Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Is there a Mr. Robinson employed as a carpenter at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, what days and hours has he worked?
3.	What total remuneration has he drawn?
4.	On whose recommendation was he employed ?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Is or has Roy Graham been an employee at the signal corps, Barriefield?

2.	If so, what days and hours has he worked?
3.	What total remuneration has he received?
4.	On whose recommendation was he employed ?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Employed at present.
2.	During the year 1936, 56 days; 1937, 213 days; 1938, 12 days (as at 25th March).
3.	$1,708.15 (as at 25th March).
4.	Mr. A. E. Stansbury.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Is William Fowler an employee at the signal corps, Barriefield, and, if so, when was he appointed and on whose recommendation?
2.	If the present appointment was by the civil service commission, was he previously employed by the department, and on whose recommendation ?
3.	What is the address of the said William Fowler ?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes; appointed October 1, 1937; recommended by Mr. A. E. Stansbury.
2.	Yes; recommended by Ontario Employment Agency.
3.	409 Bagot Street, Kingston, Ont.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: *In what electoral district is the signal corps at Barriefield situated?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The signal corps at Barriefield is situated in the electoral district of Frontenac-Addington.


Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	Is Henry Bearance, or has he been, an employee on part time at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, how many days and hours has he worked ?
3.	On whose recommendation was he employed?
4.	What is his address?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Has been employed, but not at present.
2.
During the year 1935- 45 days During the year 1936-262 days During the year 1937-218 days
3.	Mr. A E. Stansbury.
4.	194 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ont.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is John Doyle an employee at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence, or has he been an employee?
2.	If so, what days and hours has he worked?

Questions
3.	What total remuneration has he drawn?
4.	On whose recommendation was he employed ?
5.	What was his address at the time of his appointment ?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes-employed at present.
2.
During the year 1935-76 days During the year 1936-44 days During the year 1937-* nil During the year 1938-10 days (as at 25th March).
3.	$768.90.
4.	Mr. A. E. Stansbury.
5.	36 Main Street, Portsmouth, Ont.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Is Harold Johnston an employee at the signal corps, Barriefield, under the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, what is his monthly salary?
3.	Has his position been changed?
4.	Is he a returned soldier?
5.	Has he a preference in respect to a civil service commission position over other employees or applicants who are not returned soldiers?
6.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
7.	What was his address at the time of his appointment?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Employed on day labour at forty cents per hour.
3.	Yes. He was employed as a pumpman until 28th February, 1938.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	Mr. A. E. Stansbury.
7.	Elginburg, Ont.



ENTOMOLOGICAL, BRANCH-SERVICES IN THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. LAPOINTE (Matapedia-Matane):: 1.	Does the federal government maintain an entomological service branch in the province of Quebec ?
2.	If so, what are the names of the officers, and on what dates were they appointed?
3.	Were such appointments made by the civil service commission?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes. The Entomological branch maintains entomological services in the province of Quebec.
2.	C. E. Petch, July 2, 1912; J. B. Maltais, May 15, 1927; L. Daviault, June 4, 1929; W. S. Ryan, May 8, 1922; N. Beaudoin, May 16, 1924; N. Cameron, October 1, 1921; G. L. Giasson, June 19, 1925; P. Tache, June 18, 1929; Monro, H. A. U., June 23, 1931; True, E. A., October 14, 1925; Archambault, G., August 1, 1928; Guay, G., November 4, 1936; Gagnon, L. R., March 24, 1924.
The above officers of the entomological branch on March 22nd, 1938.
3.	Yes, with the exception of C. E. Petch whose appointment was confirmed by order in council 2758 of October 8, 1912.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD

Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	What amount remains to be paid to the soldier settlement board by the purchasers of farms under its jurisdiction?
2.	How much of this amount is now past due?
3.	Granted that instalments are to be paid regularly, in how many years is it anticipated that all sums shall have been paid?
4.	What is the administrative cost of the soldier settlement board and its entire staff for the years 1935-36 and 1936-37?
5.	How much of this amount is for outside service ?
6.	How many settlers in each province are now under the jurisdiction of this board?


Mr. CRERAR:: As at February 28, 1938-
1.	140,324,597.30.	'
2.	$13,177,180.52.
3.	25 years. This takes care of resales and Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act adjustments.
4 and 5.	1935-36
Loan administration cost	 $552,307 39
General land settlement	 107,000 00
Investigations for other departments	 92,254 00
Indian Affairs Branch-(Indian soldier settlement). 5,946 56
1936-37 $550,819 14 83,965 00 89,560 00 5,954 30

Questions

6.	British Columbia	 2,379
Alberta	 5,291
Saskatchewan	 4,572
Manitoba	 1,939
Ontario	  1,460
Quebec	 332
Maritimes	 1,295
Note-"Outside service" in part 5 is taken to mean services outside strictly soldier settlement work.



EMPLOYED PERSONS IN CANADA, THIRTY YEARS OP AGE AND UNDER

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What is the number of employed married men in Canada under the age of thirty years?
2.	What is the number of employed single men in Canada under the age of thirty years?
3.	What is the number of employed married women in Canada under the age of thirty years ?
4.	What is the number of employed single women in Canada under the age of thirty years ?


Mr. EULER:: Figures not available for age group 30 years and under. Nearest available figures follow:
1.	66,343 (under 25 years); 512,226 (under 35 years)-Census of 1931.
2.	689,772 (under 25 years); 996,453 (under 35 years)-Census of 1931.
3.	9,020 (under 25 years); 30,570 (under 35 years)-Census of 1931.
4.	313,217 (under 25 years); 441,841 (under 35 years)-Census of 1931.
Estimated number of gainfully occupied in 1938:
(a)	Males-826,000	(under 25 years);
1.706.000	(under 35 years).
(b)	Females-356,000 (under 25 years);
543.000	(under 35 years).
(Estimates available by age and sex, only.)
DISMISSALS OF POSTMASTERS DURING 1937 Mr. NEEDHAM:
How many postmasters were dismissed from post offices with incomes less than $2,000 during the year 1937?


William Daum Euler: Political partisanship:
Personal statement of member.. 27
Investigation	 39
Admission	 3
		-	69
Shortages, financial irregularities, change of site, etc	 156
Total	 225



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many claims for damages made by prisoners of war were heard by the various commissioners appointed by the Canadian government to investigate and report upon illegal warfare claims under the treaty of peace with Germany?
2.	How many of such claims were allowed?
3.	What was the total amount paid to those prisoners of war who successfully established their claims?
4.	Is there at this date provision made for the hearing of claims of prisoners of war who previously made no claim under the terms of the said treaty of peace?


TRANSFER OF NATURAL RESOURCES-DISMISSAL AND REEMPLOYMENT OF CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. HANSELL:: 1.	How many civil servants were dismissed as a result of their services being discontinued at the time of the transfer of the natural resources of Alberta on or about October 1. 1930?
2.	How many of these civil servants were reengaged in some other department?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. FAIR:: For a return showing-
1.	What Canada has paid to date toward the upkeep of the League of Nations;
2.	The amount (in detail) contributed by Canada to the league for the year 1937, including payments to delegates, advisers to delegates, etc.



EX-SOLDIER CIVIL SERVANTS WHO SERVED IN OTHER THAN CANADIAN FORCES

Mr. BOULANGER:: For a statement of the number, occupation and salary of veterans employed in the Department of National Defence, who have served in any other army than the Canadian army, the date of their appointment and the length of their stay in Canada prior to their appointment in the Canadian civil service.
For a statement of the number, occupation and salary of veterans employed in the Department of National Revenue, who have served in any other army than the Canadian army, the date of their appointment and the length of their. stay in Canada prior to their appointment in the Canadian civil service.
For a statement of the number, occupation and salary of veterans employed in the Department of Pensions and National Health, who have served in any other army than the Canadian army, the date of their appointment and the length of their stay in Canada prior to their appointment in the Canadian civil service.

Use oj Canada's Financial Resources

use of Canada's financial resources for



ELIMINATION OF POVERTY-AMENDMENT OF MR. BLACKMORE AND SUBAMENDMENT OF MR. BENNETT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, March 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Dunning for committee of supply, the amendment thereto of Mr. Blackmore, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Bennett.
Mr. J. J. KINLEY (Queens-Lunenburg):: Last night when the house adjourned I was discussing unemployment and I referred to the tribute paid to the province of Nova Scotia by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers). The minister said that in this regard Nova Scotia had the best record in Canada, unemployment having decreased more than in any other province. We are proud of that record, but at this moment I am confronted with a situation that is causing me considerable concern, because I have telegrams from fishermen and fish companies in western Nova Scotia advising me that their vessels have been laid off and that the men are unemployed. I wish to make a last appeal to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud), who is in his place, because on the first of April he must come to a decision as to whether he will continue the use of beam trawlers on the Atlantic coast.
I do not intend to argue this question at great length. Three commissions have given their decision. The Maclean commission was appointed by the federal government to go through Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen islands and investigate the whole subject, and that commission reported against the use of trawlers on the Atlantic coast.


Mr. ISNOR:: Was the report of that commission unanimous?


John James Kinley: It was a majority report and I take it that a majority report is the report of a commission. However, for his information I may tell the hon. gentleman that Judge Maclean, the chairman of the commission, dissented from the finding of his colleagues, though he qualified his dissent with the statement that the beam trawlers should be used only for the purpose of taking up the slack and that the fishermen should have the first consideration at all times. Then we had the Jones commission in Nova Scotia, and that commission also reported against the use of beam trawlers.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: May I ask the same question with reference to that commission? Was that second report unanimous?


John James Kinley: I must give the same answer; it was a majority report. The English professor who was chairman said he did not know enough about it to sign the report, but apart from that the report was a unanimous report. Mr. Alex Johnston, who was deputy minister of fisheries for many years, and Doctor Ellis, of the university of Toronto, were members of the commission. Also the price spreads commission reported adversely to the trawler.
It seems to me that when we in Nova Scotia stand up for the fishermen we are accused of being opposed to progress. Well, if it is opposition to progress to stand by the fishermen, then the commissions to which I have referred must have been against progress. The people of our province, I can assure the house, are a progressive people, and they are not against progress. But our fishermen have not at any time received for their fish a price equal to the cost of landing fish by the beam trawlers, and I do not hesitate to say that if allowed to do so they can perform every function performed by the beam trawlers for the fish'ing company that has the privilege of using the trawlers. The company that has the right to use these trawlers uses them [DOT]as a means of keeping down the price to the fishermen, who have no bargaining power. The fishermen in Nova Scotia are therefore in a bad way.
If the fishermen were employed to catch the fish needed for the Canadian people it would increase employment fourfold, and that is the vital thing to-day. The reason we are opposed to the beam trawler is that we do not need it. There are only about eleven million people in Canada and there is not a sufficient market for the fishermen and for these auxiliary beam trawlers as well, and my contention is that the fishermen are entitled at least to the Canadian market. The fishermen are citizens of the country and they should have the first consideration.
I am not going to keep the house much longer because this is a short afternoon and I understand that it is the desire to get through with this debate. I repeat, however, that on the first of April the minister must make his decision. Three times the fishermen have won their case before royal commissions and once this parliament spoke. In 1929 a law was passed in consequence of which there was an order in council which would have eliminated the beam trawlers. The matter

1850	COMMONS
Use of Canada's Financial Resources
was taken to the courts, and then there was a change of government and it was withdrawn from the courts. Then another order in council was passed and has now the force of law. It reads:
1. A licence for a fishing vessel using an otter or other trawl of a similar nature, other than a small dragger operated by inshore fishermen, will not be granted, except under the following conditions:
(a) That the applicant for such licence shall furnish the Minister of Fisheries with evidence that will satisfy the said minister, that he cannot obtain an adequate supply of suitable fish to enable him properly to conduct and develop his business from the hook and line fishermen, and that if the licence is granted, the extent of his purchase of fresh fish from the said fishermen will not be adversely affected.
I realize that this is the law and the Minister of Fisheries must administer it, but before he comes to a decision I suggest that all sides be heard. I 'believe the deep sea fishermen were heard, but I do not know whether the inshore fishermen had that opportunity. They are all hook and line fishermen. I can assure the minister that if the licences are continued it will prolong a situation which will become aggravated as time passes, because the minister will be faced with other applications. I hope he will give the matter serious consideration and will study the question from all sides. If he does, I believe his judgment will be that the fisheries on the Atlantic coast can be properly carried on by the shore fishermen and the deep sea hook and line fishermen, because they could very well supply the market. I have telegrams from fish companies in Nova Scotia saying that there is an oversupply. The most successful company in Nova Scotia, which has plants in Lunenburg, Liverpool, Lockeport, North Sydney and one place on the Digby shore, never had beam trawlers.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: What is the name of the company?


John James Kinley: Lunenburg Sea Products. This company which has the beam trawlers to-day would be able to get its supply just as cheaply, and better fish, by buying from the fishermen. If the beam trawlers are given licences again at the present time, this will, as I said, aggravate the situation so that we shall be confronted with unemployment among the fishermen in Nova Scotia and may have to support them by giving them, relief.
I leave the matter with the minister, believing that he will do his best to see that the fishermen get a square deal in this matter.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit that the amendment to the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is not in order. The original amendment reads:
That all the words in the motion after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor: "This house is of the opinion that for the effective removal of poverty from Canada this government has neglected and is now neglecting to use the resources of the dominion as adequately as the people of this country have a right to demand."
In the course of the discussion on that amendment the members of the social credit group in the house had a good deal to say about social credit, but in the amendment there was nothing whatever about social credit. Then the leader of the opposition moved the following subamendment:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the following words:
"but that the adoption of the policies of social credit as enunciated by its supporters in this house would afford no adequate remedy for such neglect."
In that he is, of course, making reference to arguments which have been advanced in favour of the amendment, not to the amendment itself. Some hon. members of other groups in the house, as for example my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) last night advanced an altogether different proposal, but the subamendment affords no opportunity for the house to pronounce on the adequacy of his proposal. I think the rule in this connection is contained in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, citation 422:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
I claim that this subamendment is distinctly foreign to the original amendment. It is true that there are exceptions:
The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into supply or ways and means.
This subamendment, however, does not come under that exception. The exception is, of course, the introduction of an amendment that is quite foreign to the original question of going into supply. I take it that when an amendment is made to that amendment, it must be in keeping with the amendment itself, and cannot introduce new matter. From another angle, I think any hon. member will see that the subamendment must be quite out of order, because it will throw together people of utterly diverse views. It would have such an effect so far as our group

Use of Canada's Financial Resources
is concerned; we would have to vote for the subamendment, because we do not share the views of our social credit friends in this respect. This would not clarify the situation at all.


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: But if
the hon, member has confidence in the government, he could vote against both the amendment and the subamendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If we had confidence in the government, but this is a nonconfidence motion so we shall have to vote for the original amendment. I suppose the only way we could clarify the matter would be for each group, when the subamendment is voted down, to substitute another amendment, which does not seem to be a very good method of procedure. Therefore, I submit that since the subamendment introduces altogether different matter from the original amendment, it is not in order.


Mr. BENNETT:: I gave considerable attention to the rules of the house before preparing that subamendment, and I think it will be found that it comes distinctly within the rules. Citation 394 of Beauchesne provides:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; and
(c)	by inserting or adding other words.
The succeeding citation is as follows:
395. It is an imperative rule that every amendment must be relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed. Every amendment proposed to be made either to a question or to a proposed amendment should be so framed that if agreed to by the house the question or amendment as amended would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
The relevancy rule referred to in citation 422, taken from Bourinot, 521-2, reads:
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto. The exceptions to this rule are amendments on the question of going into supply or ways and means.
It will be remembered that the original motion before the house is that the Speaker do now leave the chair. To that the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) proposed an amendment the effect of which was, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) pointed out, to raise the question of want of confidence in the administration on the ground that they have neglected to use the resources of the country to the extent they should. I realized at once that to be relevant one must connect the subamendment with the amendment. So these words are added:
but that the adoption of the policies of social credit as enunciated by its supporters in this
house would afford no adequate remedy for such neglect.
That ties the subamendment to the amendment, because, as was pointed out by the Minister of Finance on more than one occasion, and I think properly, while there was no mention of the words "social credit" in the amendment, the whole discussion was on that footing. The mover of the amendment himself in his speech dealt with that at some considerable length, and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) yesterday made extensive quotations from the works of Major Douglas and others dealing with social credit. The subamendment merely says that proposals made by one party in the house would afford no adequate remedy for such neglect, thereby completing the connection if it were adopted; for the effect would be to make a complete amendment of this, which is the rule with respect to relevancy; the words "such neglect" tying it to the neglect alleged. Then, if you read the two together-because the subamendment must make sense of the whole -you have a completed statement of the situation. I cannot see wherein the subamendment contravenes the rules cited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself, and I confidently think that on a review of the authorities it will be seen that this is a subamendment which does come within the rules. It may embarrass those of us who have to vote, but I wonder if it occurred to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that had the matter been left as it was, it was somewhat embarrassing, as pointed out by the Minister of Finance. As the amendment stood, the obvious remedy suggested for the present situation was that the principles enunciated by the mover and his friends, whether you call them social credit or anything else, provided an ample remedy for the evils suggested.


Mr. IIANSELL:: I have listened with
interest to the point of order which has been raised. I do not wish to discuss that point particularly, but I should like to draw the attention of the house to another matter which is quite relevant. It is this, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) did not raise his point of order until several bon. members had spoken to the subamendment. I am not saying that the hon. gentleman is not within his rights in doing so at this time, but I believe the nature of the subamendment is such that we should be fair in every respect. I shall go so far, Mr. Speaker, as to request what I think has been done in courts of law; if your decision should be in favour

Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
of the point raised by the hon member for Winnipeg North Centre, and you should rule the subamendment out of order, I would request that you reserve your decision for the time being, because the leader of our group has not had an opportunity as yet to reply. I do not think this request is unreasonable, considering the nature of the subamendment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have listened to the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), and also to what has been said by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Under standing order 48, regarding privileged motions, paragraph 394, subsection (c) states that a motion may be amended by inserting or adding other words. In this subamendment the leader of the opposition has added certain words. Thus, in my opinion, the subamendment is in order, because the amendment and the subamendment both deal with the manner in which a certain situation may be improved. This is sufficient under the rule of relevancy. Therefore I believe the subamendment is in order.


Mr. WILLIAM HAYHURST (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, when I hear the quibbling about words and the use of words, and when I consider the number of words that are used in this house, I think possibly we should be more practical in our suggestions. The other day I heard one hon. member mention Bishop Berkeley, and I am reminded of the statement made by that gentleman at one time, that there was no matter. So the wags of that day said it was no matter what he said. Then, when Bishop Berkeley said, "All is mind," the wags said, "Never mind."
We have had a good deal of discussion in the house with regard to the vital question of removing poverty, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) would entirely agree as to the desirability of doing that. During this debate hon. members of different parties have made many statements with which we are all in entire accord. As I see it, this debate has been excellent in that it has provided much useful information regarding the banking system of this country. It has also shed light on the conditions that might lead to a further depression, as the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) suggested yesterday. Speaking generally, we are getting expressions of the opinions of prominent men with regard to the vital questions which are facing not only Canada but the whole world to-day. The spirit that has characterized this debate, on the part of members of all parties,

has been gratifying to us, because we feel that a realization of these difficulties is dawning upon us all. If we are to make Canada a greater and happier nation we must come to some common agreement, and this debate appears to have brought out a spirit of tolerance and good will, at any rate in this house, although at noon to-day the hon. member for Yukon (Mrs. Black) told me that yesterday afternoon she thought it was more like a bear-garden.
With reference to the subamendment, may I say that no plan or policy has been enunciated from this corner of the house. We have been endeavouring to get a principle recognized ; hence the introduction of this non-confidence motion. We have felt that at present industry fails to create effective demand for its own production, and therefore additional money should be issued, in the form of old age pensions or in other ways, to make up this deficiency. I should like very much to compliment the right hon. leader of the opposition, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usley), upon their contributions to this debate. It seems to me their solicitude for the people of Canada is very real, and if we are to go forward together with the unswerving purpose of solving our difficulties, it is above all things necessary that we be frank in these discussions. As the leader of the opposition so ably stated, the deposits in the various banks, your account and mine, must be protected from those who would inflate their value to such an extent as to make them almost worthless.
In this country the results of a mistaken monetary policy are clearly evident. They can be seen in many ways: First, the widespread insolvency of agriculture, and that applies to the east as well as the west; second, the withering of exports and therefore imports; third, the insolvency of our railways; fourth, the serious straitening or straining of our municipal, provincial and federal finances; and fifth, the unemployment that we have on all sides. We cannot turn our heads away from or shut our eyes to these facts. Quiet deliberation will disentangle these knots if we are prepared to work together with understanding sympathy and knowledge. Yesterday the Minister of National Revenue referred to the loan council. It is my understanding that Saskatchewan adopted a modified form of the loan council, but that by the time Saskatchewan took this action Alberta had defaulted. This placed Alberta in an unenviable light.
There is a firm conviction in the average mind that there is no wealth without money.

Use of Canada's Financial Resources
To-day there exists far more wealth than there is the equivalent in money, but at the same time a great many people are under the impression that when you produce goods you produce money. This is entirely erroneous. That statement is borne out by the fact that in 1926 Saskatchewan produced 220,000,000 bushels of wheat for which the farmers received approximately $1 a bushel, or $220,000,000. In 1932 they produced approximately the same amount of wheat, and received only $56,000,000 for it. They sold approximately the same quantity of grain for one-quarter the price. While prices to primary producers had been thus driven down, there had been no similar decline in the cost of financial credit to the farmer. When the farmer borrowed a dollar in 1926, it meant borrowing the equivalent of one bushel of wheat. When he had to pay back this debt in 1932, the value of one dollar expanded to the equivalent of more than three bushels of wheat. It is no wonder the people in the west are demanding monetary reform.
It is quite evident from this that the production of goods does not create money. Money or buying power is created by the banks, and unless there is a constant flow of money or its equivalent to enable buying power or consuming power to keep pace with production, we shall be constantly faced with situations similar to those existing in Saskatchewan. I do not propose to discuss the matter in too technical a manner, although the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue have mentioned the A plus B theorem of social credit. As a matter of fact, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that subject really was not mentioned in the amendment.
I choose rather to speak about the situation as it appears to me. These days we hear much regarding the efficiency of Canadian banks. Some hon. members may be surprised to hear the statement I am about to make, from this section of the house. Banks in Canada have been adversely criticized, but we must realize that our Canadian banking ?ystem. is on a much higher plane than is the case in some other countries. In the past, as compared with the system of the United States, the Canadian banking system has worked satisfactorily. The fact is that each branch bank relies not upon its own strength or resources, but upon those of the whole system. For instance, if banking in southern Saskatchewan, south eastern Alberta or other afflicted parts of Canada had in the past few years been in the hands of small, individual banks, investing a large proportion of their resources in the areas they served, it is
possible that those stricken areas would have had to bear the additional burden of bank failures.
It may be unfortunate, but it seems to be-true that large scale business requires large scale banking. Much more is demanded of banking to-day than was demanded a few years ago. This condition has given rise to the need for a central bank. Let us hope-that our central bank will not become a political football. Many hon. members have said that the monetary system must be based upon the confidence of the individuals using it. It must be evident that many people would abuse any kind of credit, no matter in what form it might be given them, because their integrity and honour are not on a plane which-would justify an extension of such credit. So that whatever system is developed, it must of necessity depend upon the type of individuals comprising it.
Whatever the future ramifications of our economic life may be, one thing alone will matter, and that is character. No banking system can grow amid uncertainty and distress. At this point may I read from the speech of the Minister of Finance:
Government spending cannot make up for the paralysis of private enterprise and of private spending which is created by fear and uncertainty. Under an absolute dictatorship, with complete regimentation of business and the private citizen conditions might be different; but under an economic and political system such as ours it is essential to maintain the confidence of the millions of individuals and organizations that make their own decisions as to whether they will or will not spend or invest.
With that I entirely agree. At a later point in his speech the minister said that there is a shortage of purchasing power in the hands of consumers. That, of course, is well known by every hon. member. We all realize that while there is plenty we have poverty. As a matter of fact I have in my possession a letter from a man who served thirty-five years in the Post Office Department. He was one of the earliest settlers in the Northwest Territories, but because he did not pay to a contributory pension scheme he is now left on relief, and is pleading for work. I am reminded of a poem of Robert Burns in which he said:
Who begs a brother of the earth
To give him leave to toil.
If people will not spend or invest, trade must suffer. The reason some people do not spend or invest is that they do not have the money. A reduction in exports leads to a decline in industrial employment. On the other hand, industrial employment leads to effective demand; and effective demand is more completely generated by reducing the
1854	COMMONS
Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
cost of goods, or by increasing purchasing power. The exchange rate tends to be regulated by the country's trade. More trade should lead to more consumption, and more consumption to more production.
Regarding the financial system as it exists in Canada, I can speak only from practical experience. It seems to me that in the past interest rates have been much to high. Consequently many people have been forced into liquidation or, if not forced into liquidation, they have had to fight an uphill battle in an endeavour to put themselves in a liquid position. The increase in private and public debt has made our financial structure too great a burden for us to carry. Some new policy will have to be devised. So far as I can see, it may be necessary to devise a policy of controlled inflation, based upon our gold supply. I merely make that suggestion, realizing of course that more money must be put into the stream of society. The government has made no statement regarding any policy it may have in this connection, and the people of Canada are anxiously awaiting an announcement of government policy.
With respect to expenditures Charles Dickens has been quoted. It will be remembered that the advice given to Copperfield was:
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
To put this in modern form, we should be able to balance our consumption with our production. It seems likely that the government is waiting for the recommendations of the royal commission now investigating the whole system of taxation in the dominion. We sincerely hope some positive plan will be suggested by the commission for recasting the financial basis of confederation, and halting the process of piling deficit on deficit and debt on debt, and that they will bring forward a definite method of dealing with the staggering burden built up by our governments since confederation. Discordant forces may defeat our national aims. Sectional differences may make Canada a more difficult country to govern. It is necessary for us to develop a better national conscience. This nation, dedicated to the great ideals of liberty, unanimity and fraternity, with its diversified population, should become a beacon to the world. We must choose for greatness; we must think of Canada as our greatest Canadians have thought of it, facing on the east

the great nations of Europe and on the west the new and awakening teeming millions of the orient.
Under the present economic system it is expected that the consumer will buy back all the products of the country, but it seems that under these conditions we frequently have an undistributed surplus. A lowering of salaries and other types of purchasing power means that there is underconsumption, and thus the consumer is not able to buy back with wages what an article has cost, not only in labour but in machinery to produce. Arguments as to the technological development of mankind have been introduced into the house too often to mention them again.
We have two types of credit-the real credit which is the producing power of the people and the financial credit which is the purchasing power. These two types of credit must be kept equal and to do that is the duty of the government. Prices should be regulated in accordance with the country's production over a given period as compared with its consumption calculated from statistics taken from industry itself. As I see it, eastern and western Canada both have their troubles, and there must be fair play as regards both parts of Canada if we are to develop a true spirit of harmony. Looking upon the field of battle, we see some who are willing to cut debt and recover millions by taxation, while others are willing to issue millions and repudiate our debt by inflation. The battle-cry of all parties in the west has been monetary reform. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) is reported by the newspapers as having said recently in Edmonton that we are fighting for this reform. He said that changed conditions must bring this about.
We must set our minds and wills toward a more generous and more just distribution of the means of life. This will not be secured by violence or by any war of classes which would in the long run be as shameful and as futile as a war of nations. Thus far no proposals have been made as to how this might be done, but it has been intimated on several occasions that that is the purpose of this particular group in the house. We have considered this question, and we believe that the purpose of industry is to produce goods for the sustenance and enjoyment of man. The purpose of science and machinery is to produce those goods in abundance and to save labour, and the purpose of money is to enable those goods to be distributed.
We have three proposals to offer: First, that the basis of the money system should be the country's productive capacity; second, that

Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
our financial wealth should be based on real wealth and, third, that prices should be regulated in accordance with the country's production over a given period as compared with its consumption calculated from statistics taken from industry itself. In a democracy the national welfare can rise no higher than its source, and that source is the general enlightenment of the people. As the people become enlightened, so do they demand better living conditions.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in connection with the amendment which was moved on March 8 to the motion to go into supply. The debate on this amendment was continued on March 14 and again on March 22, when the whole day was taken up. The afternoon and evening of March 29 was taken up in this discussion, and we are considering it again to-day. If it continues long enough it will reach its right place on April Fool's day next Friday.
I want to say to the hon. gentleman to my left, whom I highly regard, that I sympathize with the people of the prairie provinces. They are suffering many ills and hardships, but ills are one thing and remedies are another. If the patent medicines and quack cures and remedies proposed are what this country needs, then we had the same kind of patent medicines and palliatives in the days of the younger Pitt, of Burke and all the rest of them. All this reminds me of the principle underlying the League of Nations, which the hon. gentlemen support so much. There would seem to be relatively the same principle. If the problems of peace or war, of trade or commerce, of migration and immigration could be solved by formulas, all these problems would have been solved three or four hundred years ago. The same troubles were facing the world in the days of our Lord. He went into the temple and overthrew the tables of the money changers, and said unto them: My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
The hon. gentlemen to my left probably believe conscientiously that their cure is the right cure. They are entitled to their opinions. They have asked many times that some relief be granted to the people of the prairies; they plead so often and long for some lost cause. But let me call to their attention the fact that they have forgotten entirely the plight of the suburban worker. The greatest enemy of the prairie provinces is the doctrine of free trade. The real enemies of the prairies are not east of the great lakes, they are to be found in the west. The elevator combines and the grain combines have
fleeced the farmers of the west out of their rightful high prices for their crops. We have had many private members' motions introduced at this session. The government has a total of 175 or 176 supporters in this parliament and we have heard many arguments between the free traders, the protectionists and the moderate protectionists in the government ranks. As the late Hon. J. Israel Tarte said, platforms were made to get in on and not to stand on. The policies of the hon. gentlemen to my left were made to get in on but not to stand on. But the people of the prairie provinces themselves are sick and tired of this battle cry of social credit which is not adapted to a country like Canada. This matter was raised the other day in the British house and Captain FitzRoy, the speaker, was called upon to give a ruling when reference was made to "social humbug." They questioned whether under the rules of the house that phrase was in order, but it was employed with reference not to an individual but to a policy.
Now in this "mother of parliaments" in Ottawa what have we this session? This is the forty-fifth day of the session. What have we done? All we have done is talk. The other day some hon. members had a good deal to say about foreign affairs. I have no quarrel with my hon. friends on the left who proposed and support this motion. I know them all, and I like them. I sympathize with what they say as to the failure of this country to solve the great question of distribution, the function of money and the basis of credit. I sympathize with the worker and the toiler, not only the agriculturist but the industrial worker. It is intolerable that in a land of milk and honey like Canada, with its vast resources, he should be in his present condition. So what I have to say is directed not in any spirit of criticism against hon. members on the left, but rather against some of their policies. As I have said, I respect their views and I recognize that they have given a great deal of attention to their duties here. But I cannot see where the policy they propose will solve the economic or social problems of this country. Those problems are not going to be solved by majorities in parliament or by parliamentary repartee; they cannot be solved by quack remedies which were proven two hundred years ago to be wrong. They call for broad national service and sacrifice on the same principles and basis as the sacrifices which were made during the war, and for a remedy as drastic as conscription was when then applied. So true this is that some people in this country, in face

Use of Canada's Financial Resources
of the railway problem, unemployment difficulties, the situation of the municipalities, the way the industrial workers are treated in Canada, and the failure of parliament to act, begin to long for a dictator to arise in this country and solve our problems on a practical basis, and give quicker and saner relief.


Ernest Lapointe: Order!


Thomas Langton Church: These quack remedies, as I call them, of hon. gentlemen here-for that is all they are-cannot cure the present industrial and social problems of the country. This is a propaganda session. Up to the present time this government has done little or nothing to solve our difficulties. Take for example the motion of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross), of protection versus free trade, which was brought forward as a cure for the ills of the west. What was his attitude towards the people down east in Ontario and Quebec, the industrial provinces that are paying pretty nearly all that the Minister of National Revenue is going to collect until the end of April?
The last session was almost entirely a Saskatchewan session. Three members of the cabinet-the Prime Minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) come from or used to represent that province. The farmer out there can deal with a municipality for his seed and feed and gasoline and all that, but when it comes to the poor industrial worker, who represents fifty-one per cent of the people of our province, they who also are suffering from drought, an economic drought, they are put out of their houses and homes, they are suffering from the drought of unemployment, but they get no protection from this parliament. Their mayors won't even be heard and must go to the provinces. Yet here we find people who are elected from the prairie provinces criticizing the economic system of the country.
Canada will have protection as long as it is a country. I have seen movements of this kind before in Ontario. I saw them rise in the province of Ontario in the days of the Patrons of Industry and the Drury days. Some of the followers of that creed were not farmers at all. They were represented in a later government, the Drury government, and they proposed some palliative or rather some quack remedy for curing the difficulties of the times. What did Mr. Drury say when he came to meet the present Prime Minister of this country? He presented a brief on behalf of the Canadian Council of Agriculture. The gentlemen to my left are in a sense his sue-

cessors. What was the attitude of this 1923 council of agriculture? They denounced the industrialists and the industrial workers, the men who are paying in Ontario and Quebec eighty per cent of the cash taxes, the men who get little or no federal aid, but whose income tax is used to pay for the drought in Saskatchewan and to help carry the bankrupt provinces. Mr. Drury on behalf of the Farmers' government, the predecessors of the group to my left, the successors of the haycock Patrons of Industry movement, and speaking on behalf of the council of agriculture, denounced the industrialism of Ontario and Quebec. He said they were a lot of robbers, and declared that the farmers of the west had been plundered for many years by protection. The result was that no industrialists and no financial man would invest at that time a cent in industry in Ontario and Quebec, owing to the uncertainty as regards the tariff and the attitude of Drury and his supporters.
What have we in the prairie provinces? A free trade party. The predecessors of the group to my left, the C.C.F., who were in the house when I was first elected to parliament, were men with a great deal of ability; they comprised, I believe, what was called the Progressive group. One tends to forget these names, they are like the titles of the ministers, who are called by so many high sounding names,-for instance the minister of "natural resources," I think one is called now: when the free traders get through with Canada you will have to give that minister a new name. The Progressives were among those who supported free trade. They said our grain trade was a north and south industry instead of an east and west and overseas industry, going to the markets of the world. They wanted reciprocity and lower tariffs and free agricultural implements. All this erroneous talk of social credit has done much to ruin the farmers of the prairie provinces, but we hear it again during this session- this cure for all of Canada's ills, this propaganda session; for that is all that it is.
The other day I compared this parliament with the mock parliaments of Varsity and McGill, but in those universities they deal with more practical problems. I notice that some of the ministers sitting opposite have been addressing those students. You will hear far more practical speeches in those parliaments than you do listening to these social cures in this mock parliament, for that is what it is.


Mr. DUNNING:: Let the hon. member
speak for himself.

Use of Canada's Financial Resources


Thomas Langton Church: You are wasting your
own time and everybody's time and you are not going to cure anything in Canada by this motion. The leader of the social credit group in Alberta used to be in the bible class game, which is a clean game. The game we are in now is at times a pretty dirty game. I used to be in the bible class game myself, although, unlike the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey) I got out of the Sunday school work when I entered politics.
Yesterday my right hon. leader made a speech which is well worth the attention of every man, woman and child in this country. I am glad that he put that speech on Hansard. I lost pretty nearly all the money I had in 1930 through not taking his advice; had I seen the crisis coming I should have been on easy street to-day. His views to-day are, I believe, those of the business men of this country. The conduct of business should be left to those who understand it, the men who are in business, and there should be as little state regulation as possible. I believe that the present Minister of Finance does understand business. In my opinion we should drop all these quack beliefs and quack remedies and political patent medicines for our business and social ills and consider the good of all the provinces. Canada will continue to be a protectionist country. The right application of the doctrine of protection will solve the problems of all the provinces from Vancouver to Halifax.
Let me say to hon. members from Alberta that I recall, the second session I was in the house, pleading the cause of the coal mining industry in that province. The miners in Nova Scotia and Alberta and elsewhere I thought needed a national fuel policy, so that all the coal we used should be bought under the British flag. I advocated a measure of protection for coal and steel and iron. You, Mr. Speaker, were in the house and supported it. I favoured a system of bonuses and subventions and subsidies in respect of coal and steel and iron, all along the line; grain also in Canada. The doctrine of protection should, I said, be adopted. What was the result of that policy? I proposed a committee be appointed. Hon. gentlemen opposite opposed it. The late Sir Henry Thornton said that I was proposing a lunch-counter system of freight rates for the people of this country. I told him it was better to have a lunch-counter system-I do not know whether Sir Henry ever dined at a lunch-counter-to save these people on the prairies and in the mari-times by increasing their sales of grain and coal, than to send $52,000,000 to the United
States to pay wages and the dividends of the Pennsylvania coal barons. Under that policy the coal industry in the maritimes has been converted to a prosperous industry and last year sent three million tons of coal to the head of the lakes, economically.
The day to day conduct of business should be taken out of the hands of commissions and professors and highbrows and people of that sort and given back to the business men. What is wrong with the prairies? It is not the manufacturers east of the great lakes that destroyed the west but the people themselves in the prairies, through their grain combines, their elevator combines, their transportation combines and all the combines which the Conservative party disclosed in the mass buying commission. If ever a political party in Canada worked for the toilers and the farmers of Canada it was the Conservative party, when my right hon. leader appointed that commission and appointed the mass buying committee. The commission revealed a state of affairs for toilers, farmers and industrial workers that made every Canadian hang his head in shame. It was discovered that the toiler, the poor farmer and the poor industrialist were the forgotten men.
Let me say to hon. gentlemen to my left that they are not the whole people of Canada. There are sixteen or seventeen members in the Social Credit party out of a membership of 245, but they prevent this house from getting into supply and making provision for the needs of our cities and towns, for our industrial workers. If you ask me, it is not altogether a sporting gesture on the part of hon. gentlemen to my left-and I know that many of them are good sports-to take up several days when other toilers cannot get their case before parliament.
The government has under consideration just now a measure which in my opinion will seriously jeopardize the prosperity of Canada. The greatest measure of prosperity we have ever had came from the empire trade agreements of 1932. They helped not only eastern Canada but the prairies as well.	Mr. Chamberlain the other day told a Conservative convention in Birmingham that as a result of the British trade agreements trade had increased for the nine provinces of Canada and for the other dominions forty-two per cent, and that Britain's trade to the dominions went up 47 per cent. My leader's policy in that connection has been twice blessed; not only has trade increased with the mother country, but, as Mr. Chamberlain said in his last speech as chancellor of the exchequer, the policy of preferential trade between the dominions and the mother country has had
1858	COMMONS
Use of Canada's Financial Resources
another aspect: it has increased the flow of foreign trade between Britain and other lands.
I am sorry that the leader of the Social Credit party who introduced this motion saw fit to have this debate last so long. Their leader asked the house and members to discuss it and take part in this debate, but now that so many members have spoken I think it is well for someone to put before the house the condition of the industrial workers of Canada. I should like to take some hon. gentlemen from Alberta to my riding, to the district represented by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey), and other industrial centres in Ontario. The hon. member for Greenwood could tell them something about the Christmas funds of the newspapers- Christmas cheer for the toilers out of work. Let them visit the homes of some of these industrial toilers and other people and see the conditions. Many of them have been sold under the hammer, men who have had employment have been driven to the wall, because the time of parliament is taken up discussing Saskatchewan.
What is the government's policy for the amelioration of the condition of the industrial workers? I do not see the Minister of Labour (Mr Rogers) in his place to-day, but I can tell him the municipalities from coast to coast are anxious to know what the government proposes to do about the present tax structure. Where are we drifting? The mayor of Belleville, in the Globe yesterday, referring to this parliament, used rather strong language; he said that we did nothing but smoke cigars. I do not smoke cigars myself, but the impression exists nevertheless that, the mayor of Belleville said, we simply sit around committee rooms and appoint a minister to apply chloroform to delegations that come here seeking assistance for the workers. The municipalities are as much entitled to have their case presented here at length as my hon friends are to discuss abstract questions. We were called obstructionists because we spoke for half a day on relief, but my hon friends have been discussing the monetary question for several days now. And so far as the government are concerned, they seem to be pinning their faith to the proposed United States trade agreement which they are now contemplating. They are all for free trade when elections are on, and they have a different policy for every province; but when they come here they simply move the tariff up or down five or ten per cent.
In my opinion social credit has been a failure where tested. It is not adapted to our circumstances at the present time, and it

could not be carried out. My hon. friends have been criticizing the financial and banking policy of the country and they have spent a good deal of time discussing the functions of money and the basis of credit; it started before confederation. My leader was absolutely right with reference to the Bank of Canada, and the present government will find that out to their sorrow. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) put a number of questions to the leader of the opposition. He is not here now; probably he has gone out to fire a few more officials.
The United States treaty which the government proposes to put through in the two or three weeks during the adjournment will not accomplish what they expect. When we came here at the opening of the session we saw forty-seven pages of items which the United States government suggested we should discuss with respect to further reciprocity with Canada, as reported in the local press on January 8. The people of the United States were asked to write to the trade department at Washington, stating their views with respect to all those items and after March 15 a public hearing was to be held. What will this government do? Will they consider adopting the same method and procedure here in order to give the business men of Canada an opportunity of being heard in the same way by letter and at a public hearing later, such as the hearing that took place in the United States on March 14, before any proposed agreement is consummated? Will the government consider consulting the Canadian industrialists and agriculturists regarding the effect of the proposed agreement on the Ottawa agreements? In England this course is being followed. Mr. Chamberlain has invited the people of England to write and tell him their views with respect to the certain matters of importance to them. Long before the mover of this amendment came to the house I pleaded for the workers of this country. Back in 1936 I contrasted the precepts of Christianity with the way in which our industrial workers are used, contrasting our professions with the ruthless competition, the cruelty and vice of present day business and industry. I said that here personality counts as nothing; the dollar is all supreme; modern life is all machine life, soulless, a life of standardization, high speed production, a highly efficient organization for the making of profit. Everything is done in the mass, and life is made uniform, monotonous and artificial. Dividends are the chief objective; to get dividends human beings are sacrificed. Wages are shockingly low, often below the level of mere subsistence, so that people

Use of Canada's Financial Resources
are forced into immoral and criminal ways of life to eke out a precarious livelihood. The maximum is exacted in hours of work in return for the minimum in wages. Senior employees, whose lifeblood has been drawn from them by long years of faithful service, are in many cases cast out without retiring allowance to make room for younger and cheaper people. It matters not what suffering is entailed for human beings so long as the stockholders are paid their dividends. This amazing selfishness and shortsightedness of the modem industrial system is creating a progressively lower standard of living and a vicious struggle-for-existence philosophy on the part of the people, increasing the serious social problems which must find their tragic solution in either war or revolution. In the face of modern methods of competitive living, the royal law of love, "Bear ye one another's burdens and so fulfil the law of Christ," is a hollow mockery in Canada, a presumably Christian country. This is the contradiction of modern life; a truly wonderful appreciation of the value of the single soul in some quarters but an absolute denial of any such value in others.
Those words are absolutely true to-day of the position and condition of the industrial workers in the industrial provinces.
Trades unionism in Canada was given a great stimulus by Sir John A. Macdonald's national policy tariff of 1878, which with some variations has been continued by all parties to this day. This policy was, our own markets for our own products, our own work for our own workmen. That has been practically the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, as well as of this party from 1878 to date. The Conservative party was the author of that policy and has been consistent all these years. The trades union movement is a protectionist movement, and labour has been the back-bone of Conservative strength in Canada.
It is time that trades unionists should form a large and valuable part in the Conservative party. Members of trades unions have a stake in the country and in the welfare of Canada's industries, and standards of living and of craftsmanship to preserve for themselves. The real old-time trades unionist has never been much given to socialism either in England or in Canada. Socialism as tested in Canada has been a failure. It is built up on economic inaccuracy, errors in psychology, and demagoguery. Canada's socialists have been so preoccupied with foreign affairs, and some of them with their own advancement-professors I refer to-that they have had no time to help solve Canada's domestic problems. I believe that a right application of the doctrine of protection brought up to date will solve all the economic ills of the country. Agriculture has been traditionally associated with the Conservative party. The socialist movement in Canada has been largely directed by political adventurers and ill advised professors and intellectuals of little vision.
The Conservative party should make a union with the real trades unionists who, ever since 1878, have been Conservatives, and give them some support. The real trades unionist in Canada has but one object, to preserve and safeguard his own industry and advance the real standards -of life of the men of his union. If communism in Canada is to be defeated, it will be by the Conservative party offering to organized labour in Canada something better than the mover of this amendment has to offer, and something better than a decaying international minded socialist party is offering, which has no real plan to solve the social and industrial problems of to-day. We shall have to get such a plank in our platform. Our party, since Macdonald's day, has commanded a large majority of the trades unionist votes.
At the time of the general strike in England Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Neville Chamberlain saved England from revolution by offering labour something of an alliance with the real trades unionists over there. We should do the same. We shall have to make some changes in policy to secure their support. We must concentrate on home building and owning and on domestic and social questions, preventing the exploitation of labour by big manipulating financial interests. We must bring our party back to the masses, who have always been its refuge and strength. We have always been the friend of industry, of agriculture and of municipalities. We must cease having anything to do with the big financial interests if we are to hold the great body of the working classes and those whom Disraeli called the suffering millions, and get back to government of the people, by the people, for the people.
We have been hearing propaganda unt'l I am tired. It started on the government benches, between the free traders and others, and now it has spread to our colleagues on the left. I am sorry that so much time has been wasted. I think if the hon. member who moved this amendment would only devote a little more attention to the domestic problems of his own province it would be more useful. Let me direct the attention of the hon. member and his group to the oil industry; what have they done in the forty-five days we have been here to save the farmers on the prairie from the oil combine? Mexico has seized the Canadian

Use of Canada's Financial Resources
and British plants. Canadians are dependent on imports of gasoline, and oil is imported, while in the Turner valley the output is limited to forty per cent, and yet the farmers on the prairies are crying out for oil. What are my hon. friend and his followers doing in the house? In the sessions of 1922 and 1923 I proposed that the dominion government should take over the Turner valley oil operations and by pipe line bring the benefit to the farmers of the west and the east. If it was done in the east with falling water and electricity, why can it not be done with gasoline? Hon. members from Alberta would be better employed in drawing the attention of the house to the forty per cent limit on the oil industry in Alberta, while Canada is importing oil through trusts and combines which have been before the tariff board and many commissions.
Our banking system may not be perfect, but I think it is true that for every dollar the prairie people have put in the banks they have taken out three or four. I wish that opportunity were extended to the industrial workers, that you put in a dollar and borrow four or five. I would like to get some of these social credit cheques to pay some of my debts. At one time I did not have any debts, but I have a few now. I should like to get some of their scrip; I shall buy it at five dollars a hundred, but I do not know whether I could get rid of it at that. Social credit has been a failure in England. These quack remedies have been held out since the days of our Lord and we shall always have them. If we are not going to be a useful parliament, let us go back home and have a dictator. If I sit here for another forty-five days like this, I shall vote for a dictator in the next election.
I wish the leader of our party were in charge of the affairs of the country. Hon. members opposite are simply adopting all his economic remedies. He is the head of this party, and long may he so continue. I hope he will reconsider his decision to retire. We do not want any imports from the duPont dynasty over our party. We have a leader whom we trust, the truest, ablest, most faithful and most courageous we ever had or the country ever had. While he may not now be the Prime Minister of Canada de jure, he is the de facto leader of this house and so head of the government, because they are adopting all his work and taking credit for his progressive measures. He saved Canada by his 1932 trade treaty with Great Britain, and the grain growing industry by hedging the grain and calling up the whole strength of the country. The Ottawa agreements have

stood, and they were brought in by my right hon. leader, a man who has some interest in the working people, the first leader of a party since confederation to do anything in the matter of regulating trade and commerce and appointing a mass buying committee. One or two hon. members opposite are now laughing. Their party shunted the social legislation into the law courts, but they swallowed the trade policy of my right hon. leader holus-bolus. In their platform of 1919 they included unemployment insurance, but now they have shunted off all these questions to a commission, and rely on the law courts to save them. Why does not the mover of this amendment go to the Rowell royal commission, to which the municipalities are sent?
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) is one of the twentieth century Liberals, if you please; yet he refuses to receive the mayor and board of control of the city of Montreal. That is the new kind of Liberalism we have in this country; they refuse to receive the representatives of the people in the industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which are paying eighty per cent of the cash taxes collected by the dominion, while the poor toiler has his property taken away and auctioned off. Day after day we sit here and listen to the talk about Saskatchewan, but we cannot get the same treatment in the industrial provinces. This year we are spending $36,000,000 in the prairie provinces, and last year it was $60,000,000. Who is going to pay for it all?
My hon. friends from Halifax were talking the other day about this question of aid to the municipalities, and I was glad to see them taking an interest in it; some of my colleagues to my right urged the same thing. Are we, representing the people of the industrial provinces of Canada, to sit here day after day doing nothing while, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), a former mayor of Vancouver, said, many of these municipalities are bankrupt because this parliament has made a raid and taken away their revenues? The municipalities had the income tax from the time of confederation down to 1918. Then these greedy provinces came along and a second levy was made after a federal raid, so the municipalities had to lose the income tax and other revenues. If hon. gentlemen to my left want to do something practical, let them solve the railway problem, unemployment, restore private property and distribution. We had three railways when they were not wanted forced upon the industrial workers of Canada.

Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
I did not intend to speak at this length, because I wanted to see a vote taken to-day. If that is not possible, let us talk until Friday and have the vote taken on April Fool's day. Then the people will know how much they can depend on the quack remedies and the patent medicines of these new Napoleons who have come out of the west. They think they can grab a hat and pull a social remedy rabbit out of it; that you can become a millionaire in a minute and pay your grocery bills, doctors' bills and so on by turning on the printing presses. They think it is a game. I went to the hockey game the other night for seventy-five cents, to see the Minister of Justice's (Quebec) team play. Social credit money is not acceptable in business or to pay to get in to see a game. They want a certified bill of the government of Canada. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) knows that, because I see him at these rugby and hockey games also. I do not see him handing any social credit scrip over the counter; he knows they would not take it in hockey or rugby games. Mind you, the banks have not done all they could. They are too hard on the retail man, and lending is not what it should be. The banking system has made many mistakes, but they are in the regulations, not in the general basic banking principle, and in not affording safer and much easier credit to farmers and others. The branch manager is guided by the city manager and the head office, and can hardly lend a dollar without consulting the head office inspector. That is a mistake.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


Thomas Langton Church: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad I do not have to speak until April Fool's day, anyway.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a general desire for a vote this afternoon, and I shall not take up so much time as to prevent the attainment of that desirable objective.
The debate on the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), the leader of the social credit group, has now occupied the house on a number of occasions. I agree with the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Hayhurst) that it has produced a vast amount of information which is on record in Hansard. Of how much use that will be to the general public of Canada in acquiring an understanding of monetary problems is, of course, a matter of opinion, especially as Hansard contains not only information but also misinformation.
As to who has been responsible for furnishing the one or guilty of perpetrating the other, that again is a matter of opinion, but I believe such debates do have value, particularly, as on this occasion, when the social credit group have had an opportunity in a full dress debate of placing before the house their suggested remedies for the conditions which their amendment sets out. One might disagree as to the accuracy of their statement of conditions. Many members of the house of course disagree with their proposed remedy, and many members have objected that their remedy has not been set forth in any understandable manner. At all events my hon. friends in the comer will admit, I think, that on the occasion of this debate they had ample opportunity to develop any concrete proposals which they had in mind for the purpose of dealing with the present economic situation in this country.
I think, too, after sitting in the house for three sessions, this being the third session during which the social credit theory has been represented by members in this chamber, they will agree with me that the debate now concluding has revealed that so far they have not succeeded, as far as I know, in convincing a single member other than those belonging to their own immediate group of the efficacy of the remedy which they propose for all Canada's economic ills. That being the case, I desire in all sincerity to offer to my hon. friends in the corner, the social credit group, what I believe to be a constructive suggestion. It is a suggestion based upon their own beliefs as to what the banking system of this country can do to remedy the economic conditions of which they complain.
The leader of the social credit group, when asked during his speech as to what he proposed to do, said that he would call in the chartered banks and give them orders to abolish poverty, and that, if. they said they did not know how, he would supply them with experts. I am taking that as the text for the suggestion I am about to offer. My suggestion is that inasmuch as the social credit movement boasts considerable strength in one province of the dominion, and from that point of view at least, the provincial point of view, is a movement of major dimensions, those who believe that the banking system can be employed to put into effect the social credit theory and that the banking system has unlimited privileges such as have been outlined by my hon. friends, have within the four corners of the Canadian Bank Act the opportunity of their lives. All they have to do is, of themselves, to form one of these institutions
1862	COMMONS
Use of Canada's Financial Resources
Which we call a Canadian chartered bank. The procedure is all set out. in the law. True, they will have to come to this parliament for a charter, and I shall tell them here and now that if the social erediters of Alberta comply with that statute, with which all other Canadian chartered banks have had to comply and with which they must comply to-day, I for one shall be pleased to do all I can to facilitate the passage through this house of a bill granting a charter to a social credit chartered bank. In that way my hon. friends would have, under their own control, all of the privileges, and it is my duty to point out also that they would have all the responsibilities of a Canadian chartered bank. If, therefore, they wish to operate through the medium of what has been described loosely as fountain pen money, and through all of the other privileges which it is alleged the chartered banks have, and if it is true, as the hon. member for Lethbridge has said, that one could call in the bankers and tell them to abolish poverty, then my hon. friends would be in a position to call in their own bank, controlled by themselves.
There is nothing in the world to prevent that. I am serious in making that suggestion. Seeing that my hon. friends in the comer have not succeeded in making converts in this house, is it well to adopt an attitude of disruption of the whole of the rest of Canada, which quite apparently does not desire to adopt the remedy proposed, and does not believe in it? Is it not better, within that area in which the belief in the doctrine is strongest, to create the piece of machinery which the parliament of Canada has provided may be created? Parliament has provided the means of creating that piece of machinery which my hon. friends say is the piece of machinery of which they require control in order to put their theories into effect. If they are right, think of the glory which will come. Think 6f the great advantage which will come to the people of Canada! If my hon. friends prove to be right in all that they advocate, and if it is possible to do through the medium of a chartered bank what they claim it is possible to do, they will reap great glory all down through history for having shown the way not only to the rest of Canada but, I venture to say, to the rest of the civilized world; that is, if what they claim can be accomplished by the application of their theories turns out in practice to be a fact.
I suggest that in all seriousness, and I shall do the best I can to facilitate the formation of such an institution, within the four comers of this Canadian bank act, giving to my hon.

friends and those who believe with them the exact privileges-all of them-which any and all of the chartered banks now enjoy, and placing upon them also all of the responsibilities which chartered banks must carry. I suggest that in all seriousness-not lightly- and I believe it to be a constructive suggestion, involving the possibility of a large scale experiment in that part of Canada in which the social credit doctrines have the strongest degree of support, and the possibility of carrying out the experiment in a manner which will not be injurious to the rest of Canada.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Is the minister dealing with a provincial or federal matter? Does he suggest that we, as a group, should open a bank in Alberta?


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall make it plainer.


John Charles Landeryou: Is it a provincial matter?	[DOT]


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend will take his sdlit, I shall answer. Any group of citizens in Canada may come together for the purposes outlined in the bank act of Canada. I am suggesting to my hon. friends that they are a group of citizens in Canada; that those in Alberta who adhere to their theories are citizens of Canada, and that as citizens of Canada believing in the social credit doctrine they can see to it that only those who believe in that doctrine may have any control or say in the chartered bank they may form.


John Charles Landeryou: I do not yet grasp the minister's suggestion. Is it that the social credit members sitting in the house should open a bank in Alberta?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, get a charter.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think I need go farther into the matter.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: Mr. Speaker, while hon. members to my left are considering the proposition placed before them by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) I should like to refer to one point made by the Minister of Finance and also by the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ilsley) which I think should not be permitted to pass without criticism. I speak respecting the establishment of an exchange fund, the purposes for which it was established, and the operation of the fund since the time it was established.
Chapter 60 of the acts of 1935 is an Act Respecting the Establishment of an Exchange

Use of Canada's Financial Resources
Fund. The preamble of the act states clearly the purpose of the enactment:
Whereas, in view of the uncertainties of the international situation as to currencies and foreign exchange values, it is desirable that a fund should be constituted which will be available as occasion may arise to aid in the control and protection of the external value of the Canadian monetary unit.
That is clearly the purpose of the whole act. Section 6 recites:
6. (1) For the purpose of endeavouring to control the external value of the Canadian monetary unit or of checking undue fluctuations in its exchange value the minister may directly or through such agencies as he may designate cause any balances in the special account to be invested in
(a)	gold;
(b)	foreign exchange as defined in section twenty-six, subsection two (b) of the Bank of Canada Act; and
(e) balances with any bank in London or New York designated by the Minister of Finance.
(2)	Gold or other investments purchased under the provisions of the preceding subsection may be resold on instructions from the minister.
(3)	This section shall not come into force until a date to be fixed by proclamation of the governor in council, published in the Canada Gazette.
Therefore the carrying into effect of the whole purpose of the act depends upon the bringing into force of section 6, by order in council published in the Canada Gazette. Both ministers admit that no such order in council has ever been passed or published.


Charles Avery Dunning: Did I understand the hon. member to say that no portion of that act is in force?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am simply saying that the carrying out of the purpose of the act depends upon the bringing of section 6 into force. I think there can be no doubt about it. If the minister wishes to discuss the question I am willing to discuss it here, or otherwise, as he may see fit. I had preferred to discuss it otherwise, but the hon. member's temper was so short when I spoke to him yesterday after the address of the Minister of National Revenue that I did not reply at once-


Charles Avery Dunning: I am soriy if I conveyed that impression.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I did not reply at once, because I thought my own temper, following his, might carry me too far.


Charles Avery Dunning: If I lost my temper I apologize to my hon. friend.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with the purpose of the act and my statement is that the
real purpose of the act can be carried into effect only by bringing section 6 into force by proclamation.
The first report of the Bank of Canada, after chapter 60 of the statutes of 1935 became effective, contains paragraphs pertinent to the issue under consideration. I quote:
The largest item on the asset side of our balance sheet is gold, valued at $180,509,342. When we commenced operations we acquired gold to the value of $106,584,355, of which $69,455,439 came from the dominion government and $37,128,916 from the chartered banks. Settlement for this gold was effected on the basis of the statutory value of $20.67 an ounce. Subsequently, the Exchange Fund Act-
That is the act to which I have referred and from which I have read one or two sections.
-required us to value the gold at the current market price. The resultant profit of about $73,500,000 did not accrue to the Bank of Canada. Section 30 of the Bank of Canada Act had provided that any profits on gold transferred to the bank would pertain to the dominion government,-
I shall not follow that any further. The report continues:
The balance of the profit, namely, $63,006,382, was credited to the exchange fund of the dominion government, and future profits or losses on gold held by us will be credited or debited to that account.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is the law.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The special account was
established with the Bank of Canada and a credit of $63,006,382 was created in the Bank of Canada prior to December 31, 1935. The Exchange Fund Act came into force on July 5, 1935, and the report I have been reading from is the first annual report of the Bank of Canada, and the first report published after the coming into force of the act.
My first comment is this. That sum of $63,006,382 was credited by the bank in special account to the exchange fund of the Dominion of Canada. It is to be remarked that no such credit appears in any return of the Bank of Canada that has been published from year to year.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister says, "of course not," but if money is placed to the credit of a fund in an account with a bank it immediately becomes a liability of the bank. The obvious alternative is that instead of the bank crediting this $63,006,382 to a particular fund for the benefit or in the right of the Dominion of Canada, it must be assumed that not appearing in the accounts, the Bank of Canada acts as a depositary or trust com-
1864	COMMONS
Use of Canada's Financial Resources
pany for the purpose of carrying that fund and operating it in accordance with the express provisions of the law. I repeat that the fund does not appear as a liability of the Bank of Canada in any return published so far.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Or as a deposit.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Therefore, it is not an
ordinary deposit in the bank. Secondly, I want to point out that the full purpose and intent of the act, as recited in the preamble, can only be carried into effect when section 6 and its various subsections have been given the force and effect of law by proclamation and publication in the Canada Gazette. That has not been done. Section 7 reads:
The minister may from time to time cause any portion of the balances in the special account to be employed by the Bank of Canada in the purchase of securities of or guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada.
That is the only power.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read on.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I shall read it all:
In the exercise of the powers conferred by this section the minister is authorized to make such arrangements as in his opinion will conduce to the immediate availability of the funds employed as aforesaid. The proceeds of all sales of investments made under the authority of this act,-
That is the first part of section 7 provides the types of securities.
-and all earnings and interest accruing thereon, shall be paid into the special account and shall be available for the purposes of the account.
That is for the purpose which I have mentioned already. The purpose of this act is the establishment of an exchange fund which will be " available as occasion may arise to aid in the control and protection of the external value of the Canadian monetary unit." I admit that a fund having been created in the manner provided for by this statute and there being a profit available of $63,006,382 in a special account with the Bank of Canada, that fund may be invested in the securities mentioned, from time to time, as the minister may authorize. I wish to add to that that in respect of section 7 the minister does not act in his own personal capacity, but as the Minister of Finance of Canada. His dealings under the authority of that section are dealings for which he is responsible, beyond doubt, to the parliament of Canada.
Both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue proceeded to assert that no disclosure should be made, with regard to that fund, to parliament or to the public. In support of that extraordinary
fMr. Cahan.]
contention, if I remember correctly, the Minister of National Revenue read section 10, which reads as follows:
(1) No person employed in the service of His Majesty or of the Bank of Canada shall communicate or allow to be communicated to any person not legally entitled thereto under the provisions of this act or by direction of the minister, any information with respect to the operation of the said special account, or allow any such person to inspect or have access to any written statement with respect to the said account.
Then there is a penalty provided for the violation of that provision. I submit with confidence that that provision with regard to those employed in the service of His Majesty or of the Bank of Canada does not include the minister wTho has authority, who has to deal with that fund and who is responsible to the parliament of Canada. That is just the ordinary and proper provision that no official or employee of the bank shall disclose information to the public with regard to the bank's transactions. But section 8 provides also that the minister may at any time he thinks it expedient to do so cause the said special account to be wound up forthwith. And then there is this provision:
And the said account shall in any event be wound up not later than six months after the date on which parliament resolves that the account is no longer required for the purpose for which it was established.
Therefore parliament is entitled to certain information in order that it may determine in its wisdom whether that special account is required for the purposes for which it is established. It was such information to which I referred, not dealing with the items of particular transactions in respect to the account, but general information with regard to the account, how it had been employed-dealing generally-the investments made out of the account-dealing generally-so that parliament might be informed as to the general nature of the operations carried on.
Furthermore, I stated to the minister personally, and I will state it here to this house, that from the partial accounts which have been published there is a general belief in commercial and banking circles in this country that that $63,000,000 has been at least partly employed for other purposes than those mentioned in section 7 of the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can give an absolute and unqualified denial to that, now, beyond the shadow of a doubt.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is, that the $63,000,000 has not entered into any purchase of gold, any purchase of foreign exchange as defined

Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
in section 6, subsection 1 of the Exchange Fund Act, and has not been invested in any balances with any bank in London or New York designated by the Minister of Finance? Does the emphatic reply cover all those items?


Charles Avery Dunning: I hesitate to get into a legal cross-examination. Subject to my hon. friend


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: We are not dealing with legalities or legal cross-examination.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can say that section 7 specifically sets out how that fund may be invested.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Section 6.


Charles Avery Dunning: Section 6 is not in force. It is section 7. I can say positively it has been invested in absolute accordance with section 7.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And not otherwise?


Charles Avery Dunning: And not otherwise.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, there is some relief in having-


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I am merely answering rumours which come from banks which are evidently critical, for some unknown reason, of the central bank.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They have a perfect right to-*


Charles Avery Dunning: -start rumours?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No, not start rumours, but they have a perfect right to examine the accounts of the central bank, as every member of this parliament and every individual citizen throughout the country has the right to examine those accounts,-


Charles Avery Dunning: Surely.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: *-to see what information is given. I thank the hon. gentleman for that plain statement. Now, if the fund called the central exchange fund was established by the statute of July 5, 1935, for the purpose of aiding in the control and protection of the external value of the Canadian monetary unit, and if during over two years and a half the fund has not been used for that purpose, the main object of the act has been thwarted, because the government have not brought section 6 into force.


Charles Avery Dunning: Is "thwarted" a good
word?
other purposes were not the main object-in fact, so far as stated in the act, the principal object for which the act was enacted has not been effected. I say, if that has continued during two years and a half, it is a perfectly proper consideration for parliament as to whether the said account, which has not been employed for the purpose designated by the act, and for which purpose apparently there is no present intention of employing it, should now be wound up.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is. Of course it is
a proper subject for consideration.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Therefore the provisons of
the act and the manner in which these provisions have been carried out are proper subjects for discussion in this parliament, and therefore the main object, as to the employment of the sixty-three odd million dollars, is a proper subject of inquiry in this parliament, and this parliament has the right to such general information as is necessary for parliament and its members to form a definite opinion with regard to the winding up of that fund. That is what I have to say. Therefore section 10 which was quoted by the Minister of National Revenue has no application to the request that such general information should be furnished parliament. Furthermore, I think the minister will have to assent that, where he is given the direction and control of any fund which is the property of the government of Canada, parliament has a perfect right to such general information.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is "general information"?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: First, we have a right to
know the profits of that fund from year to year.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think so, yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Since 1935.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Secondly, we have the
right to know whether the investments of that fund have been restricted absolutely, as the minister now says, to "the purchase of securities of or guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada."


Charles Avery Dunning: Read on.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, that is all that is
said.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is thwarted, because the Mr. DUNNING:	Read the whole of secintention of parliament has not been carried	tion 7. It is not my language. That is the
into effect. The incidental uses for certain	language I found there.



Use oj Canada's Financial Resources


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, I will read it. It is
perfectly clear, I think, to one who understands English, and I have some idea that I can understand English.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
forgive me, but it is incomplete unless the whole is read.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well. I read it before:
The minister may from time to time cause any portion of the balances in the special account to be employed by the Bank of Canada in the purchase of securities of or guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada.
I repeat that.
In the exercise of the powers conferred by this section the minister is authorized to make such arrangements as in his opinion will conduce to the immediate availability of the funds employed as aforesaid.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now, my hon. friend wants to help me. What did the government of the day mean by those words?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That section 6 should
be in force.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It means this, undoubtedly, that the fund, which had been wholly or in part invested in securities of or guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada, might be employed under the provision of section 6 as well, when section 6 was brought into force. But, section 6 not having been brought into force, there is no other application of these funds that could legally or properly be made, in my opinion, by the Minister of Finance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Other than under section
7.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Other than under section 7; and under section 7 there were only two alternatives-between the purchase of securities of or guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada or the sale of those, and placing the proceeds again in the bank to be used for the purposes of an exchange fund, which, when section 6 was brought into force, would enable the minister to authorize the purchase of gold or foreign exchange or balances in any bank in London or New York designated by the minister. If there is any misunderstanding by the general public as to the purpose for which this fund has been applied, and the minister now seems to suggest that he has applied it for other purposes than investment in securities or-


Charles Avery Dunning: No, positively not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The governor says otherwise.


Charles Avery Dunning: Read what the governor says.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, there is one passage which, in view of the emphatic statement of the Minister of Finance, that I am bound to accept, may possibly be interpreted otherwise than it is being interpreted. In the return of February 25, 1936, after stating that the profits realized were $63,006,382, the report proceeds:
The balance of the profit, namely, $63,006,382 was credited to the exchange fund of the dominion government, and future profits or losses on gold held by us will be credited or debited to that account.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is a different thing entirely; that is in accordance with the previous section of the act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand the minister to say now that the question of future profits or losses on gold is to be determined not on any future purchases of gold but by the statutory value of $20.67 an ounce and the revalution of $35 an ounce or any range between the two values of gold at any particular date. The object of this act was to purchase gold and foreign exchange and balances in banks in London or New York.


Charles Avery Dunning: The reference to gold made there applies to section 5 of the act. Let the hon. gentleman read section 5 and connect it with what the governor says and he will find it perfectly clear. The amount of any increase or any decrease-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I said that I understood, from the minister's emphatic denial that the fund had been used for any purchases of gold, that the statement which I read from the governor's report must apply to fluctuations as between $20.67 and $35.


Charles Avery Dunning: There has been just the one movement.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, that is what I stated, quite clearly, I thought. I repudiate the suggestion that parliament is not entitled to information from time to time from the minister with regard to the directions he has given. I can well understand that an ordinary bank in making a proper report to its stockholders is not bound to enter into particular transactions with its clientele; that is obvious. Therefore, as regards any information which the bank withholds so as not to disclose operations which, if publicly known, would be prejudicial to the bank's interests, I can understand limitations being placed upon the dissemination of such information. But I think that parliament has a right to know

Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
what profits are made from year to year on the S63,000,000 of government funds, and what is the amount to the credit of the special exchange fund at the present time-


Richard Bedford Bennett: As a liability of the bank.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think it is a liability of the central bank, because the bank is a bank; it is not a mere depositary.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is placed in a special trustee relationship to this account by this statute.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The minister is suggesting that it is like going to a trust company and engaging part of its vaults for the keeping of one's securities, and that that sort of deposit is the deposit made in this case. If it is a special account in the bank-and the act says that it shall be a special account- a special account in a bank implies a liability of the bank to the amount to the credit of that account, which should be shown in the annual statement of the bank. However, I do not wish to labour that further.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Does not the hon. gentleman think that the other two provisions, one subsection and one section other than section 10, make it clear that particulars of investment are not to be divulged even to parliament?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is nothing about
divulging to parliament.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I never said there was, but the spirit and purpose of the act are clearly evidenced by one subsection and one section which take it out of the audit and revenue act, stating that the auditor general is not to say what he says about other accounts which he audits but is to give a general statement to the effect that the account is administered in accordance with the law. Why were those sections put there?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because it was assumed that section 6 would be proclaimed; that is the reason. Surely the minister sees that. That is the whole story; it is the answer to the minister. Section 6 was to be proclaimed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The very terms of section 8 imply that that account is to be wound up when parliament decides that it has served the purposes for which it was created.


James Lorimer Ilsley: What about section 9?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with that-


James Lorimer Ilsley: The hon. gentleman never read it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: -and that implies that parliament is entitled to general information with regard to the account. It is entitled to know what the profits and losses are; it is entitled to know generally as to the amount of dominion securities or securities guaranteed by Canada that are held in that account; and section 9 provides that ^there shall be an annual audit by the auditor general, and he is to find merely that in his opinion the transactions in connection with the account have or have not been in accordance with the provisions of the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: And he has done so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I dare say he has.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has been tabled in the house,


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In these terms, I suppose? I have not seen it; it was not published separately. Then will the hon. gentleman tell me, has the auditor general seen the written directions given by the minister with regard to the investment of that fund? Has he compared those written directions given by the minister with the transactions made for the fund-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is mean.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not mean. If the hon. member is to sit as Minister of Finance and is to have the direction of investments-and no investments can be made except at his express designation-then it is perfectly proper to suggest that the auditor general must take those written directions into account, if he is to make a faithful return in accordance with the express terms of the act.


Charles Avery Dunning: I said it was mean because I considered it constituted a reflection on the auditor general, whose duty under section 9 clearly is to do all the things my hon. friend asks whether he did. Section 9 says:
An annual audit of the special account shall be made by the auditor general in such manner as he thinks proper, with a view to ascertaining whether the transactions in connection with the account have been in accordance with the provisions of this act, and he shall certify to the House of Commons that in his opinion, having regard to the examination, the transactions in connection with the account have or have not been in accordance with the provisions of this act, and that the records of the said account do or not show truly and clearly the state of the said account.
I submit that, the auditor general having certified that, it is a reflection upon him for my hon. friend to say: did he examine these things?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am not giving the floor to the minister. My forty minutes is not up.
1868	COMMONS
Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
He has spoken before. I was making no reflection on the auditor general. I was seeking to ascertain from the minister, and I ask him now: In respect to every investment of that fund or every reinvestment, has he given directions in writing to the bank, which directions are there as a part of the records of the bank?


Charles Avery Dunning: The bank has adequate directions in accordance with section 7, and the auditor general has certified that the account has been handled in accordance-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know that, but I know as well that the Minister of Finance is evading a direct answer to my question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One may say that an hon. member evades answering a question.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not evading anything. In cross-examination-which I should not permit across the house at this stage-by one of the leading lawyers of this country, he asks me trap questions. I have signed many thousands of documents in connection with the public office I hold; I have to sign them every day, and I would not state positively anywhere that I had signed every document in connection with every transaction. I cannot so state. But I can state that the auditor general, whose duty it is to examine these transactions and to see whether the law has been complied with, certifies that it has been. If in the opinion of the auditor general proper direction had not been given by the minister, my hon. friend knows what would have happened; the auditor general would have called the minister's attention to the fact that this and that had been done without certification by the minister. I have had no such communication from the auditor general, therefore I think I am correct in saying-if this answer will satisfy my hon. friend-that I must have done everything which the law required that I should do. More I cannot say.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is a perfectly proper and frank answer and must be accepted not only by me but by parliament. But this is the point I have in mind; we have had a great deal of argument lately on the part of the government that this bank is under political control, that is under the direction and control of the government or nominees of the government, but this particular item is under the direction and control of the minister.
[Mr Cahan.]


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not put it there; my hon. friends did.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was always so under the old act.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am dealing with this act. There was no old act dealing with a fund such as this; this is a new creation.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But this act was in force before the former private bank was changed to a public bank in 1936, and the provisions of this act stand as they were.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No one suggested otherwise.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly, no one suggested otherwise. Therefore I wished to ascertain, and ascertain directly, as I have done, that with regard to the investments of this fund it is the minister who is acting and who has given the directions; that they are not the directions of the Bank of Canada, that is. of the directors or officers of that bank. That being so, I am satisfied, and I think the frank statement of the minister will clear up a great many misapprehensions with regard to this fund. But I do contend that the fund created has not been devoted to the purposes for which the act was passed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not yet.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: After two and a half years. But it has been diverted under a subsidiary clause relating to any balances that might be available after operations have been conducted under section 6, if so conducted. Therefore I think that the minister on some early occasion should tell us of the present condition of the fund, as to what profits have gone to the fund, the amount of the fund as it stands at present-for that is a matter of great interest to parliament-


Richard Bedford Bennett: And if any gold losses have been charged against it.
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): In view of the observation of the Minister of Finance that it is desirable, if at all possible, that a vote should be taken on this resolution before the house rises this afternoon, I shall make my remarks as brief as possible. I trust hon. members who have taken part in the debate this afternoon will therefore excuse me if I do not make any reference to the various points raised by them. And I would not dare to engage in discussion of the question with which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) have just

Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
dealt, nor would I endeavour to follow the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) as he travelled so rapidly from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Those who sit in this house realize his ability to cover much territory in a very short time. Even in these days of rapid transit it is almost impossible to follow the hon. member for Broadview. But I should like to express to him my appreciation of his interest in the maritimes, particularly in his reference to his action of some years ago regarding subventions on coal. If there is any credit coming to the hon. member in that connection I certainly want to give him that credit.
My object in rising at this time is to say a very few words in order that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) may understand that there are two sides to the question of steam trawlers as raised by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Kinley). I quite appreciate the hon. member raising that question; it is one on which he is as well qualified as any hon. member of this house to speak-the fishing industry as it affects his own constituency. I appreciate the years of service my hon. friend has given to his community, and I fully realize that he is vitally interested in the fishing industry in his own constituency. No doubt he is interested to a very large extent as well. Certainly I would not want to harm him financially or otherwise, but we must deal with this matter in a broad sense; not as it affects one particular constituency, important though that may be. I believe we should look at it from the standpoint of the benefit of the fishing industry to Canada as a whole, and it is with this point in mind that I approach the question.
If I followed the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg correctly, he would completely eliminate the steam trawler. The hon. gentleman put the matter definitely before the Minister of Fisheries and more or less put the onus in this matter on the minister. I do not think that is an altogether fair approach. It is definitely laid down in the act that there are certain requirements which must be met. One is that a licence shall be issued if certain conditions exist. The order in council states:
The applicant for such licence shall furnish the Minister of Fisheries with evidence that will satisfy the said minister that he cannot obtain an adequate supply of suitable fish to enable him properly to conduct and develop his business from the hook and line fishermen, and that if such a licence is granted, the extent of his purchase of fresh fish from the said fishermen will not be adversely affected.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In other words there
should be no steam trawlers licensed unless the fishermen could not supply the necessary fish.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Perhaps that is as simply
as it could be put. That is where my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg and myself differ. At the moment I may seem to be approaching this question from a somewhat narrow point of view, but at present in Halifax we have two large fish operators. It means a million and a quarter dollars a year to our immediate vicinity to have these trawlers operating, and for that reason I place before the Minister of Fisheries certain reasons why I believe he should issue or renew these licences.
One would almost believe, from the remarks of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg, that there were hundreds of licences being issued. I wonder if hon. members realize exactly how many licences have been issued. There are three, and as I understand it only two of those have been taken out, both by this large company which employs hundreds of men on our waterfront, in addition to taking supplies of fish from fishermen all along the shore. They are prepared to enter into an agreement to take such fish; they made the statement that they would take all the fish available between Halifax and Canso.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How many American trawlers are operating in the same vicinity?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The Minister of Fisheries
says two hundred odd.


John James Kinley: They cannot land their fish in Canada.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That is true; but, sir, we
are after a world market. We are not simply selling to Canada, and for that reason I believe it is absolutely necessary that we should adopt up-to-date methods. As I have said, I am in sympathy with the desire to protect our inshore fishermen, but this was never intended to injure them, and I do not believe it will have that result. Rather I think it will result in increased sales of fish by the maritime provinces, which will be a direct benefit to the inshore fishermen and for that reason, not because I want to injure these fishermen, I am: supporting it. If I thought it would injure them I would not be making these remarks to-day. I am just as sympathetically inclined towards our inshore fishermen as is the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg or any other member from Nova Scotia but, sir, those in Queens-Lunenburg, including my
1870	COMMONS
Use of Canada's Financial Resources
hon. friend, have not kept pace with the times. Modern marketing to-day requires modern methods of handling fish.


John James Kinley: Is my hon. friend an expert in that?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I have made it very clear to my hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg that I take off my hat to him. Certainly he has had much more experience in the handling of fish than I have had, but on the other hand I endeavour to keep abreast of the times by reading and studying methods of marketing which will bring the best results to our province.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the all-important thing; whether the old-fashioned way will bring a greater financial return to the maritime provinces or whether it is better to follow this modern, up-to-date method. I think anyone who studied the question, even without having had years of experience in the fishing industry, dealing with it in an unbiased manner and not from a narrow, selfish point of view, would immediately say: "Yes, if we are going to bring added revenues to our country we must keep up to date." Certainly we have made a real bid for increased markets, so why not adopt up to date methods in supplying these markets, as we have in connection with apples and other products of the maritimes?
The hon. member stated that we did not need these fish, that the market was not there for them. In reply may I say that a very short time ago, when the question arose as to whether an application should be made for an additional trawler, one company-and it is not the company that holds the licence at present-made the definite statement that it could not get sufficient supplies of fish from the regular sources, the schooners, to give more than three days employment for the men working in the factory; but that the use of one additional trawler would keep the plant working six days a week. I say that is a very important factor in our industrial life.


John James Kinley: Would the hon. member
permit a question? I understood him to say another company wanted a trawler. Was that the American company?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I hold no brief for American companies. I am particularly anxious to support the company that is engaged in the business at the present time, and I understand that a very large percentage of the stock is held by business men in the maritime provinces. If the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg wishes the name of the company I may tell him that I am interested in the Maritime National Fish Company Limited, and I do

not think he will deny that this company is almost entirely owned by people residing in the maritimes.


John James Kinley: I thought the hon. gentleman was referring to another company.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: My reference to another company might have been to a subsidiary of an American company which is operating m the city of Halifax; but, as I stated, I hold no brief for that company nor am I particularly interested in it.
The hon. member stated he had received a telegram from one company, and on that argument he based his statement that the Minister of Fisheries should not be obliged to renew the licences.	,


John James Kinley: I did not say "one" telegram.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Not five or ten, but between fifty and sixty have been received by me since last Friday, and every one, without exception, supports the renewal of trawler licences.


John James Kinley: Merchants controlled by a monopoly.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I do not know whether or not they are controlled by a monopoly, 'but I do know, and I will say to the hon. member who has just interrupted me that I have made a careful check-the hon. member has had a chance to look them over-and they would almost convince me that he is on the wrong track. These are very representative and outstanding citizens. These men represent prominent business firms, hotels, and shipping concerns which handle fish in and out of Halifax. The telegrams come from supply houses, wholesale firms and retail fish stores, almost without exception. I have checked with the list of fish dealers in the Halifax telephone directory to find out t'he ones who did not send their names, and I learn, after my search, that practically every fish dealer in Halifax has either signed his name to a letter, or his name appears on a wire which has been forwarded.
I was surprised in connection with one group of telegrams, because they covered practically all of what we would describe as the expert fishing men in Halifax. These men have had experience as long as if not longer than that of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. I refer to such men as Mr. A. H. Whitman, and O. F. MacKenzie, the latter having sufficient knowledge to be chosen as one to be sent to South American ports to investigate possibilities of added markets. Telegrams received from such men, bearing the high reputations that they do in Halifax and throughout the

Use oj Canada's Financial Resources
maritimes, are worthy of consideration. I would read some of them, but I am trying to make my observations as brief as possible.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg did not dwell at length on the value of the industry to Nova Scotia and to Canada. In 1933 production was valued at $27,496,946, and Nova Scotia's share was $6,010,001. In 1935 there was an increase in the whole of Canada, from the figure I have given, to $34,427,854, and Nova Scotia's share increased to $7,852,899. In 1936, the last figures available, the production in Canada had increased to a value of $39,165,055, of which Nova Scotia's share-and it is in this part I am interested- had risen to a value of $8,905,268. .
Hon. members will appreciate why I am interested in trying to protect this very necessary revenue in our province. If I wished to take up the time I could refer to a statement made by the hon. member in reference to the report of the provincial economic inquiry in Nova Scotia. Possibly he did not study the report as carefully as he should have, because in the report, signed by the three commissioners, I find the following:
We were impressed by the need for more rapid and more frequent transportation and we recommend that every possible means should be employed to secure that end.
Rapid transit is one of the very necessary things in connection with the shipment and processing of fish.


John James Kinley: We have the most rapid transport.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: The twenty-one schooners in which the hon. member is interested go to the banks and return in a certain period of time-possibly a week, and perhaps longer than that.


John James Kinley: Every day, if you want
them.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: That has not been possible up to the present time. The trawler, in turn, goes to the banks and brings in a steady supply, particularly in the summer. This is absolutely necessary if the operators are to receive a steady supply of fish, so that they may process sufficiently large quantities and be in a position to keep the market they have gained through strenuous effort and extensive advertising.
I was asked to make my remarks as brief as possible, and I shall endeavour to do so, because I do not wish unnecessarily to take up the time of the house. I am sticking as closely as possible to my subject, and have been content to answer one or two of
the observations of the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg. May I point out to him, sir, that about forty per cent of the fish produced is resold in the maritimes and the rest of Canada. Sixty per cent is processed. Two-thirds of that quantity is exported, and one-third is sent to the markets in central Canada. It is the sixty per cent in which the two firms in Halifax are interested. For a long time we have been trying to bring outside money into our little province down by the Atlantic. If that is not good, sound business, then I am off on the wrong foot.
May I give three definite reasons why the trawler is necessary. First, it alone can land good fish in economic quantities all the year round. True, there are certain seasons of the year when the fishing fleet from Lunenburg and elsewhere might be able to give a supply, but I am saying that for the year round it is necessary to have the steam trawler. In the second place, as I have stated before, it is necessary that the supply be regular. The regularity of supply ensures more nearly continuous labour ashore, and the ability to reship in processed form. That brings me to one telegram which I almost forgot, namely from the labour union known as the Mutual Employees Association. This organization is represented by hundreds of men who state that if the trawler licences were not renewed such refusal would seriously interfere with their employment. And so, from the various angles-modem methods of marketing, the additional business coming to the maritimes, and the employment of labour-I believe the Minister of Fisheries would be justified in again renewing the trawler licences.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the rules of
our house did not contemplate the existence of three or four distinct groups. Hence it is very difficult in a matter of this kind to make one's position absolutely clear. If this matter comes to a vote, I shall support the subamendment. That means that I shall vote with the Conservative party. If standing order 49 did not preclude an amendment to the subamendment, I should like to have moved as follows:
That the adoption of the policies of the Conservative party as enunciated by its supporters in this house would afford no adequate remedy for such neglect.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, there has been one unexpected event after another this afternoon, and it would now look to be impossible to finish this debate to-day. On the understanding

Suspension of Standing Order
that there is to be a motion that the rules shall be suspended so that we may finish this debate to-morrow, I would move the adjournment of the debate at this time. I beg to assure you that at that time I shall endeavour to deal with the various matters that have to be considered in as short a time as possible.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 28 'WITH RESPECT TO SITTING OF THURSDAY, MARCH 31

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) has just indicated, the government feel it would be advisable to have this debate concluded tomorrow if possible. However, to conclude it we would have to suspend standing order 28. If the house will give its unanimous consent, I would move:
That standing order 28 be suspended with respect to the sitting of this house on Thursday, the 31st of March, 1938.
If this motion is carried we shall continue with this debate as the first order to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.55 pm.
Thursday, March 31, 1938