit others thereby maligning the institution of which they themselves happen to be members.
My hon. friend who moved this amendment said that when I spoke previously with regard to the subject matter of electoral corruption I read a prepared statement. He emphasized two or three times that the statement was a prepared one. It was prepared, and designedly so, and for the reason that I am going to give my hon. friend. Had I made a statement of my own my hon. friend might have been the first to say, "We are listening to the Prime Minister making his own statement on this matter. We know that he is concerned in these matters, and we therefore ask you to take his statement with a grain of salt." I requested the clerk of this house to give me a statement as to the procedure which the parliament of Canada, and in particular the House of Commons, should adopt with respect to any charges of electoral corruption, a statement that I might read to all hon. members, setting forth the position beyond possibility of contradiction or controversy. I then read to this house what the laws of this country, the laws of this parliament, have set forth as the method of dealing with questions of this kind, and referred to the rules and regulations of the House of Commons in dealing with such matters.
This is not the first time in the history of Canada that vague and general charges of electoral corruption have been made. They have been made ever since there has been a parliament, and they will continue to be made as long as we have men who are prepared to besmirch the institutions with which they are associated. In order to protect 'honourable men who wish to keep themselves free from that kind of thing, parliament has enacted laws to protect its members. They are a part of the laws of the country to-day. They prescribe the methods which must be followed in dealing with questions of this kind. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) says he does not care anything about laws; he is not interested in them. Well, we are. There are far too many people in this country to-day who are asserting the very doctrine which my hon. friend has asserted, that they do not care anything about laws, that they are not going to be governed by laws. It is just that kind of thing that this government is going to stop, if we can possibly do it, and regain in our country a proper respect for law. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), who spoke a few moments ago, properly pointed out that those who adopt this tone have not only forgotten respect for law but have forgotten respect for fair and honourable methods of procedure, to an extent which a few years ago would not have been countenanced for one minute. Never before
Corrupt Electoral Practices

in the history of Canada, until it was done by the party to which my hon. friend who moved this resolution belongs, did an]' party come forward and openly offer to pay five, ten, fifteen, twenty, twenty-five dollars a month to those whose support it sought; nothing of that kind ever occurred before in the history of this dominion. And if we are gradually slipping down to a point where we are beginning to talk about corruption from one end of Canada to the other, and an octopus which has its tentacles all over this country, it is due to that very corrupting of the electorate in a manner and to a degree such as this country has never known heretofore.
Let me say to my hon. friends that if the laws are not adequate to deal with the question of corruption in electoral campaigns or of corruption in any other place, or way, or form, if there are hon. members who can bring forward suggestions which will make our laws better than they are, the present administration will be only too willing to work with them to the full to give such suggestions, if they are at all workable, a place on our statutes. We are only too anxious to see that our electoral laws are made as effective as possible to prevent anything in the nature of corruption. The government intends, in pursuance of its promise at the last session, to deal with the franchise and with the electoral laws again this year, so there will be an opportunity for all hon. members to come forward with any suggestions which they may have, any concrete, practical proposals which they may care to make. The government will be glad to consider any such proposals. I here and now invite hon. members, instead of wasting their time in doing what they can to defame the institution of parliament and democratic government in this country, to come along with practical suggestions whereby we can prevent in the future anything of the kind which they to-day are imagining has taken place in the past, or which actually may have taken place in the past.
What then is the method of proceeding with matters of this kind? It is well known. If anyone has a charge to make, let him make it as a specific charge, not in the form of a general allegation. What does the amendment say?
This house is of the opinion that charges of levies in connection with Canadian National Railways contracts as well as statements concerning electoral corruption should be referred to a select committee of this house-
Since when have we begun to refer statements on different matters to special committees of this house? We would have

time for nothing else were we to start that sort of thing. The hon. gentleman refers to charges of levies in connection with the Canadian National Railways. Where and by whom have the charges been made? Did the leader of the opposition make a charge? Not a bit of it. He made a general statement. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggests that the position of the leader of the opposition is one of exceptional significance and importance in this house. It is, and for that very reason my right hon. friend should have been the first to see that no general allegations fell from his lips, but that a specific statement was made in the nature of a charge if he wished to have the subject investigated. May I say to the right hon. gentleman and to every member of this house here and now that if he or any hon. member will make a specific charge with respect to corruption and will say that he has reasonable ground for believing that he can bring forward evidence to substantiate that charge, this government will give him a committee immediately to have the charge investigated. I say that not only to the leader of the opposition but to every member of this house; and further, I say that until hon. members are prepared to make specific charges they should cease to make allegations which they are not brave enough to back up or have not sufficient knowledge to substantiate in any shape or form.
We are not here as a government to fight shadows. My hon. friend says, "Let us remove these shadows on the horizon; let us remove the shadow which overclouds this house." I say, give us something of substance and we will have it investigated; but we will not spend our time fighting shadows conjured up by hon. gentlemen opposite.
And now may I mention one other matter- probably it was an oversight on the part of the hon. member for Peace River. There are certain customs which are well understood with respect to the conduct of business in this house, customs which enable debate to proceed with more in the way of information than would otherwise be possible for those participating. One of these customs is that where an amendment is to>
be moved on going into supply the administration should be given some notice of it, so that at least there may be an opportunity, when the house .is considering the question, to have citations and references specifically quoted, that statements made in the course of debate may be substantiated. The hon. member has moved this amendment without saying a word to the government in advance about his intentions

Corrupt Electoral Practices
in the matter. I happened to hear a rumour that the leader of the opposition had been talking last night in the corridor with the hon. member who seconded the amendment, and they were heard to say that the hon. member for Peace River would bring something forward to-day Knowing pretty well what that something might be, I assumed that this was the kind of motion we were likely to have from him. In the few hurried moments at my disposal I sought to recall incidents in this house in previous years when the Conservative party, while in opposition, and usually beginning at the third session of parliament, started something in the nature of scandal. I therefore looked up Hansard to find out what took place during one of the sessions when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was prime minister and I found in the third session of the tenth parliament the record of exactly the same sort of thing that we have at the present moment. Everything was brought forward in much the same way. The stage was set in the first instance by having someone come along with a general charge, a general statement alleging among other things graft on the part of some ministers of the crown. That is the kind of thing that is meant by levies on the Canadian National Railways-talk of graft. At that time the very same comment was made that fell from the lips of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) the other evening-that the hon. gentleman making the general statement had said either too much or too little-and the then member for Labelle, who was sensitive in these matters of political honour, moved in this house one day that either what had been said should be put in the form of a substantial charge or that the words should be withdrawn. I had expected that this would be the form of motion that we should have had from my hon. friend to-day, namely, that either a substantial charge should be made or that the words should be withdrawn. But he has not put his motion in that form. He has gone a step farther, and as if a charge had already been made has asked that a committee be appointed immediately to investigate the matter.
Let me draw my hon. friend's attention to what was said on the occasion to which I [DOT]have referred. I am not going to mention the names of those who participated, those who at the time had to do with general charges. I do not think it reflected credit upon them then, and now that they are gone I do not wish to discredit their names further. The
statement was made by one hon. member that he was going to discuss certain things including graft. Then the hon. member stated further, pretty much as the leader of the opposition has done on this occasion, that he had "data" and "material" at his disposal with respect to charges. The motion that was presented to the chair by the then member for Labelle was:
That such a statement, undefined as it is, with regard to the parties concerned, reflects on the honour of the house and of the government;
That the hon. member be therefore invited, either to name the ministers and members of the house to whom he was referring-*
On such-and-such a date.
-and to specify his charges against them, or to withdraw his accusation.
That unless the hon. member complies with that request and adopts one of these two courses, he stands censured by this house.
The matter had been pretty fully discussed on a previous occasion and His Honour the Speaker was obliged, because of the previous discussion, to rule that it could not be discussed again and for that reason the Speaker ruled the motion out of order, and was sustained in his ruling when it was challenged. But the purpose of the motion was to clear the record as quickly as possible of any imputation in the one way in which parliament where a specific charge is made has always dealt with such matters.
I wish now to read to the house what Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in this house with respect to that motion, had to say about the method to be adopted in dealing with general questions of political corruption, graft and the like.
Mr. BENNETT; What date was that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: April 3, 1907.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier said;
If the object of the hon. member for Labelle is to clear the atmosphere of the house, there are eases and cases showing how this is to be done. The house has affirmed, and it is also the rule of the house which has come to us from the mother of parliaments, that the conduct or standing of any member of this house cannot be impugned except upon cause being shown and until a member rises in his place in the house and says: I have reason to believe and I can prove such and such a thing against a member. Otherwise there is no occasion to go into this general inquisition which is proposed by the hon. member for Labelle. If, at a later period, the hon. member for Labelle or anybody else thinks there is in this house any member who ought not to be a member of it, who has disgraced himself, or whose conduct ought to be investigated, it is open to him to demand such an investigation, but the house, I hope, will not depart from the sound traditions which

Corrupt Electoral Practices
have come to us from England and according to which there could be no inquisition into any man's conduct or standing except on charges made specifically. If, unfortunately, there are members of this house who are not fit to be associated with gentlemen, who are not fit to be members of this house, whose conduct ought to be investigated, it must be the painful duty of the house to make such an investigation-
There is a noticeable difference here from the language used by the hon. member in proposing the motion, also from the words used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). The hon. member said that it was a pleasure to him to introduce the amendment-not a painful duty, but a pleasure. Well, it is a poor form of pleasure.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of privilege, I did not state that it was a pleasure for me to introduce the resolution. I did not introduce the resolution; I had nothing to do with the form of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But my hon friend said he had pleasure in supporting it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, I had pleasure in supporting it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, I should have thought it would be a painful duty, not a pleasure.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I simply wish to say the expression is unfortunate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To continue with Sir Wilfrid Laurier's remarks:
-but only under the safeguard which has been provided by the house. 1 think the common sense of the house will not allow a departure from what is a well known law of parliament, or from the rules which would be applied in England, if cases of this kind were to arise, and therefore it seems to me that we have only to maintain the traditions and rules of the house and of parliamentary government. If there are cases which arise and which call for the application of disciplinary measures, I am sure, from experience that we have had not very far back, the house will be equal to the occasion every time.
Now that has been the practice which has been followed in dealing with matters of this kind at all times, as the older members of the house well know, in this parliament from confederation to the present time. It is the practice which is followed at Westminster to-day. It is, moreover, the practice to which the present administration is going to adhere. And may I say that there is a very special reason, a new reason, a strong reason, why to-day it is all-important that we should follow this practice. That reason is this, that there is, I regret to say, an effort in our
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
country coming from two directions, supposed to be opposed to each other but having much in common-


Miss MACPHAIL:: The Liberal and Conservative parties.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not the Liberal and Conservative parties, but the communist and fascist parties, each of which desires to do away with the parliamentary system of political parties having free discussion on the floor of parliament and to substitute for it dictatorship. And the method which they are adopting to bring this about is to besmirch as much as they can the institution of parliament, and the names of men in public life, to make general charges, insinuations, allegations and the like, with a view to creating from end to end of the country the impression that democratic institutions have failed and that they with their dictatorships should take their place. I say, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to lend ourselves to anything of that kind. We in this house, we on this side of the house at all events, intend to stand by parliamentary institutions, parliamentary methods of government, parliamentary procedure, to do all that we can to defend democracy and to save our parliamentary system from being defamed by those who are unworthy of having any association with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it shows to what low level debate may descend when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mackenzie King) will stand in the chamber of which he is supposed to be the leader and repeat a conversation alleged to have taken place between two members in the corridor. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the depth to which we have fallen in this chamber.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was giving the house the only notice I had.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last evening when the house rose I had a conversation with the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) and I am going to repeat it in order that there may be no misunderstanding. I pointed out to him that it was not sound parliamentary practice to attack the judiciary; I told him the motion he was making with respect to remission of sentences was an unsound method of approaching the problem, and I suggested that if he desired to throw the weight of his entire parliamentary body to the support of his position a petition should be prepared, signed by them all and sent to the proper quarters. I did more than that; I pointed out to him that it was a private prosecution, not one by the attorney general

Corrupt Electoral Practices
of Alberta, who declined to make it, and I left it at that. And he said, "I intend to come back to it, and if I have to speak to you I hope you will have no objection to my asking you about it, in the light of your experience." As far as my memory serves me, even the words "in connection with this matter" were not mentioned. Am I right as to that?	|


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, I bear testimony that that is correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was not even mentioned. Now we are told in the house that the Prime Minister had notice that some discussion of this kind was to take place this afternoon because someone eavesdropping heard something which did not occur. Then he talks about besmirching the honour of parliament and about shadows! Well, the shadow was falling, it is true; the lights were going out at that time, and possibly that is the shadow he had in mind. That is the first matter to which I direct attention.
If there has been a besmirching of the honour of parliament and if the reputation of parliament has been lowered in the public mind it had its origin, as everyone knows, in the Beauharnois scandal. There is no one in this country who does not know that. The man on the street knows, the young man and the young woman on the street know that this power company contributed a million dollars to the Liberal campaign fund in 1930.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was found as a matter of record.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is absolutely untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman should know-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my right hon. friend wants to debate scandals we will talk about the Pacific scandal and a few others.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will not talk about the Pacific scandal; we will talk about something that happened in our day and of which the right hon. gentleman says he has knowledge. He says it is not true. His Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) was one of the members of that committee who signed the report.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He agreed to the report. He made certain exceptions after the report came out.
51952-30J


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend will find that Mr. Gordon moved the adoption of the report and I demurred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Malcolm McLean: What about
Mr. Aird?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I read the other day; that is the record. And I pointed out that it is not sound practice that one should occupy a position where he has to vote on matters affecting, for instance, the export of power under a private act, and be at the same time the treasurer of the Liberal party. That is what I said, and I repeat it now. Let there be no misunderstanding with respect to that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend that the gentleman he refers to is not the treasurer of the Liberal party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, he was a few months ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he has not been at all. The Liberal party has a committee which handles its finances; no single individual is the treasurer of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that it was given out at a meeting which took place in this city before the election of 1935, and at which Mr. Massey was present, that the Hon. Donat Raymond was treasurer of the Liberal party. That statement I am now told is untrue. But he appeared as such, not long since.
I went further; I pointed out that a member of the senate, who was head of the federal Liberal organization, was not the man who should be in a position of having to vote upon matters, when he was responsible in part for the collection of campaign funds.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He in part was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And does it, as he will tell my right hon. friend if he asks him- and has done it; that is more of it. Let
Corrupt Electoral Practices

there be no misunderstanding about the matter. He has done it. We have two members of parliament in the senate occupying the positions I mentioned, coupled with the fact, as was stated a few days ago, that these two gentlemen met the cabinet to discuss the physical organization of the Liberal party. I said that, also, was a bad principle.
I say again that if there was anything that originated the present attitude of mind of the public towards parliament, or towards this House of Commons, we find it of course in the Beauharnois scandal, and everyone in Canada is aware of this. Out of that there has grown up the impression, which may or may not be sound-I pointed out that it is an impression-that campaign funds are often gathered in large sums from large power and other projects.
In Ontario to-day a campaign is being carried on with respect to funds which are supposed to have originated from this same Beauharnois, in connection with the local election, in which Mr. Bethune Smith was treasurer of the Liberal party and connected with the power interests a6 well. The so-called Pacific scandal which my right hon. friend mentioned a minute ago was in connection with a few sums of $20,000 or $25,000. In the case of the Beauharnois scandal we have $200,000 at a lick, collected by Senator Raymond from the Beauharnois interests.
I said the other day, and I desire to make it clear to-day, that I have nothing to withdraw. I made no statement with respect to any member of this chamber. I was very careful not to make any statement with respect to any member in this chamber. For whatever my weaknesses, I at least know that if one were going to deal with that, he would deal with it as Israel Tarte dealt with it, and as others have done; he would stand in his place and make the statement with respect to the hon. member of the house in question.
I did not refer to any hon. member. I was interrupted when I was making my statement with respect to corruption and I say here again that the country is being destroyed by electoral corruption. I was talking not of federal elections alone. I was talking also about provincial elections. I was talking from investigations which I myself have made, which have no reference to this house or parliament. I was talking about conditions which have grown up by which large sums of money have been gathered together by making levies upon those who receive positions, upon those who have contracts. and upon others, which debauch the

national life of Canada. I made no reference to any hon. member of the house. I believe it will be found that I have as high regard for the Commons House of Parliament as any man in it. I at least can face responsibility for anything connected with Beauharnois-I had at least the common sense to say, "Not one dollar; I would rather be defeated than take a cent of it.''
Let us go a step further. I can readily understand that a new member of the house -and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) is a new member-would deal with the question as though it were a matter affecting this chamber, rather than one affecting the method by which campaign funds are gathered together. This afternoon the hon. member for Lethbridge referred to the returns made on expenditures in elections. I have taken the trouble to look to some extent into returns made by members of the house. I have tried to find out what it cost them to run their elections. Is there a man within sound of my voice who will say that this in any sense indicates the money that was spent in his constituency?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman challenges me, as a member of the house, to speak. So far as I am concerned, to the best of my knowledge my returns indicate the amounts spent in my constituency.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, and I thank the hon. member for directing my attention to that fact. I was speaking about expenditures of which he would have no knowledge, made in ways over which he would have no control. The whole problem is how to deal with that matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have given some little
attention to that problem, and have considered how it might be dealt with. In England and in Australia they have seen fit to put limitations upon amounts which might be expended. In Australia, where they had much the same conditions as we have talked about, this afternoon, they also impose compulsory voting, so as to lessen improper expenditure.
I know, too, our statute provides that if a member who has not made returns takes his seat in the house, he is liable to a penalty of $500 a day. There is at least one hon. member who has sat here and who has voted, but who, according to the report of the returning officer, has made no return. What are we going

Corrupt Electoral Practices,
to do about a situation of that kind? Well, somebody would have to bring action against him, and thereby incur the odium of bringing such action. Can we not deal with it in some other way?
When the elections act comes before the house for consideration I propose to offer certain observations and to make certain suggestions with respect to amendments, by which we may endeavour to cure the conditions to which I have referred, for it is a canker eating at the very life of the country. We all know that England went through that period. Hon. members will recall that history credits Walpole with saying that every man had his price. Hon. members will recall how the matter was dealt with. It was a long time, in England, before they attained to that excellence in the conduct of elections which now prevails in that country. Has anyone who has any interest in the expenditure of public moneys taken the trouble to ascertain where the money came from which was provided in the recent by-elections? Where did it come from? Did it come off the trees? Did it come out of the air? Who put it up, and why?
These are questions which come up periodically. It was to a matter of that kind to which I was directing attention the other day when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) interrupted me and stated that he had to do with a number of contracts for the Canadian National Railways, and stated that he knew nothing of this. Well, I did not suggest that he did. He suggests that he had no knowledge of it. Well, will my worst critic say or suggest that I said he had? What I did say, in answer to his statement, was that I was prepared to show that levies were being made on contractors- and that is an entirely different matter. It has not to do with the honour of the house. It has not to do with the respectability of individuals, unless you bring home to them the knowledge of it.
I have no reason for suggesting that the Minister of Transport had any knowledge of such a condition, and I have not said that he had such knowledge. An effort has been made to make it appear that what I said was that individuals were responsible for this. That is not what I said, nor was it inferred. What I did say was that those who were in charge of the raising of campaign funds were getting funds in that way. We do not have to leave this city, apparently, to find it out. I am sure there is not within sound of my voice a member who, if he takes the trouble
to inquire, will not find that those who sell goods or have contracts are being asked for contributions. I said the other day that I am not hypocrite enough for a single minute to deny that contributions are made to the campaign funds of political parties. Of course they are, and we all know they are. What is more, this is done very often with the best of motives.
Sir Joseph Flavelle has said that he had contributed to political parties from his youth. When he earned his first dollar his mother suggested that part of it should go to the church and part to his party. He said that the Right Hon. Mackenzie King was assisted by his contributions when he was running in Waterloo. He made that clear in the public statement he made the other day when addressing the shareholders of the Canadian Bank of Commerce. He said, "Although I think I am a Tory"-I do not know whether he used the word "Tory"-"I did that."
I happen to know that one of the leading contributors to the Liberal party, now no more, said that he believed it was quite proper that rich men should make contributions in order to enable those who were not of their political faith to be able to live in the communities decently and maintain their positions. As a matter of fact that gentleman was one of the contributors to the Asquith fund. What is more, if the right hon. gentleman would only take the trouble to think for a moment he would realize that there are presents and gifts made to men who are not regarded as being in favourable financial circumstances to enable them to maintain their position. Hon. members know that quite often purses are presented to public men. Personally I think that is wrong, but it is done. Reference was made to that on one occasion in the house.
That is the point I was endeavouring to make the other day. I repeat it and I withdraw no word of what I said. It must follow that there are hon. members who know just as well as I that their friends are making contributions to political campaign funds. I was making clear the difference which exists between the contribution that a man makes and an enforced contribution, which I said was a levy. If I say to a contractor, "You have to pay ten per cent, or even one per cent," I am putting him in a position which I think is manifestly unfair. For instance, if you have men who do business with the departments and who are entitled to sums of money, whether for rebates or for refunds of overpaid customs duties or otherwise, it is neither right
'I/O
Corrupt Electoral Practices

nor proper that they should be approached with the suggestion that they should contribute part of that money to a campaign fund.
I mentioned these things the other day and if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) had not interrupted as he did, on the assumption that there was some reflection upon him, which in a moment he knew was not so, this statement would not have been made. But it is a Statement that Stands; that is all. If the government desire to have the statement investigated, let them do so. But I do not think it comes with very good grace, after the record in connection with Beauharnois, for the Prime Minister of this country to rise in his place in the house and talk as he did this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to a point of order. I should like to know at once whether my right hon. friend is reflecting in any way, directly or indirectly, upon my integrity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know whether it is called integrity. The right hon. gentleman was the Prime Minister of this country when that episode took place. The record speaks for itself; let there be no misunderstanding about that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Shame.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You may call "shame" as much as you like, but the fact is that you are the man who should be shamed because your leader took you into the valley of humiliation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am proud of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would expect the hon. gentleman to be proud of going into the valley of humiliation.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: How about buying out the Conservative party?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let there be no misunderstanding. The records are there and we can send and get them. I say it ill becomes the Prime Minister of this country to make the observations he has made to-day. I did not reflect upon the honour of any member of the house and let him stand in his place who says I did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say you did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does the right hon. Prime Minister say that I reflected upon the honour of a member of the house? What member?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the right hon. gentleman is so universal in his observation because he denies the effect of universal observations. Is it a reflection upon the

honour of every member of the house that I direct attention to one of the crying evils of our day? Is it a reflection upon the honour of every member of the house that I point out that corruption is a canker which is eating the very life of this country, just as it is in the case of other countries? Do I offer an apology when the right hon. gentleman says that I reflected upon the honour of every member of the house? The singular thing is that he is the only one who seems to think so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We all do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How delightful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Shameful.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I repeat-and I want there to be no misunderstanding about it-that no one word of what I said the other day do I withdraw or apologize for. It was a statement of solemn truth known to many people. But I did not reflect upon the conduct of any member of the house. When I have occasion to do so, I shall do so in terms which will lead to no misunderstanding.
It is also erroneous on the part of the Prime Minister to say that the only methods of dealing with these matters are those indicated in the speech which he made the other day. He referred to the Controverted Elections Act and other methods, but has he forgotten the West Huron election? Has he forgotten the inquiry with respect to the Brockville election? Does he not remember that the committee on privileges and elections dealt with the matter of ballots on different weights of paper being substituted for correctly initialled and prepared ballots? That is the evidence which was established, not in the courts but in a commitee of this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These matters were
brought up in the house with respect to the conduct of that election and with respect to charges of graft similar to those to which he is now referring, having taken place in 1907. I wonder if he has read the subsequent proceedings that took place in connection with many of the matters which were mentioned? It is not for me to traverse at this time that long record. There are men from western Canada who know what happened. What is more, there are people who were made bankrupt and ruined financially because of the outcome of those very transactions. All this is known. Every time I hear people talk about irrigation in western Canada I realize, as most men do, what happened in that connection.
I wonder why it is that we are unwilling to spend a little time in going over the

Corrupt Electoral Practices
political history of our country. Many members of the house know-I do not say all of them-that they are assisted in the conduct of their elections from some central fund. More than that, they know that that fund is collected by somebody before the election takes place. I remember one of the leading ministers on the Liberal side saying to me in a personal conversation that the difficulty about holding an election at that particular time was the fact that they had no money. Those who take the time to read the speech of the Prime Minister in connection with the Beauharnois scandal and the valley of humiliation will understand fully what I mean. He pointed out the difficulty in the conduct of parties and elections and organizations without money.
Those are the facts to which I was directing and to w'hich I still direct attention. If these matters affected this house alone, the problem would be simpler, but I was also dealing with provincial matters over which this house would have no jurisdiction. That is the reason why I did not endeavour in any sense to specify particular transactions to which reference could be made. Those are matters with which the provinces themselves must deal. This house will have before it the elections act and I trust that an endeavour will be made so to safeguard the sanctity of the franchise as not to allow corrupt forces and influences to prevent the free and untrammelled will of the people from being expressed at the polls. That is the purpose which I had in mind when I directed attention to the matter.
I am not greatly concerned, at my age, about many things. I have seen, I have known, I have encountered the accumulated money of my opponents to defeat me, and what is more I have seen it used on a tremendous scale with respect to one matter only that I shall mention, and that was when Alberta was not allowed to have its own natural resources. All one has to do is to look at the records of those days and one has a very clear appreciation of the situation. I speak whereof I know with respect to these matters, and I say the time has come when we must endeavour to the best of our ability to provide ways and means that will at least do something to curb these scandalous practices.
The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) complained very bitterly because one of the members of this chamber said that corruption was like an octopus. The right hon. gentleman said that it was a bad thing for the people of this country to have to
listen to the idea that the money power was thus powerful. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister himself said that the struggle of this parliament must be a struggle against the money power. Those are not my words; they are his. That is not my statement; it is his. He said this parliament must grapple and fight with the money power. And so, when a member says that corruption is an octopus which fastens its tentacles upon the body politic and destroys it, the simple question is, is it true? That is the issue.
There is one thing more. The right hon. gentleman spoke of the dangers that threaten the body politic from communism, on the one hand, and from fascism on the other. My recollection is that he found the chief fascist in the world, Herr Hitler, a most entertaining person and a man who is doing great work.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is all right.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is all wrong.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot have it both ways. You cannot have it, as a distinguished guest, that he is a very great man, and at the same time try to arouse the fears of the public with respect to him. After all, it was not necessary for the right hon. gentleman to travel all the way to Germany to see what he regards as a dictator because I recall that during the election in 1935 he pointed to me sitting opposite as a combination of Hitler and Mussolini.


An hon. MEMBER:: Stalin too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I guess they had him in it, too. So it should not have been necessary after the election to ascertain where fascism might be found. Then when we speak of dictatorships-


Agnes Campbell Macphail: A little louder.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am bound to say that
the voice of the dictator in the land is becoming louder every day, and I think there will be no difficulty in hearing it if the hon. member listens with care.
It is very difficult to deal with some problems by order in council, but it is easy by order in council to destroy a wheat board, for instance. Just pass an order in council, and the wheat board is gone; you have destroyed an act of parliament. Imagine if that had been done by those who now sit to the left of the Speaker! What would we not have heard? It is easy, of course, to enter into discussions in secret, as they have
Corrupt Electoral Practices

a perfect right to do, without enlightening the great mass of the public with respect to questions which affect our trade and commerce, but if that had been done by those who went before, what a manifestation that would have been of fascism and dictatorship ! Yes, it makes a lot of difference where we sit, and the right hon. gentleman who sits to the right of the Speaker to-day as Prime Minister finds the situation entirely different from what he did when he sat to the left. Then everything was wrong; everything was black; everything that was done by those in office in those strenuous days merited only criticism, abuse and vilification. But now, clothed with power, sitting in the seats of the mighty, hon. gentlemen on the government side by a stroke of the pen pass an order in council that destroys the wheat board-and all is well in Israel! We took other steps, to which reference will be made as the session proceeds, to accomplish similar ends. But now, because attention is directed to one thing that does merit the condemnation of every thoughtful Canadian, young or old, rich or poor, you are besmirching the honour of the house-when no reference was made to any member of this house! Reference was made to a member of the other chamber but that had nothing to do with this particular chamber.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that while this motion is not in my judgment the correct method by which to approach the problem which the member for Peace River desires to deal with, nevertheless the methods indicated by the Prime Minister the other day with respect to controverted elections and matters of that sort do not exhaust the powers of this house to deal with the problem, and when the electoral law is up for revision, as it will be, we can at least expect that the Prime Minister and his government will, with every member of the house, see to it that every possible provision is made to prevent these evils from continuing in Canada. The experience of other countries cries aloud to us.
There is no question of shadows. I was not dealing with shadows; I was dealing with realities, and very real things too. I was dealing with actualities, and, as I said the other day, instances could be multiplied if one so desired. But that has to do with something which is outside this chamber. It has to do with an individual and the methods he pursues in doing certain things. No one complains that he, as leading member of an organization committee, should do certain things. But the methods pursued we have a

right to criticize, and we do; everything that I said on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I repeat, and I say that if the government take any offence at what I have said they have it within their power to adopt that resolution and deal with it.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I repeat to you what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) said the other day, after listening to all the words of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett): he still either said too much or too little. One's mind goes back, as I am sure yours will, Mr. Speaker, to previous occasions during the third session of a parliament when the Conservative party has been in opposition. Particularly my mind goes back to the session of 1926, because of a curious coincidence. The tool of the Conservative party on that occasion with respect to charges was the member for Peace River -a somewhat tragic figure, as time developed.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I-


Charles Avery Dunning: I would remind hon. members of the house that they may read-


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I cannot possibly sit in my place and be called a tool. I object to that remark and I want it withdrawn.


Charles Avery Dunning: I was referring to a peculiar coincidence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman cannot call any hon. member a tool. I rise to a point of order. The minister cannot call any member of the house the tool of anybody.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not call any member of the house a tool of the Conservative party.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister said that the member was the tool of the Conservative party.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said that the then member for Peace River was-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, you said this member.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: The record will speak for itself.


Mr. HEAPS:: The hon. gentleman did say that it was a coincidence, did he not?


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, Mr. Speaker, may I go on?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw first.

Corrupt Electoral Practices


An hon. MEMBER:: There is nothing to withdraw.


Eric Joseph Poole: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman did say that the hon. member was a tool of the Conservative party.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not.


Eric Joseph Poole: He did say so.


An hon. MEMBER:: How does the hon. member know?


Eric Joseph Poole: Was I not listening?


Walter Edward Foster: There is nothing to withdraw.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, it is
astonishing to me, in endeavouring to be reasonably pleasant in the house, that hon. members in the opposite comer, whose language is so generally condemnatory of the rest of us, should take offence at a reference to a gentleman who is not now a member of the house. It is curious, however, a coincidence which will appeal to anyone who reads Hansard of the session of 1926, the coincidence between the action of the Conservative party on that occasion and the action taken at this time by the present hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier). It is a coincidence, I say, that it should be so. Perhaps coming events cast their shadows before.
Now with regard to the resolution before the house, where are we? It is, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) indicated, a plain want of confidence motion, designed to force the government's supporters to vote against the amendment. There is no other course for them to follow unless they are prepared to vote the government out of office, and so they can be represented-all of us can be represented, and will be represented -as favouring corruption in this country, and as voting down an investigation into what? Charges? No. Charges are mentioned in the amendment; but in the hon. member's own speech, in the speech of his seconder, in the speech of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, they all indicated that no charges had been made.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I never spoke.


Charles Avery Dunning: I mean the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). I beg my hon. friend's pardon. They all indicated what we all know to be the truth, that no such thing as a charge was laid. The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) indicated the truth when he said
that a black shadow had been cast-cast deliberately for political purposes by the leader of the Conservative party in order to endeavour to rehabilitate the fortunes of his own party, in the manner in which the same effort has been made before, by throwing mud at everybody who is trying to administer the affairs of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I do not intend to put up with that sort of thing here. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has contravened the rules of the house in two respects: first, by the use of the word " deliberately "; second, by attributing a motive to a member of this chamber. The rule with respect to that was read the other day. He may not do so. If he does so he contravenes the rules of the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, I am not conscious of breaking the rules.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Consciousness is not the point. The hon. member did it.


Charles Avery Dunning: If I have broken the rules, I shall withdraw any statement which had that effect in your opinion, sir.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well then, we shall have a ruling on the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is so, Mr. Speaker, I assume we shall have a ruling.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has risen in his place. On the point of order raised, he said that he will withdraw anything that is out of order in your opinion. A our Honour is the custodian of the rules of the house, and therefore I take it that you will make a decision, whatever that decision may be.


Walter Edward Foster: What words does the right hon. gentleman take objection to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I object to the use of the word " deliberately," in the first instance. I object more seriously to attributing a motive; he said it was to "rehabilitate the fallen fortunes of the Conservative party." The rule is that no hon. member may attribute motives to another.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the task would be an impossible one, I withdraw the expression.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One would expect, Mr. Speaker, that a gentleman occupying the position of Minister of Finance would not accompany his withdrawal from an improper position with an offensive observation respecting
Corrupt Electoral Practices

the remark which he himself made. The rule is clear. He withdraws or he does not. A conditional withdrawal is beyond the rales. Therefore I take it that one with the experience of the hon. gentleman will make the amende honorable and withdraw his offensive expression.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did withdraw, Mr. Speaker. It is true that I labour under a disadvantage. If I want to say anything in the house I usually do iit Straight out, in plain language. I am not equipped personally for so wrapping it up as to convey an insinuation and an impression and the shadow of a charge but to stay nevertheless within the rules of the house. If I transgressed-well, again, unqualifiedly, I withdraw the statement thait this effort was a deliberate attempt to rehabilitate the fortunes of the Conservative party. I withdraw it.
To come .back to the point at issue, I say that the leader of the opposition stands just where he did when the Minister of Transport interrupted him. He is one of the most experienced parliamentarians in the house, and he knows that he does not occupy the position of an elder statesman who is free to lecture all the rest of us and the country at large upon the evils of humanity and of political parties, and the weaknesses to which all of us are subject. He is the leader of a political party, the leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition in the house, and therefore his words are far closer in their significance than they would be if as a retired statesman he went out and made speeches-as he would be capable of doing and as he could usefully do-to the people of Canada upon the general political morality of the Canadian people.
We have had to-day an exposition of the question of general political morality, and the right hon. gentleman says that is all he really intended the other day. But he went further -true, in response to an interruption from my colleague, the Minister of Transport, who, I suggest, had a right to think that some of the words used a few moments before by the leader of the opposition might have an application to one of the great departments of state, the minister of which is responsible for the letting of many thousands of contracts. The leader of the opposition used these words: "What is more, I know of levies being made in connection with Canadian National contracts."


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hope the right hon.
gentleman will believe that I am as anxious to stop any such practice as he can possibly

be. There is only one way of following up a statement like that, and that is for him to rise in his place and say, "Mr. Speaker, the contractor I meant was so-and-so, the amount of money was so much," and then we would deal with the charge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And be out of order in
doing it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I assure my right hon.
friend that so far as this side of the house is concerned he will have unanimous consent.
With regard to the general question of political morality, as the leader of the opposition has well said, all of us who have had long experience in public affairs know the difficulty of surrounding our elections with adequate safeguards. The Prime Minister was absolutely right when he said that the attack of those who are trying to foist upon the democratic countries of the world the authoritarian system is directed at that weak spot in the democratic armour; and everywhere in every democratic country you will see what we have here-letters from fascist organizations in Canada amplifying and enlarging upon what the leader of the opposition said in the house the other day and demanding all sorts of things in connection therewith, using it as the basis of their literature and their propaganda in favour of an authoritarian state in Canada as a means of getting rid of this sort of thing.
Well, democracy has had its difficulties with regard to public morality in relation to expenditures and all that sort of thing. But it is possible for us to talk about it in the house; it is possible for those who know of wrongdoing to rise in their places and state it; it is possible for this body of men to examine it, and it is possible for this body to punish the offenders. May I point out that in an authoritarian state a man who said what the leader of the opposition said would by now be in another sphere; he would have been "liquidated" or-what is the other word? -"purged". As for my hon. friend from Peace River (Mr. Pelletier), what would have happened to him, I shudder to think.
I was interested in the observation of the leader of the opposition that there ought to be some means of regulating contributions for political purposes. But may I illustrate to him out of his own experience how difficult this must be. In the last parliament one of his supporters made the statement that the leader of the opposition contributed three-

Corrupt Electoral Practices
quarters of a million dollars in order to elect himself and his party. There was nothing wrong with that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only it was not true.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think this is the first
time my right hon. friend has ever denied the statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh no.


Charles Avery Dunning: At least publicly. But in any case, perhaps I shall not be rubbing a sore spot too much when I say that it was a lot of money even if it was not three-quarters of a million dollars. And in saying so-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It did not embarrass me.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course it does not and should not embarrass the right hon. gentleman. But what a commentary it is upon his own exposition of the use of money power in elections! If my right hon. friend was fortunately able to do that because he had the money, I shall tell him a secret. In the same election I went into debt in order to try to get elected, and I did not succeed. This again illustrates the very difficult problem in a democracy of dealing with these matters of campaign funds and the use of money in elections. I do not think there is a country anywhere in the world in which even the claim is made that this problem has been solved and that elections and election expenses are now in a perfect condition. The extremely complex set of laws which they have in the republic to the south, the elaborate publication of campaign funds, sources of campaign funds, collections and so forth, have convinced nobody. There also there are loopholes through which the evil doer may pass and does pass.
What we can do in this parliament is this. As the Prime Minister has indicated, from the last session we have the report of the committee with respect to the election act. The government intends to make definite suggestions to the house with respect to the tightening of control over election practices and over monetary matters in relation to elections. Further than that, the government has already engaged eminent counsel to assist in developing these suggestions to which I have just referred.
There is just one way for us to deal with this matter, and that is never to forget, as we have all this afternoon forgotten, that the honour of this institution of which we are members is more important than any other single thing. If the people of this country lose faith in the integrity of this institution
then nothing else is of much use. Do I heal my hon. friend from Dufferin-Simcoe say that the Liberal party would be out if the people lost confidence?


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: I did not say that; I did not say such a thing.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. member
repeat what he did say?


William Earl Rowe: I have no hesitation in repeating it. If democracy were discredited at the present time it would be the Liberal party's fault, with one hundred and seventy members behind the Prime Minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: If democracy is discredited at the present time it may be because of some action of the Liberal government which is discreditable.


William Earl Rowe: I did not say that.


Charles Avery Dunning: And my right hon. friend or any of his supporters has an opportunity to make a charge, which will be investigated immediately. Second, democracy can be discredited by the spreading of a cloud of suspicion, the careful spreading of poison, which was started by my right hon. friend's speech in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and has been continued steadily ever since. There is scarcely a newspaper in Canada to-day carrying news of proceedings in this house which does not convey, without any propagandist purpose, the idea that there is something corrupt in and about this institution of which we are members. Anyone reading the speeches delivered by the hon. members for Peace River and Lethbridge in cold blood cannot but reach the conclusion that democracy in this country is a corrupt thing.
There is one way for us to advance in the direction in which our people want us to go in these matters, that is to forget so far as in us lies our partisan interests and when the time comes that the election laws of this country are before the house, to concentrate on and cooperate in creating in this country as good and sound machinery as can be created, as good provisions as can be devised to ensure the highest possible standard of public morality. But that course is not rendered easier by the casting of shadows, the projecting of octopuses-or should it be octopi? I trust that after this resolution is defeated we shall not hear all over this country that the Liberal party was afraid of an investigation-


William Earl Rowe: You might
47G
Corrupt Electoral Practices


Charles Avery Dunning: I suppose we might. I suppose that is what we may expect, and that is one of the reasons why we cannot advance in clearing up anything which may be wrong. Two courses are open; one is to make a charge and stand by it; the other is to say: We are dealing with a general condition, affecting every citizen of Canada. When the time comes that we have before us the laws of this land dealing with that condition, let us all unite like men to make those laws what they ought to be.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: It is not my intention to say very much in this debate. I think far too much has been said already. There has been far too much heat shown and far too little reason. I believe that the hon. member who moved this amendment-I did not know anything about it beforehand-moved it in good faith, thinking he was drawing this matter to the attention of the house in the way provided' for doing such things. We must remember that the hon. member is comparatively new to the house. This is his third session, and it takes longer than that to become familiar with the rules of procedure and know the ways in which matters requiring to be rectified may be brought to the attention of parliament. But I believe it was with the best of intentions that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) brought this question up.
It was, however, unfortunate, that his seconder, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) covered ground that it was not necessary to traverse at this time. In my opinion he took a wrong course. But that could have been remedied had the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) been wise enough to take a different line in continuing the debate. He should have realized that the hon. member for Peace River did what he did in good faith, and if he did not do it in the right way, the right hon. gentleman should have taken some other method of drawing it to his attention.
The Prime Minister raised the point that the government was not notified. Now, if the amendment had the effect of a motion of want of confidence, that was no new course. I have before me a striking example of the way in which matters of this kind are sometimes brought up. On February 25, 1935, almost three years ago, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) introduced a motion of want of confidence in the government of that time on their unemployment policy. The late Sir George Perley, who was leading the house, in the course of his reply complained that he did not receive notice of the motion until the hon. member 
had about half finished his speech. Questions of this kind are sometimes introduced in that way. Why try to raise such a partisan atmosphere in the house? Let me say to every hon. member who is interested in the preservation of democracy, as I am sure most if not all of us are, that the display in the house to-day is a blow to democracy and parliamentary government in this dominion.
Mr. MARTIN; Who started it?


Mr. LAWSON:: The Prime Minister.


Angus MacInnis: We do not need to go into that. Let us bring this to an end now, and, if there is something that must be examined into and investigated, let us find some better way of doing it. I suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that he now withdraw his amendment and let the matter drop, because we have already had too much discussion of it in the present atmosphere.


Walter Edward Foster: Shall the hon. member have leave to withdraw his amendment?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house let me say-


Walter Edward Foster: I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that if he speaks now he will close the debate.


René-Antoine Pelletier: It is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Go ahead.


René-Antoine Pelletier: If the house is still sitting there are three or four things that I should like to mention in connection with the debate that has arisen this afternoon.


Walter Edward Foster: I think if the hon. member wants to withdraw his motion he has no right to speak further.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He can close the debate.


Angus MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think when a member withdraws a motion he is entitled to make some remarks before withdrawing.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He can explain his withdrawal.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with his withdrawal.


René-Antoine Pelletier: In connection with the withdrawal of the amendment may I point out that I had no idea that in bringing it in at this time it meant a vote of want of confidence in the government. I did not adopt this procedure with any idea of defeating the government at the present time. If the carrying of this amendment would mean the

Civil Service Act-Language Qualification
defeat of the government I cannot take that course. But if the government is willing to appoint the committee, I am quite willing to withdraw my amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh no.


Walter Edward Foster: Does the hon. member withdraw his motion?


René-Antoine Pelletier: Withdrawn-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdrawn.


Walter Edward Foster: Withdrawn by leave of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to say something on another matter.
Motion' withdrawn.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. WILFRID LACROIX (Quebec-Mon-t-moremcy) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Civil Service Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of the bill is to provide th'at no person already belonging to the civil service in a province, and unable to speak French, may be transferred, in either a permanent or a temporary capacity, to the province of Quebec. I know that necessities of administration sometimes compel a minister to appoint to positions in the province of Quebec under his department, officials who, while fully competent in other respects, do not speak the language of the majority of people in that province.
From the moment of their arrival in Quebec, such officials necessarily come in contact with the French speaking public, and their inability to speak the language of the people with whom they have to deal sometimes gives rise to annoyances sufficient to create the impression that Quebec is not treated as it should be, and to bring about in the long run the very thing every hon. member wishes to avoid, namely conflicts detrimental to Canadian unity.
Without attaching any -blame to any of the departments concerned, which evidently select for such positions the officials at their disposal, I am confident that by amending the act in the manner indicated in the bill it would be possible to create a staff capable of
speaking French with ease and fluency. There would thus be opened to our bilingual young men positions which, so far, they have had difficulty in obtaining.
The officials I have in mind, those who speak only English, passed their civil service examinations in an outside province and, on being transferred to Quebec, were not subjected to any further test. I suggest that in such cases further examinations be held, and that officials appointed to positions in Quebec be required to prove their ability to understand the people of that province, and to be understood by them. Not only is this fair, but it would work out to the -advantage of the service.
It is principally the officials of the Department of Agriculture sent to Quebec as inspectors of live stock or farm products who find themselves in contact with a population almost entirely composed of people speaking the French language. May I add that outside the civil service mistakes of that kind are also made. Even in the ancient city of Champlain, which is certainly the most French of all cities in America there is an engineer in charge of all national defence undertakings who cannot speak a word of French.
I acknowledge with pleasure the good will shown by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) in connection with the emr ployment of French speaking officials; but to every complaint I have made to him he has -eplied, through his deputy minister, that he had at his disposal no engineer who could speak French.	.
I am fully convinced that if the act contained a section compelling every official called upon to serve in Quebec to prove, through examination, his knowledge of the French language, this would be a step towards that unity which is so greatly needed to-day. Moreover it would give to those -people in my province who possess the required qualifications an opportunity to obtain these positions. One can scarcely conceive of a French Canadian official unable to make himself understood in- English being transferred to Toronto or Kingston. His stay in either place would surely be a short one.
I do not wish to make a lengthy speech; still less do I wish to raise the racial cry. I request simply that my province be placed on the same footing as the other provinces. Firmly convinced of the justice of my cause, I am content to rely upon the broad-mindedness of hon. members for the passage of the bill.
478	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Language Qualification
(Translation). Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to provide that no person already belonging to the civil service in a province and unable to speak French may be transferred, in either a permanent or temporary capacity, to the province of Quebec.
I realize that administrative necessities sometimes compel a minister to appoint to positions in Quebec province coming under his department officials who, though highly competent, do not speak the language of the majority of the people of that province. Such officials, from the moment of their arrival in Quebec, necessarily come into contact with the French-speaking public, and their inability to speak the language of most of the people they have to deal with sometimes creates annoyances sufficient to produce the impression that the province is not treated as it should be and to bring about in the end the very thing that every member of this house desires to avoid, that is conflicts detrimental to Canadian unity.
Without attaching any blame to any of the departments concerned, which evidently select for such positions the officials they have at their disposal, I am convinced that by amending the act in the manner indicated in this bill it would be possible to create a staff able to speak French with ease and fluency. There would thus be opened to our bilingual young men positions which so far they have had difficulty in obtaining.
The officials I have in mind and who can speak only English passed their civil service examinations in some other province and naturally were not subjected to any further test on their transfer to positions in Quebec. They are chiefly officials of the Department of Agriculture sent to Quebec province as inspectors of live stock or of farm products and who, since the majority of the population of the province is French, find themselves in contact with a French-speaking public.
There have also been transferred from other provinces to Quebec, as a result of administrative necessities, inspectors of revenue, of customs and of immigration, who could not speak French at all. I may add that similar errors are committed outside the civil service. For instance, in the ancient city of Champlain, certainly the most French of all the cities of America, the engineer in charge of all the works of the Department of National Defence does not speak a word of French. Nevertheless, I acknowledge with pleasure the good will shown by the Minister of National Defence in regard to the employment of French-speaking officials; but to every complaint that I have made to him on

that score he has replied through his deputy minister that he had no official able to speak French at his disposal to replace the engineer in question.
I am quite convinced that if the act compelled every official appointed by the Civil Sendee Commission to fill a position in Quebec province to prove his knowledge of the French language by an examination, it would be a step towards that unity which is greatly needed at present. Moreover, it would give to those of my province who possess the required qualifications an opportunity of obtaining these positions. It would be difficult to imagine the case of a French-Canadian official unable to make himself understood in English being transferred to Toronto or Kingston His stay there would surely be short.
I simply request, Mr. Speaker, that my province be placed on the same footing as the other provinces. Firmly convinced of the justice of my claims, I rely on the broad-mindedness of the members of the house for the passage of this bill.
The traditions which we cherish so dearly should be understood by those who come into contact with us. The fact of having in the province of Quebec federal officials who can make themselves understood by our people would mean a great step towards a truly Canadian ideal.
One of my colleagues pointed out to the house the other day the veneration in which we should hold the monuments of the ancient city of Champlain. He was right. Just as each one of the stones of old Quebec evokes a page of our history, each one of our traditions has contributed to the greatness of this Canada which we all hold so dear. The soul of Quebec is well expressed in the following immortal lines of Victor Hugo:
Voulez-vous qu'une tour, voulez-vous qu'une eglise,	a ...
Soient de ces monuments dont fame idealise Tout a la fois la forme et la hauteur, Attendez que de mousse elles soient revetues, Et laissez travailler it toutes les statutes Le temps, ce grand sculpteur.
It is time that has produced the union of the races in this country. Time has allowed us, with the marvellous control lever 'which is the French language, to preserve our traditions, to retain our Catholic faith and to grow from 60,000 to 3,000,000. Time has permitted us to play, on the banks of the St. Lawrence, on this North American continent, the role of last sentinel of French thought and genius. Time has made possible the realization of the dream symbolized by the monument erected to Wolfe and Montcalm in Quebec.
Let it not be forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that no one has contributed more than the French

Civil Service Act-Language Qualification
Canadian to the union of the two races which make up the population of this country. I am sure that the English-speaking majority of this house, remembering the constant efforts of our people to understand them better, to speak and even master their language, as the right honourable the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) said so eloquently yesterday in paying tribute to the eminent statesman who directs the Ministry of Justice-I am sure that this majority will render justice to the French element by approving the bill of which I have the honour to move the second reading, seconded by the honourable member for Laval-Two Mountains (Mr. Lacombe).
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I think I would fail to discharge properly my duties were I not to express approval of the amendment to the Civil Service Act proposed by the hon. member for Quebec Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix). To my mind the amendment is based on justice and common sense. During the first session of this parliament I made the following statement:
A certain discontent seems to exist in the province of Quebec regarding the number of positions held by French speaking Canadians in the federal service.
In support of that statement I gave certain statistics which may be found on page 2720 of Hansard of 1936. Since I made that statement conditions have not materially changed or improved.
What I am about to say I intend to say in a frank and candid manner. My criticism is not against the government; it is against the actual system and possibly indirectly against those who apply the system. Throughout the province of Quebec there is a feeling that federal civil service positions are not awarded in the correct proportion to French and English speaking Canadians. I am quite prepared to admit that considerable misapprehension exists as to the power and jurisdiction of the commission. I shall even go so far as to say that many people, unfortunately too many, still have the impression that members of the House of Commons or ministers of the government have the final say in recommending and designating who, among several candidates for a civil service position, shall have the appointment. This is not the case. I know that the commission has the first and last say in the matter of making appointments. If that is not the fact I should like someone to tell me.
I should like to cite one instance which occurred in Cap de la Madeleine. About two years ago the civil service commission invited applications by bilingual candidates for the position of caretaker for a post office building which had just been erected. That town has
a population of about 10,000, and I doubt if one half of one per cent of the people are English speaking. This caretaker would not have to speak English more than once in ten years in the carrying out of his duties, unless he took the notion once in a while to go down in the basement and address himself to the Scotch anthracite coal pile. It took the commission about a year to realize the true situation, and then new applications were invited. This happened six months ago, but as yet the examination has not been held nor has the date been announced. No doubt it will take another six months to close this matter finally. The result is that it has taken over two years to fill the position of caretaker in a post office. There are many candidates for this position and I may say they are all exasperated at the delay.
Many people throughout the country are dissatisfied with the commission. I know many members of the House of Commons are dissatisfied, and I would not be surprised to hear that some ministers are not totally satisfied. This feeling is regrettable, but it has existed for a number of years. The sooner the system is either changed or improved, the better it will be for all concerned. After all, the commission should not be looked upon as being an absolutely permanent and unchangeable fixture. It should not be considered as a bureaucracy.
Reverting to the dissatisfaction and misapprehension that exist in connection with the work of this commission, I want to say most emphatically that the one factor which has contributed the most to creating this dissatisfaction and misapprehension is the appointment by the commission of persons to certain positions who can hardly speak the language of those with whom they would come in daily contact in the fulfilment of their official duties. That such a state of affairs has existed in the province of Quebec is not to be doubted. These things will happen again unless the law is changed, as suggested by the hon. member for Quebec Montmorency, and it will be to the detriment of those good relations which should exist between French and English populations in this country. I name no one. I have no personal animosity against those who are holding positions in the civil service which they are not fit to hold. My sole and sincere desire is to do away with such unwise, unfit, and I will say, unfair nominations.
The present amendment will serve the purpose in view. Candidates who seek a bilingual position ought to submit to a bilingual exam-
480	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Language Qualification
ination, and moreover, the bilingual test should be one of the most important items of the examination. I repeat that one who cannot speak the language of those with whom he is bound to act naturally cannot understand their mentality or customs, and he cannot but be a failure and a cause of friction. I venture to say that if there is dissatisfaction and suspicion in the province of Quebec in regard to the civil service commission, it is due to the fact that some people have been appointed to positions who could not satisfactorily fill them because they could not speak the language or understand the mentality of the people with whom they had to deal.
Some may suggest this grudge seems to exist only in Quebec. It may possibly be so, but to those who find it strange or singular that the grudge or dissatisfaction should be limited to that province I would say that they are not acquainted with the facts or aware of what is taking place in Quebec. Those people who so wonder would appreciate the circumstances better if the situation were reversed. Suppose a man from the province of Quebec who could hardly speak English, and knew little about the mentality or customs of the English speaking people of this country, were appointed to a civil service position where he had to deal with people in the city of Toronto, for example, or Calgary or some other English speaking city. I wonder what the people there would say of such an appointment. I am sure they would have reason to be dissatisfied and to have a grudge against the system that permitted such appointments. How long would they stand for it? I do not say that the people of Toronto are not as fair-minded as the people of any other city, and I am sure they would not stand very long for a man holding a civil service position who could not speak the language which is generally spoken in that city.
In the province of Quebec, not all the people-for I do not want to exaggerate-but some people, too many people, in fact, feel that they have generously, and with resignation and self-denial for the sake of peace and harmony, stood for such appointments until their patience is exhausted. This is not a threat; it is rather a warning and a statement of facts. It is a statement of a most unfortunate reality. The proposed amendment to the Civil Service Act will remedy this grievance, and I therefore most heartily support it because I think it will remove one of the causes of unrest in my province.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with the object
fMr. Brunette.]
which this bill endeavours to accomplish there is not a member of this chamber, I think, not wholly in accord. It is reasonably clear that public officials who transact business with the public should be in a position to communicate with a majority of those whom they serve, or with the minority as well. Hence it is that the civil service commission has provided for bilingual appointments. If the matter has worked out unsatisfactorily, I think we all would regret it, but I believe that the method taken by this measure is not sound. It is the method to which one objects, and not to the principle, and inasmuch as the principle of the measure is the only matter under consideration on the second reading I suggest to the government that this is a proper measure to be submitted to the special committee on the civil service, if such a committee is to be appointed.
I remember distinctly some of the difficulties which the hon. member for Quebec-Mont-morency (Mr. Lacroix) has mentioned, and it was the aim generally of ministers to provide that candidates for civil service positions in Quebec should have a bilingual knowledge, and in some of the other provinces the advertisements calling for applications distinctly said: "A knowledge of French is essential." That has been the course followed heretofore in this country. If in the working of it out it has not been found entirely satisfactory, this measure would have the effect of limiting rather than expanding the opportunities of those who reside in the province of Quebec for civil service appointments. I think it would restrict, and not enlarge, their opportunities, and for that reason I suggest, the purpose intended being highly commendable, that the measure itself should be referred to a special or standing committee, if there is one that can deal with the matter, in order that it may be determined whether or not the end can be attained without the restrictive provisions of this legislation. This amendment would be very far-reaching, and in my judgment would have a contrary effect to that intended by both hon. gentlemen who have spoken in favour of it. All that would be required, in my judgment, would be that the community to be served is such that the appointment necessitates a knowledge of both languages; for, as one hon. gentleman has said, even though the minority is small, it has a right to be communicated with in the language it understands, and particularly where the large majority of the population is communicated with in only one language, to appoint a person who understands that lan-

Civil Service Act-Language Qualification
guage imperfectly would be wrong and entirely opposed to the principle underlying the Civil Service Act.
I am far from endeavouring to discuss the details of the amendment, which, I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will at once see, will have the effect of restricting rather than enlarging the opportunities, because they would segregate each province as such, instead of carrying out what has been so long in the minds both of parliament and of the commission, that those who serve communities in which both the English and French languages are used should have knowledge of both these languages to enable them properly and adequately to discharge their duties. There have been many difficulties; I know of them; but I can say I do not believe that at any time there has been a deliberate effort on the part of either the civil service commission on the one hand or ministers on the other to prevent, either directly or indirectly, those who are appointed to the public service from communicating with the community they serve in the language of the majority of that community. If it were so, the sooner it is stopped the better, because it is desirable that the men who occupy these positions should be able to communicate with those who are affected by the service rendered, in either the French or English language, they being the two languages which are officially recognized in this country.
I make these observations from some knowledge and experience with respect to the matter, and with the earnest desire to see the principle for which the hon. gentlemen are^contending given effect to, but not, in my judgment, by the legislation now before the house, which in detail, I repeat-and I think the Minister of Justice will, upon examination, agree-effects a restrictive principle, rather than enlarges the opportunities for those who will be served. If it were referred to a committee, the Civil Service Commission, I feel satisfied, would be able to arrive at a solution that would meet the difficulties to which the hon. gentleman has referred and which, in my judgment, should be remedied at the earliest possible date.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I desire to say only a few words
on this bill, as evidently, from the remarks made by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), and my own, it will be found that both sides of the house are practically in agreement on the principle involved. I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lacroix) upon the very able way in which he has presented this bill;
I would also express my congratulations to the leader of the opposition for the short but illuminative remarks that he has made about the bill.
This question has arisen in the past in many ways, both inside and outside the house, and I might say that there has been an effort to find a solution to the problem, although in practice it evidently has not reached its full expression. May I point out in the first place that already there is in the Civil Service Act a section which to a certain degree touches on this point. Section 32 of the act provides that:
Every examination under this act shall be held in the English or French language, at the option of the candidate; and notice of every examination shall be published in the English and French languages in the Canada Gazette, and such notice shall state the number of positions that it is expected will be open for appointments, the positions that are then vacant, and in each case the qualifications required for such positions.
It has been the practice in a number of cases in advertising positions to state whether the two languages are required, or whether only one of the languages is necessary. As regards transfers, section 21, subsection 3 of the act provides:
Except as to appointments to positions in the headquarters of the several departments and other portions of the civil service at Ottawa, the appointments to any local positions in any province shall, so far as practicable, be made from persons having resided in such localities for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the date last fixed for receiving applications for such local positions.
And in the civil service regulations, section 54 further provides:
In recommending a transfer in which a change of residence is involved, the deputy head of the department in which the vacancy exists must certify that the position in question cannot be filled efficiently by local promotion, or must advance sufficient reasons for his recommendation to satisfy the commission that in this particular instance it is in the best interests of the public service that transfer should supersede promotion.
It will be seen from these quotations that in the Civil Service Act and in the regulations of the commission some attention has already been given to the language question and also reservations have been made to make as much as possible the transfer from one province into another exceptional cases. I might quote also, but it would delay the discussion, passages from the annual report of the civil service commission, 1934, where this commission deals with this matter and points out certain of the things that I myself have indicated this evening. But apparently these

2	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Language Qualification
precautions have not been sufficient, and the number of cases alluded to by both members who spoke before the leader of the opposition indicate that we have still to contend with conditions whereby it is possible in certain instances to have federal officials deal with a portion of the population whose language they do not speak. I think we all agree that this is undesirable. To that extent, I believe, the house should be unanimous in accepting the principle involved in this bill.
But I have some sympathy with the remarks made by the leader of the opposition as to the exact wording of the sections proposed as amendments. In the first place, I think that although the language question should be primary, it is desirable that the amendments should not. be made stringent to a point where they might prevent either the commission or whoever is in charge of the appointment from giving consideration to other qualifications which may be required in exceptional appointments where a scientist or other technical man or a person of special experience may be needed. In the second place I am not sure that by making the province the territorial limit within which this bill is supposed to act, there is not a danger that in certain instances we may arrive at the opposite goal to the one we wish to attain. If this bill were adopted in its present form there is a danger that a strict interpretation of it might, for example, prevent the appointment of a French clerk in certain territorial portions of other provinces where there is a French minority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the restrictive feature of it to which I referred.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I must say, though, that as a rule the French people speak both languages and I think the average Frenchman could qualify even under such conditions, but I would not at all wish this bill to appear to have a racial flavour about it. The principle involved in the bill, as I understand it, is just as well intended to preserve the rights of one portion of the population as the other, and to ensure in both cases that any federal employee, whether he is French or English, is in a position to converse in the language of the people with whom he is associated.
I might say that it is the intention of the government to move very soon for a special select committee on civil service matters, and I appreciate the proposal of the leader of the opposition. It was also the intention of the government to suggest that this bill should be referred to such a committee. I believe, though, if we are all agreed on the principle of the bill, that this bill should pass

its second reading, be approved by the house, and then stand on the order paper until such time as we may be able to move for its consideration by that special committee.


James Earl Lawson: Will the minister be good enough to tell me whether there is any definition in the present Civil Service Act, which this bill proposes to amend, of the word " local " or the words " local position,'1 which are constantly used in the section as amended in the bill?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The hon. gentleman
appreciates the. fact that this is not my bill. I agree with the suggestion that it should not be drafted exactly in the language in which it appears, but we are all agreed upon the principle and I think the bill should be given its second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
CRIMINAL CODiE



PROVISION AGAINST REFUSAL TO EMPLOY OR DISMISSAL FOR MEMBERSHIP IN TRADE UNIONS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 4, to amend the criminal code.
He said: As I intimated when I introduced this bill, its purpose is:
-to prevent employers from refusing to employ, or from dismissing employees, or conspiring with others therefor, for the reason that they are members of a trade union.
As it is lawful for workmen or employees to form themselves into trade unions and to bargain collectively, it should, as a matter of public policy, be unlawful for employers to seek by overt acts or intimidation, threats or conspiracy to prevent them from belonging to such trade unions.
The right of labour to organize is recognized by the treaty of peace. I quote:
The right of association for all lawful purposes by the employed as well as by the employers.
Section 497 of the criminal code distinctly exempts trade unions from the class of unlawful organizations: notwithstanding that, it is extremely difficult in practice for trade unions to carry forward their organization work. As an example of the arrogant attitude of employers I might quote what was said by some of them during the investigation by the textile commission. The president of one company said:
The men can belong to any union if they like. We do not ask a man if he belongs to a union or what his religion may be, but the board of directors refuse to recognize the union, any union.

Criminal Code-Trade Unions
The president of another company said:
I never had to deal with a union here before, never heard of such a thing, and I am not going to be led by a lot of such folk as if I might just have a rope around my neck and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.
Another manager said:
We have no objection whatever to our employees joining any kind of organization they feel so disposed to. I don't think we would be prepared to consider dealing with any organization. Because we would very much prefer to deal with them as individuals. Because there are always people who get in control of these things, or it seems to be the case, who have very radical ideas, imaginary ills or problems.
And yet another:
The company will not permit any third party to interfere between the management and the employees or to take away from the employees their rights as individuals to deal with the company.
I wish to give one honourable exception. The president of one particular company made this statement:
We as manufacturers ... we have got the right to organize ourselves. Isn't it right that labour should have the same right?
That is all that I ask for in this measure.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: You ask that what you refer to should be made a crime.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; I ask that the criminal code be amended in this respect. The Minister of Justice suggests that this is not by nature a crime. As he is aware, I am not a lawyer, but as a layman I have been reading some sections of the criminal code. I find, for example, that breach of trust by a public officer is a crime punishable by five years' imprisonment. I find that obstructing an officiating clergyman is a crime, for which one is liable to be sentenced to two years in prison. It is enacted that the head of a family shall provide the necessaries for any child under sixteen and for his wife; if he fails to do so he is guilty of a crime and is liable to a fine of $500 or one year's imprisonment or both. I find that the issuing of a false prospectus, statement or account lay directors or officers is a crime. I find that even cheating in playing at any game or in holding the stakes or in betting on any event is a crime, and renders one liable to three years' imprisonment. I find that sending false telegrams is a crime, the punishment being two years' imprisonment.
I would read section 501:
Every one is guilty of an offence punishable, at the option of the accused, on indictment or on summary conviction before two justices and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars, or to three months' imprisonment with or without hard labour, who, wrongfully and without lawful authority,
51952-31f
with a view to compel any other person to abstain from doing anything which he has a lawful right to do, or to do anything from which he has a lawful right to abstain, . . .
My amendment is very much along the line indicated in the foregoing section. Or let us take section 502:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to two years' imprisonment who, iu pursuance of any unlawful combination or conspiracy to raise the rate of wages . . . uses any violence or threat of violence to any person, with intent to hinder him from working or being employed at such trade, business or manufacture.
In other words, certain things which employees may do become crimes, and I suggest that if we have a provision against such actions we should also have in the criminal code a provision enabling employees to organize in order to carry on their activities.
The Trades and Labour Congress has time and again presented the case of labour to the dominion government and to the various provincial assemblies. I quote from a recent document:
While the provisions of the criminal code relating to conspiracies in restraint of trade are not, in virtue of express exemptions, applicable to trade unions or to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection, the right of employees to organize, or to join, trade unions is not secured or protected by any positive law on the subject; and under the decisions of the courts in one province, namely, Ontario, trade unions, in so far as their objects may be in restraint of trade, have been held to be unlawful associations.
As representing organized workers, we receive numerous complaints from wage earners who are threatened with dismissal if they dare to join a union of their own choice and as trade unionism is necessary to set up Canadian living standards in our industries, we submit that it is strongly to be condemned that employers should continue to have it in their power to prevent their workers from joining a union and we desire to solicit your assistance in removing such authority over their workers from all employers, although only a minority of them endeavour to impose such restrictions.
Now the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada has been attempting to have suitable legislation passed by the various provincial legislatures. I shall not go into that matter. But it seems to be necessary that provincial legislation should be supplemented by federal legislation.
With regard to the constitutional aspects of the case I should like to quote from the submission made by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada to the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations, in January of this year. Referring to the jurisdictional question the submission states:
We base this statement on two important principles laid down by the privy council itself in dealing with our constitution. The first of these principles was given in a decision of 1896
Criminal Code-Trade Unions

(the Distillers' and Brewers' case) when their lordships stated that they did not doubt "that some matters, in their origin local and provincial, might attain such dimensions as to affect the body politic of the dominion and to justify the Canadian parliament in passing laws for their regulation or abolition in the interests of the dominion." Obviously this means that a matter of civil rights or of a local or private nature in its origin should cease to be reserved exclusively to the provinces when it becomes of such prominence as to attain national significance.
The second principle, contained in the decision on the Radio case (1932) may be taken either as an extension of the first, or as parallel to it. Lord Dunedin in giving judgment had established that the point at isue was given by the act neither to the dominion nor to the provinces. As a residual power, and as a matter esen-tially national, jurisdiction was declared to rest with the federal authority.
One other paragraph from this document:
Thus, it seems to the Trades and Labour Congress that the intention in the mind of the original promoters of the British North America Act and the needs of to-day in regard to the constitution are in agreement, namely, that the central government should be able to exercise those functions one would expect to find a central government possessing, that is to say, jurisdiction in questions of common import throughout the nation in matters where uniformity is highly desirable, in matters where the size of the problem exceeds provincial competence, as well as in matters more readily recognized as interprovincial in scope.
One other quotation touching the constitutional aspect, also from a memorandum of the Trades and Labour Congress:
On the rights of wage earners to organize for their mutual protection, and on the right of union workers to bargain collectively, we would like to say a special word. We realize that jurisdiction in these matters rests with the provinces at present, rather than with parliament, and in the past year we have approached the several legislatures, seeking protective legislation, with success in some cases. We firmly believe, however, that the dominion parliament also should recognize the rights of the workers to freedom of association and collective bargaining in as far as its jurisdiction extends-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -by providing suitable penalties for proven cases of interference with these rights, it. is a fact that the workers are not interfered with by the law in their desire to organize, but experience has shown that that is not enough. So long as any employer may apply economic pressure to prevent organization among his employees, it is impossible for his workers to enjoy their full civil privileges. If our recommendations for amendment to the British North America Act were carried out, parliament would have full jurisdiction to legislate on this matter in pursuance of the recommendation of the International Labour Organization, but as suggested, even under existing conditions, we strongly urge the government to ask parliament to take such action as it can to assert the principle of the right of the workers to organize.
Again I would say that is what I am trying to accomplish by this bill. Look at the situation from the practical standpoint. The old individual bargaining is a thing of the past. We see an example of the old-fashioned type of personal relations in the shoemaker sitting on one side of the bench and his man on the other. They are almost equal in bargaining power. But to-day behind the foreman or superintendent stands the manager; behind the manager a board of directors, and behind the directors millions of money, and very often also an employers' association. What chance has the single employee in bargaining with a great aggregation of that kind? He is simply in a hopeless position. So that if he is to have anything like real civil rights with regard to his daily work he must be given the right to organize. The employer should not be permitted to intimidate him, or dismiss him for the sole reason that he has seen fit to join a union. One has only to go out into industry to realize how necessary legislation of this sort is. Several years ago I described to the house what I had observed in some company towns that exist in some of the more remote parts of Canada, little isolated communities where a great plant dominates the situation, where the company not only owns the factory or plant but owns the houses, owns the streets in some cases, owns all the utilities of every kind. An individual employee is absolutely helpless in such cases. It is going a short distance indeed to ask that the government should step in to protect an employee under such conditions. This bill provides for the employee only what employers are now enjoying.
Had I time I could read lengthy extracts from resolutions which have been passed in favour of this bill by various labour organizations across the country. Further than that I can show that not merely in industrial unions but even in some professional associations that are being organized to-day, the employees of big concerns, as for example newspapers, are discriminated against for no other reason than that they belong to a union and through that union seek to promote the interests of themselves and their fellows. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that the government would be merely carrying out principles of fundamental justice in preventing this intimidation on the part of great corporations.

Prince Edward Island National Park



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND NATIONAL PARK-STATEMENT OF MR. BENNETT ON MOTION OF PRIME MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for committee of supply.
Richard Bedford Bennett: One of the opportunities afforded to bring grievances to the attention of parliament is when a motion is made that the house resolve itself into committee of supply. Fortunately in the case to which I am about to direct attention there is no amendment involved, and I trust that no censure can be read into my remarks. It is rather an exposition of facts Which I shall make, with the hope that the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar) will take steps to remedy what is in fact a great grievance on the part of many people residing in the small province of Prince Edward Island.
In the year 1936 it will be remembered that parliament enacted chapter 43 of our statutes which provided for the establishment of a national park in Prince Edward Island. Section 5 of that act provides that the area for the park shall be provided by the province free from all claims of any kind. That statute became law on June 23, 1936.
Prince Edward Island has a legislature in which there are no opposition members. They are all supporters of the government. On April 18, 1936, the legislature passed chapter 17 of the statutes for that year, the relevant section of which reads:
1.	For the purpose of selecting a site for a national park area or areas in the province, the provincial secretary and any other person or persons authorized by him or by the executive council may enter upon any land or premises alleged to be suitable for such site and may make an inspection and survey of the same.
2.	If any lands within the province are deemed to be suitable for a national park, the lieutenant governor in council may make an order vesting such lands, together with all buildings, appurtenances, easements, streams, and water courses thereto belonging or adjacent in His Majesty the King in the right of the province of Prince Edward Island absolutely.
Then follows a provision with respect to the expropriation order. Naturally some provision is to be expected dealing with the question of the compensation to be paid. We find that section 5 reads:
If, within a reasonable time from the making of the order in council, a satisfactory agreement has not been reached with regard to the amount and apportionment of the compensation to be paid by the government of the province by way of compensation for the
lands and premises thereby expropriated, the lieutenant governor in council may make a further order fixing the amount of such compensation, and the provincial treasurer may thereupon pay the amount so fixed into the Court of Chancery, to be apportioned and paid out upon the application of any of the parties entitled thereto. Such payment into court shall fully discharge the claim of all persons whatsoever for compensation in respect to the expropriation of such lands.
Then follows section 6:
The lieutenant governor in council may take such further steps as are necessary to vest the lands so expropriated in His Majesty in the right of Canada or in any such department, officer or trustee on behalf of the government of Canada as may be proper for the establishment of a national park on such site.
It therefore is apparent that this legislation was predicated upon a statute passed by this parliament, by which we undertook certain obligations with respect to a national park in Prince Edward Island, or an area in Prince Edward Island to be acquired by that province.
The province, instead of expropriating the lands, as would be done in the case of a railway company, or by the crown, merely passed a statute vesting the lands indicated by the surveyor in the crown in the right of the province. That, in itself, meant that men and women who had inhabited and occupied lands for generations, the ancestors of some going back to the eighteenth century, found that their lands were vested in the crown in the right of the province of Prince Edward Island. The province undertook that upon the acquisition of the lands they were to be vested in the crown in the right of the dominion, as a national park.
Now we come to the next important question, that of compensation. These old farms, old homes with traditions and sentiment attaching to them, were vested in the crown in the right of the province of Prince Edward Island, for purposes of a national park. In the case of a railway exercising the right of eminent domain, or in the case of the crown exercising the right of eminent domain, there is provision either for arbitration or for the hearing of the claim before a district or county court judge.
But, behold what was done in this case- and if you want an illustration of what happens in a province where there is no opposition in the legislature, give your attention to what happened here. The province, in the right of this government, took the right to declare what compensation should be given to those owners. I hold under my hand the notice which was given in one case, that of a woman who had constructed a number of cabins on the shore. She rented those cabins
486	COMMONS
Prince Edward Island National Park
to tourists, making a profit of about $2,000 a year. This is the letter which was directed to her on August 10, last:
I am directed to advise you that the executive council has authorized settlement for the lands formerly owned by you and expropriated for the purpose of a national park, in the full amount of $1,935.
A search of the title to the lands is now being made and payment will be made at this office when satisfactory evidence of title is filed and arrangements are made to remove any buildings that may now be on the land.
Yours truly,
P. S. Fielding,
Deputy Provincial Treasurer.
I venture to say that it is not within the knowledge of any member of the house of a case where the vendor of land was to have the price he was to receive, when it was taken from him by compulsion, set by the purchaser. But that is what happened here.
Without the right of court action, without the right of being heard before an independent tribunal, and without the right of arbitration or judicial determination, the owners of these old homes have had them taken from them by a vesting order in the form of a statute passed by the legislature of Prince Edward Island. The price they are to receive as compensation for their lands and buildings is to be fixed by the same government which took them from them. If no settlement can be arrived at, the authorities simply write a letter in which they say, "You are to get so much money."
I say that when we are the beneficiaries; when we have invited this action to be taken; when prior to this we enacted a statute which said that we would provide a national park when we got the site, and when as a result of that the legislature took the step, in the manner I have indicated, to provide that site, it is not right or in consonance with our idea of British justice that these people should have their lands or homes taken from them, or that they should be dispossessed so that a national park might be operated by the Dominion of Canada. It is not right to have the price fixed by the government which took the property from them.
In other words, the person or persons- this being a government-in whom the property is vested by legislative act can fix the price to be paid to the man or woman deprived of his property. Is that not a real grievance? Is that not a wrong which we should not tolerate, when we are to become the owners of the property? This is not a matter of politics, because many of these men and women are, of course, of necessity 
supporters of the present federal government.
I do not suggest they are all supporters of this government, and the government in Prince Edward Island. One of the ministers in the federal government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) sits as a representative of that province. It is quite obvious that this matter should receive the consideration of the house.
They have asked that the grievance be presented at the earliest possible moment. A petition was sent to the Minister of Mines and Resources reciting all these facts and he, very properly, says that this is not a matter over which at this time he has that control which would enable him to act. The government, however, has the power to communicate with the government of Prince Edward Island, just as in times past successive ministers of justice have communicated with the provinces for purposes of amendments being made to legislation, so that they might be made intra vires where formerly they had been ultra vires.
I believe that we have here a grave abuse of power; I think I am using a term which is not too strong. This is an abuse of power. The court of last resort in England, has settled the principle upon which damages should be assessed, where property was taken by compulsion. That was a case against the old Canadian Northern Railway Company where the proceedings went to the privy council and the principles which governed were laid down. Those principles have not been observed in this case for here the compensation to be paid is settled by the party that compulsorily took the lands from the owners!
It seems to me that these people are entitled to the application of the law of their country. Does the minister not agree that it is high-handed in this twentieth century that men and women should have their property taken from them by compulsion and then have the principles that apply in the settlement of the compensation they are to receive made no longer applicable to their case? Should a government of the day that takes the property be permitted merely to say, "We will give you so much money?"
One man went there to establish a particular agricultural industry, the growing of a certain kind of plant in a particular soil. He was compelled to leave; his case has been settled and he has left the country. Of course, that was inevitable. There is an-

Prince Edward Island National Park
other instance in which land was expropriated and the individual said that he would not take the price offered. The authorities then said, "Oh, well, we do not need it now." There is a decision that once the power of expropriation has been exercised, after you have had the property for months, you cannot suddenly, because a man will not take what you offer him, say, "Well, we do not want the land now."
Acting under instructions from the owners, men proceeded to tear down some of the buildings and to treat the property as property belonging to the crown in the right of the province. The transfer to the crown in the right of the dominion as such of course has not been registered, but the actual transaction has been completed as the officials of the national parks branch are on the property and exercising jurisdiction over it. They have warned these unfortunate people that they must leave and that cabins can no longer be permitted. This farmer and his wife have operated these cabins as a means of livelihood. As I said, their business brought in a net of $2,000 a year and they have been offered $1,960 for their property.
I am drawing this matter to the attention of the minister at this time rather than waiting until his estimates are before the house as I think it is a matter which he and his colleague the Minister of Justice should direct to the attention of the government of Prince Edward Island. The authorities there should be asked to modify their legislation, as has been done frequently, for the purpose of enabling justice and right to be done. It is true that the first act was passed in 1936 and the year within which it could be disallowed has passed; but the amending statute, which gives force and validity to the statute of 1936, was not assented to until April 9 of last year and therefore will stand for disallowance for many months yet. This is chapter 24 of the statutes of 1937, and I refer particularly to section 3, which reads:
This act shall be construed as being retroactive to the time of passing the act hereby amended, and as having the same force and effect as if the provisions hereof had been incorporated in the original act.
If the Minister of Justice deals with that statute within twelve months of the date of its receipt, there will be ample time in which to bring about such amendment as will enable those who have been prejudiced to bring their cases either to the courts or to a board of arbitration in order that they may receive compensation to which they are justly
entitled. I think that is a fair suggestion to make to the minister under the circumstances.
I hope we are not to undertake the management of a national park which has been brought into being by depriving citizens of their rights under the law, and by taking from them by an arbitrary act of the legislature any right to have a court or a board of arbitration determine the amount of compensation they should receive for the injuries they have suffered through the compulsory taking of their property. I submit that is not an unfair proposal to make, and I make it to the minister before his estimates are brought down in order that the matter may be brought to the attention of the Prince Edward Island government.
I realize, of course, that the minister may say that he is here simply to operate a national park when the site is given to the government and is not concerned about the method by which the site is acquired. There has been a deprivation of the right which every British citizen is supposed to have of recourse to some tribunal for the purpose of settling the amount he is entitled to receive from the person who takes his property. The person who takes his property should not be permitted to say arbitrarily, " I will give you $1,900 for what I have taken. Willy-nilly you must take it, and that is all you get. You have no right of recourse, either to the courts or anywhere else."
The existence of such a condition I believe calls for the exercise of a power which in days gone by has frequently been exercised by ministers of justice who have brought the attention of provincial authorities to certain situations and asked that they be amended. Within the year that must elapse from the date of the receipt of the 1937 statute there will be ample time for the minister to bring this situation to the attention of the- government of Prince Edward Island. Their legislature has not met this year and there would be an opportunity to remedy one of the gravest injustices which has ever been perpetuated against the people of any province.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my right hon. friend know the date of that enactment?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned just now that the operative part was made retroactive. The second act was assented to on April 9, 1937, and I do not suppose it would get to the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) until some time in May. Therefore, there would be ample time to deal w'ith this matter. That is why I took advantage of the first opportunity to bring it to the attention of the government.
488	COMMONS
Prince Edward Island National Park
I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of the house, that I would not have done so had it not been for the urgent necessity of doing it promptly.


Hon. T. A. CRERAR (Minister of Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of some regret to me that my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) did not give me any intimation that he proposed to bring this matter before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not think it was a matter that required any notice.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: Consequently I am not as well acquainted with the facts to which he has alluded as I otherwise might have been. It is quite true that a park was established in Prince Edward Island. I think my right hon. friend knows that under the parks act the province has to supply free of charge the site to be set aside for the park and convey title to it to the government of Canada. The federal government has nothing to do with the manner in which the provincial government acquires the area for the park, other than to see that it is suitable for park purposes.
I recall one communication I received subsequently to the designation of this area as a park by the provincial government. This was from a gentleman in New York who has a summer cottage within the present park boundaries. He requested that he be permitted to occupy the cottage each summer as long as he wished to do so. I replied that that was a matter of arrangement between himself and the provincial government. If he passes title of his land so that it could come in the ordinary course to the federal government, I informed him there would be no objection on the part of the parks authorities to permitting him to enjoy his summer holidays in the cottage he has been accustomed to as long as he wishes to do so.
I am doubtful of the wisdom of the suggestion made by my right hon. friend. It really amounts to this, that in a matter which is purely the concern of the Prince Edward Island government, we should say to them before we proceed with the further development of this park: You must do thus and so with the people from whom you have secured the property. I know of no instance, Mr. Speaker, where such a power has been exercised by the federal government at any time or any place, and as a matter of fact it is non-existent. It is quite true that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) after reviewing the legislation passed by the provincial government, might have recommended disallowing that legislation, but this is not a

matter calling for such action. I believe there have been some differences of opinion between the provincial government and some of the people from whom it secured part at any rate of this area, and if my recollection is correct I think we may have some legislation this session to make some rectifications in the boundaries of the park as designated in the act alluded to by my right hon. friend.
I do not know that there is very much more I can say about the matter. I shall, of course, take my right hon. friend's suggestion under consideration, as I am always happy to do in matters affecting my department. But when my right hon. friend suggests that the federal government should draw formally to the attention of the Prince Edward Island government that they have done wrong, and that they should correct that wrong before we proceed further in the development of this park, I cannot follow him that far. I have no doubt, however, that his admirable speech this evening will be reported in the Prince Edward Island papers, and I venture to hope that if any injustice has been done, the Prince Edward Island government will take notice of the criticism of my right hon. friend, and will set about to correct any such injustice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I just explain to the minister that I do not propose to move a motion, and I did not even think it was necessary that he should answer what I said. I was merely bringing the matter to the attention of the government. If for a moment I had thought it would involve any action at the moment I would certainly have given my hon. friend notice because otherwise it might be thought I was discourteous. As I say, I merely desired to bring it to the attention of the government and had not even contemplated the minister stating what he has stated to-night


Mr. W. A. WALSH (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I was urged during the course of the summer to bring this matter to the attention of the house to see if some redress could not be provided in the unfortunate situation that has arisen in Prince Edward Island, in a province that is a national park in itself without the setting aside of any specified area for national park purposes. Injustice has been done in certain instances, and if the minister had journeyed to that province himself and had personal knowledge of what has been done through the instrumentality of the act which has been referred to in the house to-night, I am sure that he would have been vitally interested in the human side of the picture which could be presented.
Here are people settled on a certain piece of land. I know of one family, in particular,

Prince Edward Island National Park
who to the third generation have occupied a small piece of land. The man is earning a living for himself, his wife, and small family partly from the land and partly through fishing nearby during the season. He has been dispossessed of his land and given inadequate compensation. He has been forced to go to another part of the island far removed from where he has been in the habit of carrying on his occupation of fishing.
I know of another instance, a hotel in which: some people of Charlottetown have invested a certain amount of capital. The success of the hotel is largely dependent upon a nine hole golf course that surrounds it. Unfortunately this national park takes away a very large portion of that golf course, leaving the hotel stranded, without the golf course to attract summer visitors.
I could cite many other instances of people having been dispossessed without the opportunity of presenting their case to a reasonable tribunal. They have just been told: Your land has been taken from you, you are allowed so much, you have no recourse in the way of presenting your claim before a higher tribunal. That is manifestly unfair; the people who have been done this injustice should have redress, and it can come to them only through the influence of this federal government.
I know that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) is just as well aware as I am of the instances I have cited and of the hardship that has been inflicted on certain people on the island. Other hon. members from the island province are just as well aware of these facts, and I have no doubt that as they study the effect of the act which was passed by the legislature of Prince Edward Island they will agree with me that the human side of the situation has not received adequate attention from the powers that be. I would urge upon the minister in charge of the matter, and also on the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), to give some consideration to the human side of the problem which has developed as a result of that legislation. It is that side in which I am peculiarly interested, and I feel that the people affected are looking to the federal government, not to disallow the legislation, but to direct the attention of the provincial government to the effect that their legislation is having in conjunction with the legislation passed by this parliament.
I have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) commit himself in public addresses to the suggestion that it is very easy for a Liberal government in the provincial field to cooperate with a Liberal government in the federal field. This is a splendid opportunity to show that what he said on numerous
occasions is exactly what he meant, and that it can be done. I should like to see this practical example of cooperation tried between a provincial government and the federal government, both of the same political stripe, and then I feel sure that the members from the island province will go home highly pleased with the work of this session if only these few people who have been harshly treated are more adequately and justly dealt with at the hands of the government, by the Minister of Justice or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), who is peculiarly interested in that province.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, listening to the last speaker (Mr. Walsh), there came to my mind what a hullabaloo would be raised in the house if, in connection with a matter wholly within the jurisdiction of the legislature of the great province of Ontario, for example, or the great province of Quebec, hon. members undertook to attempt to direct the provincial legislature how it should legislate in a matter wholly within its jurisdiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are doing so now. There are the padlock laws.


William Earl Rowe: They are trying to direct you.


Charles Avery Dunning: The statement of the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Walsh) was in error in at least one particular. Take, for instance, the golf course illustration which he used. That golf course is not a part of the national park. True, it was originally intended to take it in, but the very facts which he recited caused a reconsideration of the matter and the golf course does belong to the hotel property.


William Allen Walsh: I know. I signed a petition to that end, myself.


Charles Avery Dunning: I happen to know of that particular instance. I should not like the impression to go abroad that by any means all of the people affected by the proceedings which have been alluded to are either dissatisfied or consider themselves injured. That is not the case. I am not aware of the precise number who regard themselves as aggrieved, and because of the fact that the subject matter is wholly within the competence of the provincial legislature I have not deemed it my business to attempt to direct how they should legislate regarding a matter wholly within their own competence. But I do think that, as a member from the province, I should as far as I can try to prevent the impression from going abroad that a large number of people have been injuriously treated by the legislature
490	COMMONS
Prince Edward Island National Park
of their province. It is true that this matter is one of active controversy in Prince Edward Island. One has only to read the press of that province to know that certainly there are two opinions with regard to it. There is a very, very strong opinion that the people whose lands have been taken have been generously treated. I know that opinion is held by a great many people on the island. As one of the members, when I was down there last summer I think I heard both sides of the question discussed, and in my opinion we in this house would be well advised not to attempt to interfere in a matter which is between the people of Prince Edward Island and their legislature and government.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: It seems to me that a fundamental principle is involved in the question which has been raised here, and that is the right of the purchaser to determine the price which shall be paid for property that is taken, purchased or expropriated. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has just put the case as though this whole matter began and ended as between the government of Prince Edward Island on the one hand and the owners on the other. It is not quite that; it is rather a three-sided proposition, a proposition in which the government of the dominion also come in, and if they find in the transaction anything that is fundamentally wrong or contrary to the principles of justice, they should not put their seal of approval upon it.
It seems to me that the minister, and also the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe), will agree that where there is a difference between the parties, when the dominion or a province is taking over property, as to the value of that property, some machinery independent of the party taking it, the property should be set up to determine the value. That appears to be lacking in this case. It is one where the province taking the property determines the value where it is in dispute. That does not seem to me to be fundamentally sound; it is almost like taking stolen property; and before the dominion puts its stamp of approval on the taking over of the property, it having been brought to its knowledge that this condition exists, it should take some steps to remedy something which looks like, or really is, injustice. It is fundamentally unsound that, whether it is a province or the dominion which acquires property and a dispute arises between that authority and the owner, the government should have the last word and say, "This is the value and this is what you must take." To my mind that is a sort of fascism. There should be

some tribunal or some way of determining what is the honest, fair value of that property.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of Supply, Mr. Johnston (Lake Centre) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PENSIONS AND NATIONAL HEALTH Pensions Branch
Canadian Pension Commission-administration expenses, $534,330.


Charles Gavan Power: Before proceeding to
the discussion of any of these items, perhaps I may be permitted to make a few observations with regard to the new set-up of estimates generally and to offer a suggestion or two to the members of the committee. It will be observed that this year, in this department as in all others, the details of the work have been set out at much greater length than has hitherto been the custom. Personally I welcome this innovation, because it shows the house and the country more clearly than ever before just what are the functions of the different departments.
If this has been accomplished, perhaps a greater responsibility devolves upon members of the committee to keep more strictly within the rules of order in discussing matters pertinent to the item which is before them. I say that as much in the interests of members of the opposition as in the interests of the minister himself. I believe that all those who have been members of this house for any length of time will agree with me that there is nothing more disconcerting or more annoying to a serious-minded member than to be interrupted, when he is pursuing some line of thought on the matter before the committee, by a question which is not ai all relevant to that item. I respectfully suggest that, in view of the fuller information given, the proceedings will be conducted in a more orderly and perhaps more leisurely fashion- and after all we are likely to be here until next August-if the rules are observed more closely than has been the case in the past.
With respect to the department whose items are now before the committee, whereas in the past a considerable number of its functions, as far as expenditures were concerned. were bulked together, and it was extremely difficult for hon. members to keep to the subject, it is now pretty clearly shown, I think, on the estimates just what items refer, let us say, to pensions, what items refer to unemployment assistance, what payments

Supply-Pensions
refer to the different courts and to the machinery set up for the purpose of awarding pensions.
In order to make my meaning more clear,
I would suggest, subject of course to the wishes of the committee, that we proceed by dealing with matters which refer more directly to pensions. The first item that I should like to take up would be No. 215, dealing with administration expenses; the second would be No. 218, dealing with pensions themselves; the third would be No. 224, dealing with the veterans bureau, the agency set up to provide for the proper preparation of claims, and the fourth would be item No. 212, with regard to the pension appeal court. I am prepared to proceed now with item No. 215 with regard to administration expenses of the Canadian pension commission.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: The item will be found on page 27 and the details on page 153 of the main estimates.


Mr. GREEN:: The minister's suggestion is more for his own benefit than for the benefit of the opposition. I suggest that he would achieve his end better if, to use a slang expression, he would not try to slip one over us in this way, but would give us, before we proceed with this item, a brief sketch of the situation as it exists to-day across Canada with regard to soldier problems, and in particular a statement on the recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission. It is agreed, I believe by all persons interested in soldier problems that the question of the unemployed veteran is now and has been for several years the main problem facing the returned soldiers of Canada. In 1934 the problem was placed before the then government by the Canadian Legion. In 1935 the Hyndman committee was appointed and made a thorough investigation.


Charles Gavan Power: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to insist, but my hon. friend will not give me credit for good intentions and therefore, perhaps, I shall have to insist that the item under discussion has nothing to do with unemployment assistance nor has it anything to do with the condition of unemployment throughout Canada. We are dealing with the administration of pensions and not with administration generally. I suggest that the hon. gentleman is out of order.


Howard Charles Green: That may be, but the problem of the unemployed veteran underlies all these pension estimates.


Charles Gavan Power: There is a vote dealing with unemployment assistance and I am quite
willing to give my hon. friend the fullest assurance that when that vote comes on he shall have a whole day to discuss the unemployment assistance commission's report if he so desires. At the present time, we are dealing with pensions, which has nothing to do with unemployment.


Howard Charles Green: Last year we were met with exactly the same sort of proposal. The veterans' assistance commission made an interim report and the veterans throughout Canada were waiting to hear what action the government proposed to take on that report. We were told, however, "You will have a day later on to discuss the situation." Well, we got a day about one week before parliament prorogued. I submit that we should have a statement from the minister with regard to this report of the veterans' assistance commission.


John Frederick Johnston: The point raised by the minister is well taken. This vote has to do particularly with pension matters and discussion in the committee should have reference to this item alone. Shall the item carry?


Mr. BETTS:: Not by any means. Duly impressed as I am by the elaborate paternal remarks of the minister-I never heard before that he was an authority on this point but apparently he is-may I with all deference to his eminence ask what the details of the item are?


Charles Gavan Power: I shall be glad to read them all; they will be found on page 153. If the hon. gentleman will put on his glasses he will probably be able to read them. Here they are: One chief medical adviser; ten medical officers, grade 5; nineteen medical officers, grade 4; one secretary; three chief clerks; two head clerks; one accountant, grade 2; four principal clerks; four clerks, grade 4; three pension clerks, grade 2; four pension clerks, grade 1; six clerks, grade 3; eight clerks, grade 2; one clerk, grade 1; one confidential messenger; one messenger; one senior messenger; ten investigators, grade 2-


Frederick Cronyn Betts: May I ask what the duties of a confidential messenger are?


Charles Gavan Power: A confidential messenger, I should imagine, would have a very difficult job. First of all, he would be obliged to know how to read, and perhaps how to write, and possibly, after being told once or twice, he would know what were the duties of the chief medical officer or where the chief medical officer's office was, and to whom he should deliver messages. He would have to know who were principal clerks, and he would also
Supply-Pensions

presumably have to know the way to their various offices. The other duties that devolve upon a confidential messenger, I am sorry to say, I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: I do not mind being ruled out of order, but we have tried in dealing with soldier problems, from the first session of this parliament, to deal with them in a non-partisan way. Now you see what will happen if the minister persists in his refusal to make a statement. We are only too anxious to cooperate with him, and I suggest that he would be very much ahead of the game if he would tell us now what he proposes to do about the recommendations of the veterans' assistance commission, so that we may know how to treat the whole soldier question.


Charles Gavan Power: I, too, have sat on the other side for a great many years and I have often had the pleasure of keeping a minister busy for a prolonged period, though usually I did not attempt to block his estimates when fhey were non-contentious. Far from intending to make this a partisan matter, I have never attempted to treat it in that light since I came here. But I am not prepared at the present time to make a statement with regard to unemployment assistance. We have matters relating to pensions which are very important, and I believe the pension question should be discussed in this house. There is a vote of over $40,000,000, a most important item. I began with the most important item in the whole department, and I suggest that my hon. friend will have ample time during the course of the session to discuss everything he wants to with respect to pensions. If he -wants to keep me here for an hour or more-well, we are likely to be here until August and it does not matter. I can stay here trying to pass items as long as he can stay blocking them.


Howard Charles Green: There is no desire-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word "blocking" is out of order under the rules of the house.


Charles Gavan Power: I withdraw the reference to blocking. I simply refer to what my hon. friend said a moment ago, that the question asked by the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) was an indication of what might happen if I would not acquiesce in all the whims of hon. gentlemen opposite.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: I said nothing about blockade.


Mr. NEILL:: There was a reference to sitting until August. That is a distinct threat.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: If there is anything improper in asking the duties of a messenger I do not know what it is.


Charles Gavan Power: I did not say it was improper, but the hon. member for London seemed to think there was something peculiar about that question because he threatened me with others like it. I have no objection whatever to discussing the duties of any members of the staff.


Howard Charles Green: There is no question of threatening. We simply want to find out for the ex-soldiers of Canada what the minister proposes to do about this report of the veterans' assistance commission. He has had it now for two months; when are we to be told what he is going to do about it? Must we wait until July? This is the third session of this parliament. He has dragged along-


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that I have dragged the veterans' unemployment problem along for two years?


Howard Charles Green: Well, it has looked something like that at times.


Mr. MacNEIL:: There is no desire to harass the minister; there is every desire to facilitate consideration of his estimates; but he must be well aware that there is a general problem in which ex-service men all across the dominion are interested, touching not only pensions but many other aspects of their circumstances. Recommendations have been made by the veterans' assistance commission. Some of the matters under discussion are of great importance; others are relatively of less importance. It would be a distinct advantage if early in the discussion of his estimates the minister would indicate what his intentions are in regard to implementing the principal recommendations of the commission. Then the discussion would centre on those matters of foremost importance. Therefore I warmly support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) that the minister should deal first with items not quite as important as pensions, until it is indicated for instance whether or not he will introduce a bill amending the Pension Act this session so as to give effect to important recommendations which I understand he now has under advisement. I think the minister should recognize the sincerity of our desire in that regard, that we simply want to give our chief attention to those matters, which are of outstanding importance.


Charles Gavan Power: In view of my hon. friend's courtesy in putting his request I have no objection to stating that the commission which has been referred to on several occasions made no recommendation whatever in respect to pensions, so that under the item of pensions I do not think there could be any discussion of the commission's report. It did refer to such

Supply-Pensions
matters as war veterans' allowances and unemployment assistance, and I have actually in preparation, to be brought down within the next week or ten days, very important legislation dealing with that matter. But I am not prepared to discuss that legislation at the present moment. I do not think it would be proper for me to discuss half-baked legislation before I am ready to put it before the house. For that reason I suggested that we begin the discussion of this item relating to pensions, which is not likely to be touched by any legislation. No pension legislation is likely to be introduced this year, at any rate none arising out of the report of the veterans' assistance commission.


Mr. MACDONALD (Brantford):: I find myself in complete accord with the procedure proposed by the minister, and not in accord with the suggestions of the hon. members for Vancouver South and Vancouver North. I think the returned soldiers throughout the length and breadth of Canada have complete confidence in the Minister of Pensions (Mr. Power)-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh no.


William Ross Macdonald: -and I think the best that hon. members can do is also to have complete confidence in him. He is bringing down his estimates in the manner which he deems to be in the best interests of government, of the department, and of all concerned, and we should not try to embarrass him by raising these questions, but rather should consider the estimates which he is prepared to present to the committee tonight.


Howard Charles Green: I would merely point out that according to newspaper reports the minister himself told the dominion legion convention at Fort William two or three weeks ago that legislation aimed at dealing with veterans' unemployment problems in a broad and generous way would be introduced in the House of Commons with a minimum of delay.


Charles Gavan Power: Quite right.


Howard Charles Green: If the minister is not prepared to make a statement to-night with regard to the recommendations of the veteran's assistance commission, how soon will he be ready to make that statement?


Charles Gavan Power: As I have already stated, within a week or ten days. But I am not prepared to tell my hon. friend the exact hour and minute at which I shall bring down the legislation. I gave that undertaking to the legion convention at Fort William, and I stand ready to carry it out. But surely it is not and never has been the custom while I
have been in the house for hon. members to insist that in the first week in which the general business of the house is being carried on certain legislation be laid before it. This legislation is being prepared; it will be brought down at the earliest possible time. I repeat the pledge I gave to the legion at Fort William.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Perhaps the minister will
be good enough to advise us in regard to this difficulty. Many of us have received since last session important recommendations from organizations of ex-service men dealing with proposed amendments to the Pension Act. We are anxious to have them discussed at the proper time. We feel that at this session certain amendments at least should be dealt with. We of course are aware that the report of the veterans' assistance commission does not deal specifically with pension problems. But surely if the minister is not able to announce anything definite at this time in regard to pension legislation, he will give us the opportunity to debate these important amendments in a discussion of the estimates that will come later when his policy is determined.


Charles Gavan Power: Why would not my hon friend discuss these recommendations with respect to pension legislation now? We are on pensions; this is a proper time to bring these matters to the attention of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is only administration.


Charles Gavan Power: But the whole objection so far has been that I am proposing to discuss the pension group of items one after another instead of skipping about from one branch of the department to another. I have stated that for the greater convenience of the committee we would, if the committee agree, begin with the functions of the pension commission generally. Perhaps this would not be quite the proper item on which to discuss the proposed amendments, but the next which I suggest that we should take up, the vote of forty odd millions of expenditure in the way of pensions, would be an appropriate item on which my hon. friend could make all the suggestions he pleases with regard to amendments to the Pension Act.


Thomas Langton Church: Under the rules of this
house and of the British parliament administration items bring into review the whole administration of matters relating to returned soldiers. In the British house the other day this same question was up, and it was not dealt with in a technical way. Representing
Supply-Pensions

a city which sent, more soldiers to the great war than any other city in Canada, I am surprised that twenty-one years after the war returned soldiers are still walking the streets looking for employment while employment commissions and committees usurp the powers of this house. What has been done since the last session? There are rules and regulations that ex-soldiers be given preference-


Charles Gavan Power: I regret to interrupt, but
surely the hon. member is out of order.


Thomas Langton Church: Positions on the bench,
positions in the senate and positions all through the civil service-


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Thomas Langton Church: -are being given to
civilians, while soldiers are walking the streets.


John Frederick Johnston: Order. The
vote before the committee is No. 215, details of which will be found at page 153, dealing with the Canadian pension commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it deals with administration expenses-


Charles Avery Dunning: Of the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -which involves the
whole problem of administration.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon.
member should confine himself to the matter before the committee.


Thomas Langton Church: I understood that years
ago. I was in the house before the hon. member. I am here to-day as a representative of the people, and you are not going to pass five cents of this item until I have my say. I know the rules of the house, and if necessary I shall appeal to the Speaker.


John Frederick Johnston: That is the hon. member's privilege. But he, or any other hon. member of the committee, must confine his remarks to the vote before the committee. The minister has pointed out that in another vote, one for S40,900,000, general remarks may be made, but they cannot be made on this vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With all due deference to you, sir, I think you are wrong. I submit that the vote for administration expenses involves the whole problem of administration and everything connected with it. Even if we wished to, we could not cut down the vote for 140,900,000. We cannot in any sense amend it, because it is statutory and fixed by law. We have no control over it. That

item for $40,900,000 is something which, under a statute of parliament, we are bound to vote. The amount has been determined by the pension commission.
But under the present vote we are dealing with administration expenses, and the vote involves the problem of administration, details of which are set out at page 153. There we have the whole problem, including the number of men employed, the reasons for their employment, and everything connected with the matter.


Charles Gavan Power: I regret to take issue with my right hon. friend on the point, but I believe if he would read from page 27 of the estimates he would find, under item 213, provision for departmental administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have read it.


Charles Gavan Power: Item No. 213 deals with departmental administration.	On that vote
perhaps the point would be well taken. Departmental administration would cover any matter which is now being discussed, and with respect to which I called the hon. member to order. It would cover unemployment, because such salaries are covered by departmental administration.	If the right
hon. gentleman will observe what is written in the book of estimates he will find that item No. 215 follows the item of salaries of commissioners, and that the administration expenses are those of the Canadian pension commission. The Canadian pension commission do not deal with unemployment, but deal purely with pensions.
I think on reflection the right hon. gentleman will come to the conclusion that in all probability under the present item any hon. member could discuss anything connected with pensions or with the Canadian pension commission, but it would not be competent for him to discuss any other matter which would come under some other branch of the department.
With respect to the contention of my right hon. friend that the $40,900,000 represents a statutory provision, may I say that that is so, but only to a certain extent. It is not statutory in the sense of a fixed vote being statutory. It cannot be, because the evidence is right here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not suggest it is, with respect to salaries.


Charles Gavan Power: It is not statutory in the sense that the salary of a commissioner is statutory, where is it set down in the legislation that the commission chairman shall receive a salary of so much and that the members of the commission shall receive so much. That is statutory, in the real sense of

Supply-Pensions
the word. But to say that a vote of $40,900,000 is statutory, and that it has to be voted, is going a bit far.
Last year it was $41,500,000, and that was not statutory. On reflection I think my right hon. friend will come to the conclusion that there is a vast difference between a fixed sum to be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, and so stated in the statutes, and an amount which may vary from year to year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I can make
perfectly clear the difficulty the minister has indicated. A statutory obligation may be of a twofold character. It may be indicated in terms as to what the amount of the statutory claim may be, such as judges' salaries, salaries of commissioners and matters of that kind. Then there is the second type-


Charles Gavan Power: Which need not be voted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This amount, do you say?


Charles Avery Dunning: No, the first part, marked with the letter "S".


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. But the amount of $40,900,000 is statutory, because it is a computation passed under the terms of a statute, which cannot be modified without repeal. That is the whole position. That is, under authority of a statute, $40,900,000 must be provided.


Charles Avery Dunning: It must be voted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; it must be provided and voted under authority of the statute. Therefore it is a statutory obligation of the Dominion of Canada and, as such, cannot be lessened, unless the statute is amended or repealed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, yes; adjudication can change it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the adjudication as made, this is a statutory obligation now fixed at $40,900,000, on a series of computations, which computations are made under the terms of the statute. They cannot be more or less, once the adjudication is made, unless under authority of the statute.
Suppose we were to pass a resolution reducing the item by a million dollars, hon. members will realize that at once we would have the position of having contravened a provision of the statute.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, because adjudication is made under the statute, and the provision at once makes it a statutory obligation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
numbers entitled to pension might vary, from year to year, under the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister answers my question when he adds the words, "under the statute."


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I should say consequent upon the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There can be no variation in the item, except under the statute.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister would have no alternative except to bring in legislation to change the system of adjudication.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is my view.


Charles Gavan Power: But we have strayed away from the theoretical point as to whether or not it is statutory. Perhaps I would agree with my right hon. friend that in one sense it is but in another it is not. It is not statutory in the sense that it shall be passed without discussion by the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Correct.


Charles Gavan Power: The item of $40,900,000- which, by the way, is not before the committee-is an item which is always discussed and can properly be discussed by the committee, even though there might be some doubt as to the propriety-yes, I will say more than that-or as to the legality of someone moving to reduce it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point I made. At page 151 we find the branch administration details.


Charles Gavan Power: We are not on that yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are on item No. 215, which item deals with administration expenses, and follows the words "salaries of commissioners," which has reference to the administration by the commissioners.


Charles Gavan Power: Of the commission only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I say that. It is not the administration of the department, but the administration of the pension commission as found at page 153 in the details. That opens up the whole question of the administration by the commission of the Pension Act.


Charles Gavan Power: Of pensions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not departmentally.


Charles Avery Dunning: May I be permitted a word of explanation of the new form of estimates, as it might apply to discussion. It
Supply-Pe nsions

was the intention, in preparing the new form, to have one item, and one only, in each department under which the general discussion of the administration of that department would be facilitated. The balance of the items deal with specific matters. That is the case in each department. However, in the case of this department there are two administrative items, one relating to the department generally. being No. 213, and the other one relating to the administration of the pension commission. The reason for these items is to give opportunity for the ordinary discussion of pensions administration apart entirely from the discussion of other aspects of departmental matters and thus to get rid of the somewhat confusing discussion which has occurred in the past in committee of supply when one member would ask a question relating to some particular matter and another member would follow with a question relating to something else miles away. The hope is to give better service to the members of the committee by way of information and by confining the discussion within reasonable limits. The present vote would permit a discussion of everything connected with the administration by the pension commissioners of the work entrusted to them, but I submit that it does not permit a discussion of other aspects of departmental work.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to say a few words about this item of $534,330, being a decrease of $18,196 from last year? The details of this item are to be found at pages 151 and 153 of the estimates. I am surprised that there should be a necessity for such a large number of officials twenty years after the war. In the details I see listed a deputy minister, an assistant deputy minister, a draughtsman, stenographers and clerks. Is it not the duty of all these officials to see that the act is carried out? Is it not the duty of these officials to see that preference is given to returned soldiers? I am receiving letters all the time from all over Canada complaining about the administration of this act. Returned soldiers cannot get a job on the Canadian National Railways, and twenty years after the war there is still plenty of evidence that returned men are out of work. I think it would be better if we had a committee of ten or fifteen members to which these estimates could be referred so that there might be a businesslike discussion of this matter.


Frederick Cronyn Betts: Would the minister give the particulars of the item of $6,500 for materials and supplies, as set out on page 153?


Charles Gavan Power: That would cover stationery and other supplies needed by the office of the Canadian pension commission and its employees throughout the country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was surprised to hear the minister give such a strict interpretation of the rules of procedure. I can remember that when he was sitting to the left of the Speaker he was not quite as strict in his observance of the rules.


Charles Gavan Power: Owing to the looseness of
the rules he was probably able to carry on in a manner which was embarrassing to the minister and at the same time to some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the chamber. With the desire to endeavour to reform the procedure he suggested very humbly that perhaps better progress could be made and a better understanding of this whole pension problem arrived at by proceeding in an orderly and leisurely fashion. I have no objection to going back to the old rough and tumble scramble where everybody talks at once on every possible subject, but I think it would be more in order if the committee would deal only with pensions at this time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I realize it is far better that we should conduct our business in an orderly manner, but I notice that the minister has chosen an appropriate time to start this orderly way of doing business. However, I rose in my place to ask for a little information. I notice from the details on page 153 that the number of employees in the department has been reduced to some extent as compared with last year. Could the minister state if that reduction has been made because of there being less work in the department, because we have reached the peak so far as this work is concerned, or is it for other reasons?


Charles Gavan Power: Does the hon. gentleman
refer to the decrease in the amount of the item?


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, in the number of employees.


Charles Gavan Power: There is a decrease of nine, due largely to the fact, I believe, that a number of employees of the Canadian pension commission were absorbed into other branches of the department. As a result of an amendment in 1936 to the Pension Act the department received authority to take over employees from the pension commission. Prior to 1936 there were two so-called water-tight compartments, the departmental employees and the Canadian pension commission employees. It is now possible for the department to draw on the pool in the pension

Supply-Pensions
commission. My hon. friend is quite right in thinking that to some extent the work of the pension commission has decreased. He will notice on looking at the estimates that the amount involved in the payment of pensions is considerably less than it was last year.


Howard Charles Green: How many pension commissioners are there at the present time? I notice from the annual report of the department that the arrears of cases have been practically eliminated. It was our understanding that as soon as the arrears were caught up with the number of commissioners would be reduced, thereby decreasing the expense.


Charles Gavan Power: When I came into the department there were twelve commissioners. One commissioner was added under the legislation of 1936, but four retired last year. At the present time there are nine commissioners, a decrease of three as compared with August, 1936.


Mr. LENNARD:: Will the minister explain the item of $40,000 for professional and special services?


Charles Gavan Power: That refers to the employment of outside professional men, mainly doctors, etc. I have not the list before me, but I believe there are probably ten or fifteen specialists in Toronto, with the same number in Montreal and a proportionate number in other cities, who may be called from time to time. This vote would be for fees to be paid to these men.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would they all be medical men?


Charles Gavan Power: All medical men.


Frank Exton Lennard: What would the special services cover?


Charles Gavan Power: There might be the odd amount for legal fees if the pension commission decided to prosecute in cases of fraud, but I do not know of any during the past year.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would the minister explain the item of $75,240 for temporary assistance?


Charles Gavan Power: Under some kind of regulation of the moguls of the treasury board it is impossible to make more than a certain percentage of the employees of a department permanent. Only 80 per cent can be made permanent; the remainder are temporary employees, and the only nomenclature I can find for them is temporary-permanents or permanent-temporaries. Some of them have been in the department for five or six years or more; but there is a rule now, generally observed 51952-32
throughout the whole civil service, that only 80 per cent of the employees in any department shall be permanent.


Frank Exton Lennard: Are these employees engaged by the civil service commission?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, all of them.


Howard Charles Green: How many members of this staff are returned men?


Charles Gavan Power: Ex-service men comprise 92 per cent of the male staff of the whole department.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any reason why it should not be 100 per cent?


Charles Gavan Power: There are such employees as office boys, and I suppose there is an odd instance of a technical man who has managed to get in. Then there are a few men who are not ex-service men, who have been in the department since its inception. I think my hon. friend would be pretty well satisfied if every department could show 92 per cent of ex-service men.


Frank Exton Lennard: Why have the office boys' salaries been materially reduced?


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know that they have been, but I shall be glad to look into the matter and have the office boys call on my hon. friend and see that he is satisfied.


Frank Exton Lennard: Would the minister
explain the item of $80,000 for transportation and travelling expenses?


Charles Gavan Power: That is for the travelling expenses of the quorum members, who, as my hon. friend knows, travel from one end of the country to the other and hold sittings; also for travelling expenses of pensioners and applicants. Reverting to the question of office boys, I find that there were two office boys, and now we have only one, so I shall be able to send only one to my hon. friend.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Consequent upon the
amendments of 1936 in regard to the staff of medical officers, I see there is a reduction of only one. Has their status in any degree been altered, or were there any transfers frim the department to the commission? Are thti solely responsible to the commission and not in part to the minister?


Charles Gavan Power: Generally speaking, the
medical men who were connected with the pension commission have remained there. There has been no very great change. One was transferred to the health branch of the department because we needed a new man.


Mr. BAKER:: Has the minister studied and is he quite satisfied with the expense of

Supply-National Revenue

running this department in relation to the amount of money the returned men are actually receiving? What percentage of the amount the men actually receive in money does the cost of operating the department represent?


Charles Gavan Power: We have had calculations and estimates of that made during the last twenty years, and generally the minister contents himself with saying that the cost of administration is about three per cent. My hon. friend would probably find that it is more if he went into it, because I know that when I was sitting opposite I satisfied myself that the cost of administration, if one took into consideration overhead and one thing and another, would probably go over three per cent. But that arbitrary figure, so to speak, has been fixed for the last fifteen or twenty years, and we all stick by it because we do not know of any other. I move, Mr. Chairman, that this item stand.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL REVENUE

[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-general administration, $1,106,150.
Frank Exton Lennard: What is the explanation of the increase in this item?


Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of National Revenue):: The net increase in this item is $96,490, accounted for in this way:	the
increase in permanent salaries amounts to $82,990, made up as follows: Restoration of five per cent deduction, $44,880; statutory increases, $24,765; thirty-five temporaries made permanent, $33,840; salaries of three employees transferred from undervaluation branch and one from investigation branch, $5,880; additional amount required due to reclassifications and promotions, $5,065; making a total of $114,430. From that must be deducted the following: sixteen positions abolished, $23,865; saving by the promotion of officers at less salaries than paid their predecessors, $7,575; making total reductions of $31,440. That makes a net increase of $82,990, which accounts for the greater part of the $96,490 increase. The remainder is made up as follows: There is an increase of $25,700 in printing and stationery; a decrease of $10,000 in temporary salaries, and a decrease of $2,200 in travelling expenses. If the hon. member will add the $25,700, and subtract the $10,000 and the $2,200, he will get the net increase of $96,490.


Richard Langton Baker: Why should the general
administration costs of this department rise so much? It is true that the revenues collected are considerably more than last year,

but the collections are made largely on the same number of items, the only difference being that the items themselves are larger. For example, it should not cost the department any more to collect $5,000 of a man's income tax than if S2.000 were collected from him the year before. How does the minister explain such a big increase in the administration? In round figures, surely only the same amount of work has to be done.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have just explained it.
The greater part of it is due to the restoration of the five per cent deduction. That comes to $44,880, and the statutory increases amount to $24,765. Then certain officers who have been classified as temporary have been made permanent, and that moves them from other estimates into these particular estimates and accounts for the increase of $33,840. I do not know that I can give the hon. gentleman any better explanation than that; but he will see that when you have to add nearly $45,000 on account of the restoration of the five per cent cut, and nearly $25,000 because of statutory increases, that is quite a big part of the increase which is shown here.


Richard Langton Baker: Is that the final five per
cent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Richard Langton Baker: Then are we safe in saying, or can we hope, that you do not anticipate the continuance of this great big increase of $96,000 every year in the running of the administration?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I do not anticipate it, no.
One can never tell. The hon. gentleman has himself pointed out quite a notable fact, that the collections of the Department of National Revenue as a whole-I am not speaking now of the customs and excise divisions-have increased enormously in the past two years. I quote now from memory and in round figures:	In the twelve months just
before I took over the office in October, 1935, the net collections for the department of national revenue were about $305,000,000, and for the twelve months two years later they were about $435,000,000. There has been a very great increase in the amount collected, and it is accounted for not merely by larger sums being obtained from the same number of transactions, but by a very great increase in the number of transactions, making necessary some increase in staff. But the figures that I have given show that most of the increases here are made up, not at all

Supply-National Revenue
by an increase in staff, but by restoration of the five per cent deduction and by statutory increases. The increase in staff is shown in the details at the back of the book.


Richard Langton Baker: Of course it is quite true
that improved conditions of trade and commerce in Canada and generally throughout the world have naturally caused bigger collections to be made. But while we are making bigger collections, the effort of the department, one would think, would be to endeavour to get the same revenues at the same cost if possible. However, I am pleased to hear that the minister, in view of this five per cent now being added, which is the final addition to the one hundred per cent salaries that have been drawn, does not anticipate in the future these continued additions to general administration costs.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I shall take the last five
years, for example, and give, not the figures of revenues and expenditures but the percentage cost of collection. Starting at 1930, that is for the year 1930, the percentage cost of collection in customs and excise was 3-30 per cent; in 1931, 4-45; in 1932. 4-87; in 1933, 3-86; in 1934, 3-37; in 1935, 2-97; in 1936, 3-20; in 1937, 2-71; and for the first nine months of 1937-38, 2-45.


Richard Langton Baker: Of course the more you
collect the less the percentage should be.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Well, it is going down pretty rapidly.


Richard Langton Baker: It is quite natural that it should.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


Mr. SPENCE:: That was not due to the minister's efforts; that was due to better times.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I notice on page 147 of the estimates that the cost of temporary assistance for the year 1938-39 is estimated at $415,395, while for 1937-38 it was $210,455. That seems a striking increase in that service. Would the minister give the committee some details or an explanation of the reasons for that increase?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This does not come under the vote that we are discussing, because temporary assistance is not under general administration, but I have no objection to going into it now if the hon. gentleman would prefer that I do so. One of the reasons for some increase in temporary assistance-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is nearly double.
r 1052-32 J


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes, but a large item was due to a change in policy with regard to overtime. In this department there had grown up over the years the practice of paying a large number of customs officers very large sums for overtime services. The rate paid for overtime work was substantially higher than that paid for ordinary work. During the past year we have made a substantial- I was almost going to say a drastic-change of policy in that regard, and whereas the overtime paid by the department for the year 1936-37 was $228,639.51, the overtime paid by the department for the first nine months of the present year 1937-38 was only $13,216.27. So we have cut out the greater part of our payments for overtime. But we have been obliged to take on about 140 or 145 additional officers, who appear in the item to which the hon. gentleman has referred- temporary assistance. That would be the main reason for the increase in temporaries. But there has been some increase in temporaries apart from overtime, due to the increase in activities on the frontier. There has been a tremendous increase in tourist business and also a very large increase in imports.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thank the minister
for connecting those two items, because the next question I proposed to address to him was as to the difference between the items of overtime in 1937-38 and in 1938-39. On the same page, in 1937-38 the overtime was $294,952, and for the current year it is $150,000. a difference of about $144,000 of a saving in overtime. But for temporary assistance the increase is much greater than the saving in the payments in respect of overtime.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Not very much.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, substantially so. It is an increase, and I suppose the only answer that the minister can make is that it is giving an additional number of men employment; but it is really not effecting an economy in the end.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It did effect an economy. I am not sure whether it was a large economy, but it is not as my hon. friend has just put it. The number that have been taken on- are doing more work than was being done by the overtime men. There has been an increase in the number of temporaries to do the work that was performed by the officers who had been doing overtime, and there has also been an increase in the number of other temporaries. We had to do this in order to meet increased business. If we had left the overtime system as it was we would have had to increase
Supply-National Revenue

the staff substantially to take care of the increased business in export, import, tourist business and excise.


James Earl Lawson: With respect to this item No. 204, would the minister be good enough to indicate whether the appointment of the temporary employees as permanent was in the customs or the excise division or in both; and in either event what type of employee:, were they whose status was changed from temporary to permanent?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The change of status took place in the customs and excise divisions. This vote deals with general administration at head office of the customs and excise divisions, and the change took place in both. These temporaries were made permanent.


James Earl Lawson: That is something in the routine of events; it is not a matter of taking a group?


James Lorimer Ilsley: No.


James Earl Lawson: Following through to page 141 I find that there have been apparently several new appointments of importance. The minister will see an item with regard to a "dominion customs appraiser, values," and immediately under that there is provision for a secretary, customs division. Apparently there was not a secretary in 1937-38. Will the minister tell me the name of the present secretary and when he was appointed? Was it a civil service appointment?


James Lorimer Ilsley: This is merely a reclassification; these individuals do not represent additional appointees. Mr. Taylor is now secretary of the customs division; last year he was head clerk. The same applies to the position of assistant secretary.


James Earl Lawson: Customs division?


James Lorimer Ilsley: Yes.


James Earl Lawson: A little further down the
page there is provision for a chief, customs check branch. Is that a promotion or a new appointment?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is a promotion. My hon. friend will see that there is a large reduction in the other column of head clerks. These are simply called by different names. They are reclassifications, and do not represent new people brought in.


James Earl Lawson: May I take it that all the instances in the column showing the number of persons holding positions in 1937-38, which indicate what would appear to be new appointments in the column for 1938-39, are promotions and not new appointments?


James Lorimer Ilsley: That is correct, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there are twenty-two new appointments.


James Lorimer Ilsley: These are temporaries made permanent. If the committee would permit me, my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) would like to get into committee to-night, and I shall not ask that this item be passed. We could let the item stand and call an item to enable the Minister of Transport to get in.
Item stands.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
Marine Sendee-maintenance and repairs to wharves, $7,500.
Mr. BROOKS:: This is a small item for the maintenance and repair of wharves in Canada. Where are these repairs being carried out?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: There are some two thousand wharves entrusted to the Department of Transport for management. The item covers small repairs to these wharves, the average item being under $50. If there are major repairs to be carried out, the work is done by the Department of Public Works.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Are these wharves in inland waters or on the sea?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Both. Last year the following amounts were spent: Nova Scotia, $693.42; Prince Edward Island, $1,524; New Brunswick, $193; Quebec, $1,035; Montreal, $521; Prescott, $100; Parry Sound, $1,257; British Columbia, $567. These are the amounts that were spent in the different agencies.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is the reason for the increase in connection with lighting?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is no increase in the main item; it is the same as it has been for the last three years.


Frank Exton Lennard: An increase is shown here.


Grote Stirling: Does $4,500 provide for the lighting of all government wharves in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No.


Frank Exton Lennard: An increase is shown for lighting of $750 as compared with last year's item.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There has been a reallocation of the item; the total of the item is not changed. We transferred about $1,000 out of materials and supplies into the lighting item because experience has shown that a larger expenditure is required for lighting and a lower expenditure for materials.

Supply-Transport-M arine


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How much was spent last year out of the corresponding vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last year we spent 87,135.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for breaking ice in Thunder bay, lake Superior, and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation, $30,000.
Grote Stirling: What does "and other points" mean?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The contract for ice-breaking in Thunder bay covers one or two small adjacent harbours. I think this is the third or fourth year this contract has been in force.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was spent last
year out of the corresponding item, and to whom were the payments made?


James Earl Lawson: Is it one company or
several?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Last year there was spent 830,000. It is a contract calling for an annual payment of $30,000. The contract was with Sinmac Lines Limited.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What does the contract require the contractor to do?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It calls for him to open the harbour, commencing at a date set by the marine branch, and to maintain navigation in the autumn up to a date specified by the marine branch for closing navigation in that harbour. It also includes transportation of lighthouse keepers to certain lights, and opening of harbours such as Rossport and, I think, possibly one or two other small harbours nearby.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Were tenders invited for this service, and is there a written contract for it?


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is a written contract for it. The contract was renewed last year at the same rate as before. It is a three year contract, that expired last year and was renewed at the same rate for three more years. The price we have now is one of the lowest contract prices we have ever had for that service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
To provide for Canada's share of the cost of the north Atlantic ice patrol, $6,000.
Grote Stirling: What is undertaken by Canada under this patrol?


James Earl Lawson: And with whom?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The north Atlantic ice patrol was set up in 1914. Thirteen different nations are parties to the agreement. The
patrol has been managed by the United States, and the cost is divided among the various nations in agreed proportions. Canada's share of the cost is three per cent per annum, and the cost varies slightly from year to year but Canada's share never exceeding $6,000.


Grote Stirling: Do Canadian ships carry out the patrol?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The work is done by United States ships.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was expended last year under the corresponding vote?


Clarence Decatur Howe: In 1936 the amount expended was $4,566, and in the previous year, $5,331.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service administration, $18,040.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: Will the minister explain the increase over the previous year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The increase is made up of statutory increases, $240, and restoration of salary deduction, $740.25.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of floating equipment, $28,835.
Alfred Johnson Brooks: What is meant by floating equipment?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The equipment of the department, boats of all kinds, was administered in earlier years by several branches of the department, by the ship channel branch, the dominion steamers and the ice-breakers. All our boats are now administered by this branch. The moneys covered by this item were formerly in the ship channel vote, the vote for miscellaneous services relating to navigation, and the dominion steamers and ice-breakers vote. Now we have a branch which manages boats of all kinds belonging to the Department of Transport.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assume from the minister's statement that this vote does not include any floating equipment under the control and operation of the Department of Public Works. Those remain as they were?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Quite right. It relates only to those of the Department of Transport.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understood the minister to say it included all the floating equipment of the government.


Clarence Decatur Howe: No; the floating equipment of the Department of Transport.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this include the operation of dredges?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Such dredges as we have.
The Union Jack


Richard Bedford Bennett: While you have sold during the year, have you not, a large number of these, you still have the same number of men and the same expenditure?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The men were there before but their duties have been reallocated. There has been a readjustment. We had no vote last year to correspond with this, but the men were in the department last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister give the committee more details of the floating equipment, of what it consists?


John Frederick Johnston: The minister could have that information for the next sitting.
Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, February 16, 1938