[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 20, to amend the Immigration Act (definition of public charge).
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The purpose of this amendment is simply to define public charge in order that people who to-day are forced to accept unemployment relief will be excluded from deportation proceedings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. WOODSWORTH moved that the said bill be now read the first time.
Hugh Guthrie: Has this matter not already been dealt with this session? Not this paricular bill, but a similar bill introduced by another hon. member and voted upon?


Mr. BENNETT:: It is the same bill in different words.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The other bill was to amend another section of the same act. This bill seeks to amend section 2, the other was to amend section 40.

Immigration Act


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I point out that the bill introduced by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) had to do with the procedure with regard to deportation proceedings; that is that the municipalities to-day are required to report to the minister those coming under unemployment relief. This bill is an entirely different one, and would exclude from the undesirable classes those who come under unemployment relief. It is a different bill altogether from the preceding one. It is in line with the bill I introduced into this house a year ago.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Woodsworth moves that the bill to amend the Immigration Act (definition of public charge) be now read a first time.
Those in favour of the motion will say " aye."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Those opposed will say " nay." *


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the nays have it.
(Some hon. members having arisen).


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Call in the members.
(The members having been called in).


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Woodsworth moves that the bill to amend the Immigration Act (definition of public charge) be now read the first time. Those in favour will kindly rise.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: May I rise to a point of order. I understand the motion is that the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill. That was the motion put to the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understood that motion to carry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. gentleman who has just spoken is quite right. This bill has never been before this house except on one occasion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: This motion is not debatable.


James Shaver Woodsworth: This is a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. I do not see how we can intelligently vote on a bill that has never been before the house, and I protest against that method of procedure.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is not a point of order at all. The bill is now before the house and the motion is for first reading.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The bill is not before the house, and has not been printed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member not wish to introduce the bill?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The bill has not been printed; hence it cannot be before the members of this house. I have had no opportunity of explaining what the bill is about.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The practice is to print
the bill after it has been given first reading. This bill is being dealt with as other bills before the house are dealt with. What is the hon. member's point of order?


James Shaver Woodsworth: My point of order is that it is customary in this house to have the introduction of a bill, and first reading usually takes place automatically. Then the bill is printed, and as members of the house we have an opportunity of seeing what the bill is. By the procedure now being adopted the members of this house have no opportunity at all of knowing what the bill really is, and I submit that it is not fair to reject the bill before it has been placed in the hands of the members of the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member had an opportunity of explaining the bill when the motion was made for leave to introduce it, and to some extent he explained the bill. This bill is being treated as other bills before the house are treated; if it is given first reading all hon. members will have ample opportunity to consider it. If the house does not choose to give the bill first reading, that is the privilege of the house.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: May I refer Your Honour to rule 746, at page 214:
Though no amendment or debate is permissible on the question for reading the bill a first time, it is quite regular to divide the house thereon.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is what is being done.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired
witlh the hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Factor). Had I voted, I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted, I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted, I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.

Wheat Agreement


Mr. DUPRE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted, I would (have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. SENN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford), Had I voted, I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. SIMPSON (West Algoma):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted, I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. EMBURY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Had I voted, I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding). Had I voted, I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted, I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I was paired with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Bowen). Had I voted, I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.


Mr. MUNN:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). Had I voted, I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.


Mr. SPENCER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies). Had I voted, I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.


Mr. HANBURY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esling). Had I voted, I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had I voted, I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.


Mr. BARRETTE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Saint John-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). Had I voted I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Bagot (Mr. Du-maine). Had I voted I would have voted against the introduction of the bill.


Mr. BEAUBIEN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Had I voted I would have voted for the introduction of the bill.



SILVER AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) submitted a question as to those countries which had ratified the London silver agreement. I have no official information to give the house, but I am advised that -up to the moment notice of signature has been given by the United States, Australia, India, and Mexico.



RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy). Has the application made to the Manitoba liquor commission for a beer licence in Riding Mountain park received the approval of the minister, or does he intend to give his approval to such application?


Hon. T. J. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior):: The application has been made to the provincial government of the province of Manitoba. Any reply would necessarily have to be given by that body.


John Livingstone Brown: Not quite a satisfactory
answer.



WHEAT AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the other day the

Wheat Marketing Board

hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) asked a question with inspect to the wheat agreement. I find that the answer which I gave him the other day as to the computation of acreage on the three-year average, and 3'ield on the ten-year average was correct. I propose by the end of the week, if I receive the information I am seeking, to give a more formal statement with respect to the whole matter.



WHEAT MARKETING BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In recent months has the government given consideration to the advisability of setting up a regularly constituted wheat marketing board, and if so when may we expect an announcement thereon? As I failed to extend to my right hon. friend the usual courtesy notice in connection with this question, a reply at a later date will be satisfactory.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am delighted to think the hon.
gentleman has put it that way, because he asks a question and then asks further, as to when an announcement may be expected. Apparently he does not expect it to-day, and I am obliged to him.



SMALL LOAN COMPANY OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto) moved the second reading of Bill No. 15, to incorporate the Small Loan Company of Canada.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GEARY:: This is a bill which I have introduced at the request of a very reputable set of people. While I know very little about it myself I am advised that it follows in its terms precisely the bill that was passed by this house last year. This bill has to do with the making of small loans on personal security. I am aware that there was some objection made to the bill last year, but as far as I am advised there was no change made therein, and I am also told that, the superintendent of insurance approved the principle and thought that such companies as these were of some use in the community as they absorbed the pressure to get small loans rather than large loans, and loans on personal property rather than on real property.
TMr. Bennett.]


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Is this bill to be referred to the private bills committee, may I ask?


George Reginald Geary: It will go to that committee, I suppose.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: I would like to make two observations upon the second reading of this bill. My first observation is that we have a bill before the house setting up a central bank, and therefore I do not see the necessity of incorporating the Small Loan Company of Canada.
My second observation is a more serious one. We all remember the Stavisky scandal in France which came about through the bankruptcy of a corporation of this very kind. Parliament should be very careful about incorporating small loan companies in Canada. I have always advised my electors to be prudent in these matters. I do not see why these gentlemen should come to parliament for a bill of this kind because there are loaning facilities in every branch of every chartered bank in Canada. These chartered banks come under the department of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), and there is a very thorough inspection of them, while the small loan companies are not subjected to the same inspection and care. If we give this bill its second reading I am afraid that people might go throughout the country selling shares of this corporation, just as they have done in the case of other companies, stealing the people's money and holding out to them the prospect of making huge profits if they invest in such a scheme. We know these birds of prey who tour the country urging the people to invest their money in such and such a scheme which the promoters say will produce for the people a profit of 25 and sometimes 50 per cent a year. But what happens? If a man subscribes $500 in such a scheme they cash his cheque and give him back $250 the same day and tell him, "Here is your profit, and you are getting it back the same day that you invested your money." Then they decamp with the other $250 and he never sees them again until the police catch them.
There was a finance corporation that failed in Toronto a few years ago. I am not against finance. I am not against the lending of money to poor people, but I do not like what we call in French "prets a la petite semaine"-that Shylock method of lending money to individuals.
Companies of this sort ask all kinds of guarantees. We do not know anything about any of these people. They may be honest.

Small Loan Company
We may give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they might be honest but perhaps they are not, and it is my duty, representing not only my county but the Canadian people in this parliament, to advise my colleagues to be very careful about companies of this kind, and also to ask my hon. colleagues in this house not to let this bill pass without first of all scrutinizing it very thoroughly. Otherwise the people will say, "It is you, the House of Commons and the Senate, which passed this legislation giving these people the chance to cut the flesh of our fellow-citizens." I do not see the necessity for this bill. I do not know any of these people. I am always ready to oblige anyone who comes here with decent legislation, and perhaps this is decent legislation, but perhaps it is not. We need more information, and I would ask the hon. gentleman who has moved the second reading of this bill to delay before pressing for a vote on the second reading so that we may get more information.


Mr. R. W. GRAY (West Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the second reading of this bill. I would call the attention of hon. members of the house to just two or three points before they vote on the second reading.
First of all, I would ask them to read section five of the bill andi to note that paragraph (b) of that section provides that-


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Read the section.


Ross Wilfred Gray: It is a long section, and the hon. member has the bill before him. Paragraph (b) provides:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the Interest Act, or in the Money Lenders Act, or in paragraph (c) of section sixty-three of the Loan Companies Act,
-this company may do certain things which the section goes on to enumerate. I just wish to point out to the house that these various acts mentioned and section sixty-three of the Loan Companies Act were passed for the very purpose which the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) has pointed out, for the protection of the people of this dominion, and that they have been on the statute books for many years. I am of the opinion, regardless of what the promoter of this bill may say, that we have quite enough of these small loan companies acts, and perhaps too many already, and the time has come when we should scrutinize them with a great deal more particularity than we have done in the past.
I would also call attention to subsection (i) of section five which permits the company to lend on various types of securities, and I would particularly ask hon. gentlemen to note that although subsection (i) of section five provides that the interest rate may not be more than seven per cent, this interest is deducted at the time the loan is made, and that the amount loaned is payable weekly, monthly or per annum as it may be provided, aind so at the very end of the first month there is an overlapping of interest, and before the loan is finally paid off the party borrowing has paid very much more than seven per cent interest.
The next subsection (ii), marginally noted, Charges for Expenses, provides that two per cent .upon the principal of the loan may be charged by the company for expenses. That makes nine per cent, and more as I have already pointed out.
The next subsection (iii) provides that there may be an additional charge. This subsection provides that for the drawing of a chattel mortgage which they take upon the various chattels as security they may charge an additional $10 regardless of the size of the loan. This is exorbitant, and I protest and ask the house, if they decide that this bill shall go to the private bills committee, to see that the whole bill be very carefully scrutinized in order that the general public may be protected.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to agree with the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, although I am not unmindful of the fact that in days gone by similar charters have been granted by this parliament. In those days I protested against the granting of charters which gave to a company powers of the character mentioned in this bill. Surely the days of usury are past; if the chartered banks of this country are to be limited to six and seven per cent by action of this parliament, this same parliament should not set up a company which can charge forty per cent. Personally, I think it would be fair to have this bill go to the private bills, the banking and commerce or some other appropriate committee but I think this parliament should pause and consider before there is created under the imprimatur of this and the other house a corporation which will be able to do what this bill will permit it to do. I feel like voting against the second reading but if it is the sense of the house that this bill should go to a committee, well and good. Personally, I do not think we have room in this country for
Small Loan Company

this class of company although I am bound to say that the superintendent of insurance has stated before committees of this house that this class of corporation fills a need in the community. I never agreed with him and I propose to vote against the second reading.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, we have on our files a bill to create a central bank of Canada and another one to revise the Bank Act of Canada. These bills are intended to revise the whole financial system of Canada. Under the circumstances, I think this is the proper time for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) and the government to step in and hold up this bill until they have learned from the action taken in connection with the other bills just what is the feeling of this house. I think this should be done before any further legislation of this character is permitted to pass.


Wilfred Hanbury: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add my
opposition to this bill. The hon. member who introduced it (Mr. Geary) has referred to the fact that already similar companies are in existence. I do not think that is sufficient justification for the creation of this company and, in fact, I think we should give serious consideration to putting some curb upon those already in existence. I 'have in my office at the present time an illustration of where one of these companies has been receiving until recently one hundred per cent on their investment, mainly through what they call a financing charge. I think the time has come when this type of legislation should be gome into. We should not encourage the people to buy that for which they cannot afford to pay, and that is what this type of financing is supposed to do. I do not think I can agree with the hon. member who has suggested that we should allow this bill to go to committee; I think we should take a vote upon it right now and kill it immediately. If the hon. member wants to reconsider his bill and bring it up in another form which will put some limit upon the financing and other unreasonable charges, perhaps I might change my mind. I do not say that I am against any particular bill but I am against this type of legislation and I think this bill should be killed right now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on several occasions this
house has considered legislation of this character. The bill now before us has been approved by the superintendent of insurance and follows exactly the terms of three previous bills which were passed by this house. Per-
[Mr. R. B. Hanson.1
sonally I share the view of hon. members who have stated that permitting a company with statutory responsibilities or statutory authority to charge the rates which have been charged on personal loans is a scandal. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that on the second reading we consider the principle and not the details of a bill. The sections to which the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) has referred are sections which the banking and commerce committee presumably would either strike out or amend. If this bill were destroyed at this stage it would mean that a number of persons who desire to be incorporated with a capital of a substantial sum of money would be deprived of that opportunity.


Wilfred Hanbury: Even if they wanted to
do business legitimately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Even if they wanted to
do business legitimately. It is the usual custom, as the hon. gentleman will remember with his bridge bill last year, to permit these bills to go to a committee where changes may be made which will conform to the views of the committee.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I do not suggest that it should not go to a committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe the hon. gentleman is a member of that committee and I suggest that the bill should go to the committee for the purpose of eliminating all those objectionable sections to which he has referred. Then, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard (Mr. Hanbury), those who seek incorporation can either take it or leave it. I submit respectfully that these matters are matters to be dealt with by the committee and not by the house because the principle of the bill is the incorporation of a company with capital to make loans.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I submit that
there is something more in this bill than simply the principle, to incorporate a company. It is the principle permitting it to do business along the lines indicated in the bill. By deciding as to the second reading we decide as to whether or not we want this kind of principle to prevail. I do not see why we should pass an undesirable principle at this stage and leave it to a committee to revise it afterwards.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The promoters could be heard.

Small Loan Company


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is only a matter of less than an hour since a public bill was dealt with in, a very different way. That bill was killed on the first reading before members had a chance to consider it. That bill could have gone to a committee which committee could have received suggestions from the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) as to what changes should be made in order to bring it into harmony with the policies of the government. This procedure was not followed in the case of a public bill involving large numbers of our fellow Canadians and I do not see why it should be taken in the case of a company which asks for power to do business by methods which are generally believed to be not in keeping with the welfare of this country. I do not see why this bill should be put forward one stage.


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I oppose this bill for all the reasons which have been put forward and for another one as well. A great number of these small loan companies have received charters from the provincial governments and I do not see why this company should not make application to the government of Ontario for authority to do business in that province. They could then take their chances of being permitted to do business in the other provinces of Canada. They are now endeavouring to get the privilege of doing business in every province of Canada willynilly. I am against the principle of this bill and I intend to oppose it altogether. I know that the government proposes to bring in legislation to exercise some restraint upon these companies but heretofore such restraint has not been imposed and that is why such companies come to the federal government for their charters. For this reason more than any other I am opposing the second reading of this bill.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, the reason such companies come to the federal government for charters is not to evade the requirements of any provincial legislation as they cannot operate or do business in any province of Canada without first obtaining a provincial licence under the terms of the provincial act.


Charles A. Stewart: Other companies have been doing it.


Hugh Guthrie: I rise to speak with regard to this bill because I notice that the prov-visional directors named in the bill represent a family in the city of Guelph, which is one of the best known families in the Dominion of Canada. The head of their family at the
present time is Mr. Arthur Cutten of Chicago. This company will not prove a minor or temporary institution. It will be a most substantial undertaking with a million dollars of capital which will be largely if not altogether under the control of members of the Cutten family. This fact alone should be a sufficient answer to much of the criticism which has been offered upon this motion.
Ail the promoters ask in this motion is that this bill be read a second time and go to the appropriate committee. It may be sent to the private bills committee or it may be sent to the banking and commerce committee, I care not which; but when it goes to the committee the promoters of the bill are entitled to appear and state their case- they cannot appear in this house. The committee may incorporate in the bill such conditions or stipulations with respect to the operations of the company as it may see fit. But surely, having advertised this bill as required by law, having paid the fee as required by law, having properly brought the bill before parliament, the promoters are entitled to be heard in the fullest manner. That is all that the second reading of the bill involves. The bill will be fully under the control of whatever committee it is referred to, and any amendments the committee deems proper to place in the bill may be embodied in it. Subsequently it will be referred back to the house and the house in committee will again deal with it. I submit that the bill should be read the second time and sent to the appropriate committee so that it may be given the fullest consideration.


Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: If the house divides I shall have to vote to send the bill to the committee, because I agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) in the observations he has made. But in voting that way I should add a word of explanation, because, with the other hon. members who have spoken with respect to the operation of these companies, I am in thorough agreement. I know that in the part of Canada from which I come there is a great deal of complaint with respect to the operation of these companies that make small loans, and I respectfully suggest to the house and the government that possibly some steps should be taken to bring these companies a little more into line with what the public expects them to be.
It may be said that the provincial companies are incorporated by provincial law, but this parliament has jurisdiction over interest and interest rates, and it is high time
Small Loan Company

that the basis of operation of this particular type of company be looked into. I shall vote to send the bill to the committee, if the house divides, but in doing so I want it understood that I am fully sensible of the objections to the measure.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I strongly object to this bill, and one of my chief reasons for objecting is the vote taken a little while ago on the bill that was presented by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). A gentleman presents a bill which affects the lives of many people, those liable to be separated from their families, and,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is discussing a bill on which the house has already taken action, and further discussion of that bill must surely be out of order in connection with the motion now before us.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am giving my reason for opposing this bill. If I am in order I will go on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is for the
second reading of Bill No. 15.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I am giving my objections to this bill, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, you did not hear what I said. I said that the hon. gentleman is referring to a vote just taken and, under the motion now before the house, is discussing the previous bill which he says affects the lives of thousands of people. That bill has already been disposed of by the house, and according to the rules of this house, past debate having ended that matter, it cannot now be the subject of further discussion; that is all.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order, and I want to state my point of order. The rule of the house is this, that a member may not quote from any debate of the same session; but no member is prevented from referring to a previous act of this house, by way of comparison with what is being done now. I respectfully disagree with the member for West Calgary. If the hon. member for Provencher had attempted to read what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had said, while discussing the bill, he would be prevented by the Chair from reading. But he is not doing that at all; he is just referring to an act of this house, and he is perfectly entitled to do so. This is the point of order I want to raise, not only in con-

nection with this debate but with respect to future action by this house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Provencher will confine his remarks to the advisability or otherwise of giving the present bill second reading.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My reason for voting against this bill is this. The Minister of Justice said that these people had spent their money and that the custom of the house was to have such bills read the second time and sent to the committee on banking and commerce to be reviewed, so that its promoters might have an opportunity .to appear and state their case. But this is my objection-and I think I am in order in the statement I am about to make. How can I vote either for or against a bill I have never seen? Yet this house votes against the principle of allowing bills to be introduced. I do not see any consistency in such action.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The present motion is for the second reading of the bill; the first reading was carried.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: No doubt the first reading was carried, Mr. Speaker, but the principle is the same. Now, may I say that in my opinion we have too many of these loan companies who have gone about the country fleecing people who know nothing about finance. We have had such companies in Winnipeg. There was one music company that fleeced everyone it came in contact with; it had no other object than that. If you vote for the second reading of this bill you vote for the principle of it, as far as I understand the rules. If you refer the bill to a committee you are virtually saying, by a majority vote of this house, that you approve of the principle laid down in the bill, and I am opposed to it.


Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse):: I will vote against the second reading of this bill, for a reason not yet stated in the house. It seems to me that the purpose of the bill is the creation of a pawnshop-a pawnshop similar to the one that caused so much trouble in France. You will be convinced of that if you read the beginning of section 5 of the bill. I have not my English file before me, but in French it reads:
(1) La compagnie pent, dans tout le Canada:
(a) acheter. vendre et negocier des contrats de vente conditionnelle, des billets de creances priviligiees, des contrats de vente a temperament, des hypotheques mobilieres-

Small Loan Company
The English version reads:
The company may throughout Canada:
(a) buy, sell, deal in and lend money on the security of conditional sales agreements, lien notes, hire purchase agreements, chattel mortgages-
Chattel mortgages are prohibited in Quebec by the civil code.

trade paper, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, bills of exchange and choses-in-aetion; and may receive and accept from the makers, vendors or transferors thereof guarantees or other security for the performance and payment thereof and may enforce such guarantees and realize on such security.
The purpose of the bill is to authorize the company to loan money on chattel mortgages and on movable property pawned with them, and therefore the purpose of the bill is the creation of nothing else but a pawnshop. And we have already too many of these pawnshops.


Edward James Young: It seems
to me that the very fact that these gentlemen come before parliament and ask for the powers enumerated in this bill would indicate that they intend to use those powers if they get an opportunity, and the powers asked for include the charging of higher rates than the law allows. Now, when men deliberately declare that this is their intention they should not be encouraged to go into the loaning business.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I
rise to oppose the second reading of this bill. It is true that we have some similar measures on the statute books, but companies have of late years attempted to get similar bills through this house and on two occasions that I know of they have been defeated. Only a year or so ago we had one very similar bill before the banking and commerce committee, and we then thought it was not in the best interests of the country to pass it. I trust this bill will not get second reading.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: While
I am opposed to the enactment of any legislation of this kind for the reasons given, I have always believed that a bill should never be killed before it reaches a committee. In my parliamentary experience the attitude I have always assumed is that any bill properly introduced before the house should receive its first and second readings, go to committee and there have its merits threshed out. For that reason, while opposed to the principle of this legislation, I will have to vote for the second reading of the bill.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for
South Toronto (Mr. Geary) speaks now he will close the debate.


George Reginald Geary: I have nothing to add
except that I may agree with everything that has been said in opposition to this bill, I am not wedded to its provisions at all, but it is for the incorporation of a company for the purpose of making loans, a sort of business that according to the superintendent of insurance fills a need. I may be among the first to oppose some of the particular provisions of the bill, but as a general principle this bill has its right to go to the committee. My hon. friend, the member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) spoke of pawnshops. Fortunately I am not in a position to say much about that, class of business, but as far as my information goes this has nothing whatever in common with pawnshops. A pawnshop is a place for depositing certain concrete material, in return for which I understand you get a loan, and if you are lucky you pay the loan and get back your pledge. This is an entirely different proposition, having to do with conditional sales agreements, chattel mortgages, hire purchase agreements and so on, well-known to us in Ontario, perhaps -not so well known to my hon. friend from Bellechasse. This bill may come back from the committee in an unrecognizable form. I shall be quite prepared to see it altered in any way that may commend itself to the committee, but that does not interfere I think with the principle that we should give the committee the opportunity to treat it as it pleases. One of my hon. friends reminds me of what I happened to observe before my hon. friend the Minister of Justice mentioned it, that the personnel of the incorporators is all right, there is no objection to be made to them in any way. At the least I think we should allow them their chance to come in person or by counsel before the committee and meet the objections and advocate the measure if they so choose.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was paired with the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Edward James Young: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
I Mr. Geary.]


Wilfred Hanbury: I was paired with the
hon. member for West Kootenay (Mr. Esiling). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Victor Clarence Porteous: I was paired with the
hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Eccles James Gott: I was paired with the hon.
member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BELL ((St. John-Albert):: I was paired with the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mark Cecil Senn: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PERRAS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett):	Had I voted I would have voted
against the motion.


Mr. LACROIX (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ROBERGE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, I move that
the bill be referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.
Motion agreed to on division.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
dundubn sask., relief camp
['1.\tNo.\n2.\tAnswered by No. 1.\n3.\tYes.\n4.\t(a) August 14, 1931; (b) James Wallace; (c) $4,500.\n5.\tNo.\n6.\tMatter under consideration.\n7.\tNo.']
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, with respect to questions Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, the government is without information. With regard to questions 2 and 3, they come under the well known rule, and are not in the public interest to answer.

Questions


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does that include question No. 9?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.



Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What members of the Canadian delegation took part at the opening of the postal congress at Cairo?
2.	How many meetings were held each day since the opening of the congress?
3.	At how many meetings did each member of the Canadian delegation attend?
4.	Are all the members of the Canadian delegation at Cairo at present?
5.	If not: (a) who are those at present at Cairo and why did they remain; (b) what members have left Cairo; (c) why; (d) on what date did they leave there; (e) will they return directly from Cairo to Canada; (f) what is their itinerary for the return voyage; (g) where are they at present; (h) when are they expected in Canada?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have considered this
question very carefully, and I consider it frivolous; it should not be on the order paper. I make the same ruling with regard to question No. 12; they will both be struck off.


CAIRO POSTAL DELEGATION-COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Since the beginning of the session has the government communicated by cablegram, wireless, telegraph or wireless telephone, with the members of the Canadian delegation at the postal congress at Cairo?
2.	If so, on what dates and in what manner?
3.	Since the opening of the session have the members of the Canadian delegation at the postal congress at Cairo communicated with the government by cablegram, wireless telegraph or wireless telephone?
4.	If so, on what dates and in what manner?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not in the public interest to answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to explain just one thing in connection with this question, in order to facilitate an answer from the government.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When the question has been answered the matter is not subject to debate. The hon. member will have to approach it in some other manner.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir, I will.


&quot;FORTY DAYS IN CANADA ''
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did the government send His Majesty King George Y a copy of the album entitled, "Forty Days in Canada"?
2.	If so, who sent it and at what date was it sent?
3.	Did the government receive an acknowledgment of its reception?
4.	If so, at what date and from whom?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I find that this question was sufficiently answered on February 19; the answer will be found in Hansard.


FRENCH CIVIL SERVANTS
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	What was the total number of full time civil servants bearing French family names, within the salary range of $3,000 to $4,020, connected with any government department, board, commission or bureau, on January 31, 1934?
2.	What was the total number of such civil servants within the salary range of $4,020 to $5,040. on January 31, 1934?
3.	What was the total number of such civil servants of a class or grade calling for a minimum annual salary in excess of $5,040, on January 31, 1934?


Mr. CAHAN:: Inasmuch as appointments to the civil service are made under the provisions of the Civil Service Act on the basis of the ascertained qualifications of the respective applicants and not on the basis of the racial affinities of the appointees, the information sought is not available.


OTTAWA-HAWKESBURY ROAD
Mr. GOULET:: 1.	Has the government assumed the road from Ottawa to Hawkesbury as part of the trans-Canada route?
2.	If so, will the county continue to pay 29 per cent to the government as in the past?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Public highways in the various provinces of the dominion are wholly under provincial jurisdiction and the dominion has not assumed any responsibility in regard to provincial roads either in part or in whole. Under the various relief acts the federal government has, however, been contributing to the amounts expended by the provinces on provincial highways, including the so called trans-Canada highway.
2.	See answer to No. 1.


MONTREAL PARCEL POST TRANSPORTATION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Has Mr. Ernest Laurent the contract for the transportation of parcel post in the city of Montreal ?
2.	If so:	(a) since when; (b) for a temporary or a fixed period; (c) for what period; (d) at what terms; (e) for what considerations; (f) what amount has he received under the terms of this contract up to the 1st of February, 1934; (g) was this contract awarded after tenders were called; (h) if so, was his original tender the lowest; (i) who were the other tenderers and the amount of their respective tenders; (j) was he recommended to the Post Office Department; (k) if so, by whom?
Questions


Maurice Dupré: X. Yes.
2.	(a) October 28,	1930;	(b) temporary
period; (c) at Postmaster General's pleasure; (d) and (e) 70 cents per hour from October 28, 1930, to September 30, 1931, and 80 cents per hour from October 1, 1931, to date; (f) $90,450.95; (g), (h), (i), (j) and (k) no. Service is operated under a temporary agreement by order of the Postmaster General.
money held by chartered banks


Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Wlrat was the total amount of money held by the chartered banks on the 31st day of December, 1933: (a) in gold; (b) subsidiary coin; (c) dominion notes; (d) bank notes?
2.	What was the amount of deposits on the same date: (a) on demand; (b) after notice?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The information sought
in this question is a matter of official record, and will be found in the monthly statement of the Canadian chartered banks, the last copy of which appeared in the Canada Gazette of January 27. I am sending a copy to my hon. friend.


UNEMPLOYMENT-DISRAELI, WOLFE COUNTY
Mr. LAFLECHE:: What were the amounts paid in connection with Unemployment Relief Act to the village and parish of Disraeli, Wolfe county, from 1930 to February 1, 1934?


Mr. GORDON:: The following contributions have been made to the province of Quebec with respect to unemployment relief in the village and parish of Disraeli, Wolfe county: village of Disraeli, $5,997.96; parish of Disraeli, $1,436.41.


PICTOU, N.S., MARINE AGENT
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Has any appointment been made to fill the office of agent of the Marine and Fisheries department at Pictou, Nova Scotia, since the death of J. R. Davies?
2.	If not, is it intended to fill the vacancy?
3.	If so, when?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.


CREAM SEPARATORS-REVENUE COLLECTED
Henry Elvins Spencer: What was the amount of revenue collected on cream separators by the Customs department during 1932 and 1933, respectively?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Customs duty collected on imports of cream separators entered for consumption in Canada during the fiscal years ended March 31st, 1932 and 1933:
Fiscal Fiscal year year 1931-	19321932	1933
Steel Bowls for cream separators	 Nil $1,164 75
Cream separators and complete parts	 Nil 34,819 50


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-RESTIGOUCHE AND MADAWASKA
Mr. MICHAUD:: What amount was refunded or contributed by the Dominion of Canada, to the province of New Brunswick, for the cost of "unemployment relief" in the counties of Madawaska and Restigouche, for the months of September, October, and November, 1933, respectively?


George Gordon: Contributions made to the province of New Brunswick with respect to unemployment relief in the counties of Madawaska and Resti-gouehe for the months of September, October and November, 1933, were as follows:
County of Madawaska Sept. Oct. Nov.
Direct relief.. .. $266 31 $375 59 $304 61
Public works.. .. 3,851 86 7,337 14 3,693 36 County of Restigouche
Public works.. .. 5,464 63 2,004 57 Nil


IMMIGRATION TO CANADA
Eusèbe Roberge: How many immigrants entered this country
from 1930 to 1934?


George Gordon: Calendar year	1930	
104,806"	"	1931	
27,530"	"	1932	
20,591"	"	1933	
14,382


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY TREATY-TRANSLATION
Mr. BOUCHARD:: Referring to the declaration made by the government in sessional paper No. 137, tabled February 6, 1934, to the effect that:
"The treaty between Canada and the United States relative to the St. Lawrence waterways was translated, at the request of the Department of the Secretary of State, by one who was not then and is not in the public service of Canada, but bis services were rendered gratuitously."
Under what authority was the following mention " Edition Franyaise du Service de la Traduction Generale (Chambre des Communes) " printed on the cover page of the blue book containing the French translation of the St. Lawrence deep waterway treaty?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The translation into the French language of the treaty respecting the St. Lawrence waterways, to which the Secretary of State referred, was made and published on July 18, 1932.
On September 29, 1932, a translation of the same treaty into the French language was received at the printing bureau from the translation service of the House of Commons, which was subsequently printed and published in the blue book mentioned.


PELAGIC SEALING TREATY
Mr. PLUNKETT:: 
Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2.	$11,805.17.
3.	$5,308.97.
4.	It remains in force until twelve months after written notice is given by one or more of the parties to all the others of desire to terminate it. It is also provided that following such notice, on the request of any one of the high contracting parties, a conference shall be held to consider, and if possible, agree, upon a further extension of the convention with such additions or modifications, if any, as may be found desirable.


ASHMONT, ALTA., MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	What was amount of contract of Roman Filyvich, of Ashmont, Alberta, for delivery of mail between Ashmont and Saddle lake?
2.	What amount is now being paid to the present contractor?
3.	Were tenders called for such mail contract, if so, who tendered and what is amount of each tender?


Mr. DUPRE (for Mr. Sauve):: 1.	Tenders were invited for a new contract and were due in the department on the 23rd June, 1933.
2.	The following tenders were received: Ramon Filewich, Ashmont, $245; John Hackman, Ashmont, $280; W. J. Draper, Ashmont, $300; Zae Ingram, Cork, $301.60; Lisle A. Lawrence, Ashmont, $325; Walter Elliott, Ashmont, S350, reduced to $275; Percy W
Pruden, Ashmont, $350; A. E. Adams, Ashmont, $400.
3.	The contract was awarded to Mr. Ramon Filewich on the 28th June, 1933. Representations were subsequently received that Ramon Filewich was a communist and a report was secured from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police stating that he, as well as his father and brothers were active communists. Instructions were issued to cancel the contract on three months' notice and a new contract was authorized with Mr. Walter Elliott, a returned soldier, at $275 per annum.


DALHOUSIE, N.B., POST OFFICE
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Is the government paying any rent for post office quarters at Dalhousie, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, what monthly or yearly rent is being paid?
3.	Has the government since September 1, 1930, purchased any land in the town of Dalhousie, for a post office site?
4.	If so, when was such land purchased, from whom, what price was paid, and when?
5.	Has a post office or a building of any kind been erected on such land purchased for a post office site?
6.	If not, will a post office be built in the town of Dalhousie?
7.	Has it been called to the attention of the government that the land purchased for a site for a public building in the town of Dalhousie, if any, is undesirably located?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) August 14, 1931; (b) James Wallace; (c) $4,500.
5.	No.
6.	Matter under consideration.
7.	No.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	In what departments is there a secretary of the executive?
2.	What is the name of each secretary of the executive, the date of his appointment and his salary?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


PENSIONS REDUCED OR CANCELLED
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many war pensioners have had their pensions reduced during the year 1933?
2.	What is the total amount of the reduction?
3.	How many war pensioners have had their pension completely cut off?
Motions for Papers

4.	What is the total amount involved?
5.	How many ex-service men in receipt of war veterans' allowance have had their allowance reduced or totally cut off during the year 1933?
6.	What is the total amount involved?


Mr. MacLAREN:: Return tabled herewith.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-OCEAN SERVICES
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Does the Canadian Pacific Company receive any subsidies from the government of Canada in connection with its naval services in the Pacific ocean?
2.	If so, what is the nature and what is the
annual amount of these subsidies, for each service ?	*
3.	How much does this company receive from the government of Canada for the transportation of the Canadian mail for each of its navigation lines in the Pacific ocean?
4.	Does this company give preference to the citizens of Canada in the employment of its officers, engineers, stokers, waiters, sailors, and other employees, of its navigation services in the Pacific ocean?
5.	If not, what will be the attitude of the government in connection with the payment of the above mentioned subsidies?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.



MOTIONS FOR. PAPERS WHEAT AGREEMENT

William Richard Motherwell: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, that may have been received from any member of the Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta governments, respectively, by any member of the Federal government, during the past twelve months, with respect to the international wheat agreement, or the advisability or otherwise of coming to such an agreement.



ST. SIMEON DE BONAVENTURE WHARF

Charles Marcil: For a copy of pay list and accounts for material, in connection with work done at Augustin Poirier wharf at St. Simeon de Bonaventure, under supervision of Jean Bugold, in 1933.



CAIRO POSTAL CONGRESS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. POULIOT
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and the travelling agency or agencies who arranged the trip of the Canadian delegation to the postal congress at Cairo.
Maurice Dupré: In reference to this motion, I am informed that there is no correspondence on this subject on the files of the Post Office Department.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I ask the hon. member
to withdraw the motion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot withdraw anything. If you wish to strike it off, it is all right, but I cannot withdraw it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No. 5 will be dropped.


Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Post Office Department and different newspapers, in connection with the sending of various journals to the members of the Canadian delegation to the postal congress at Cairo during their trip overseas.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion this is a
frivolous motion, and cannot properly be moved in this House of Commons. I will order it to be stricken off.



TRANSLATION SERVICES

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, summaries, files, suggestions, recommendations made by the Clerk of the House of Commons to the members of government and to the members of the Civil Service Commission, in connection with the translation in the federal administration', since 1930.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This would be an improper return. There are no communications with the clerk of the house. He has sometimes been asked questions from time to time with respect to matters of this kind, such as translation, but there is no correspondence with him. What there is is in the nature of privileged communications, between one office and another, which the government should not produce.
Mr. SPEAKER. No. 7 is not in order. It will be dropped.



ST. JEAN-DE-MATHA, QUE., POSTMASTER

Mr. FERLAND:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, inquiries, affidavits and official reports, in the possession of the Post Office Department, in connection with the resignation of notary Amedee Dugas as postmaster of St. Jean-de-Matha in the county of Joliette, and the appointment of his successor Leopold Marcil, since the month of August, 1930.



WEST BACCARO, N.S., BREAKWATER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver), for Mr. Ralston:
For a copy of all pay lists, bills, vouchers and other documents in respect of work done, material supplied or money paid out, in connection with the work during 1933 and 1934, on the breakwater at West Bacearo, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia, with a statement showing the work actually done in 1933 and 1934, and the sum expended and/or incurred therefor up to the time the work stopped on or about January 20. 1934, and the work remaining to be done and the estimated cost thereof.

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver), for Mr. Ralston:
For a copy of all pay lists, bills, vouchers and other documents in respect of work dome, material supplied or money paid out, in connection with the work done during 1933 on the breakwater at Port La Tour, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia, with a statement showing the work actually done in 1933, and the sum expended and/or incurred therefor, and the work remaining to be done and the estimated cost thereof.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver), for Mr. Casgrain:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any of its officers and the Minister Plenipotentiary in Tokyo, regarding the construction of a public building for the Canadian Legation at Tokyo, as well as a copy of the order in council authorizing the construction- of said building, plans, specifications and contracts, and any documents in possession of the government having any reference to the construction of said public building for the Canadian Legation at Tokyo.

Mr. MacLEAN:: For a copy of all correspondence which passed between the government of Prince Edward Island and the federal government, in connection with old age pensions, including a copy of the agreement entered into by the province and the federal government with respect to this matter.



RIVIERE DES ILOTS-MATERIALS USED

Mr. BRASSET:: (11 For a copy of all pay lists and statements of stone and wood used on work done at la riviere des Hots, Gaspe county, for the year 1932-33, Foreman Alphonse Boucher; (2) for a copy of all pay lists in connection with work done by the Public Works department at la riviere des Ilots, Gaspe county, for the year 1933, Foreman Baptiste Grenier; (3) for a copy of all pay lists and statements showing amount of stone and wood used in connection with work done by the Public Works department at la riviere des Ilots, Gaspe county, for the year 1933, Foreman B. Grenier.



WYCOCOMAGH, N.S., MAIL ROUTE

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, tenders, and any other papers, on file in the Post Office Department, for the years 1932 and 1933, concerning the calling for new tenders, or the awarding of same, with the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the tenders, for the mail route between Wycocomagh and South West Margaree, Nova Scotia.



CAPE BAULD, N.B., BREAKWATER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. VENIOT;
For a copy of pay rolls, statement of material supplied, showing the names of persons supplying such material and prices paid for same, in connection with work done in 1933 on the Cape Bauld breakwater, Westmorland county, New Brunswick.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster) moved;
Whereas, goods or services between nations or people can only be paid for either by other goods or services, or by some unit of value acceptable to those desiring such goods or services, and which unit of value has for ages been the precious metals, silver and gold;
And whereas, for centuries past, silver was the only precious metal used, both as currency and as the unit of value for the interchange of goods and services;
And whereas, latterly, gold was alone used by the leading nations of the world as the one unit of value for the exchange of goods and services and for the issuing of paper currency;
And whereas, the adoption of trade barriers and restrictions by many nations coupled with the very limited amount of gold available in the world for the interchange of goods and services has in large measure contributed to, if not brought about the unemployment of millions of people with its consequent untold misery and suffering;
And whereas, due to economic and existing monetary conditions many thousands of Canadian citizens have had to be sustained or given employment by the state;
And whereas, Canada has been borrowing large sums to provide for the relief of the unemployed and destitute;
And whereas, the issuing of currency in Canada has been based on certain coverage of gold, thereby restricting the amount of currency issued;
Therefore be it resolved,-That, in the opinion of this house, the government take immediate steps to ado-pt silver in addition to that of gold for the issuance of currency either in the form of paper certificates or as coinage, and that silver he again recognized and accepted as legal tender by the Dominion of Canada at a fixed ratio to that of gold.
He said; Mr. Speaker, in offering this resolution to the house I should like at the outset to say that I am doing so, not with the idea that its adoption will bring any panacea for the impasse, economic and monetary, existing throughout the world to-day, but rather that it would go a long way towards the stabilization of currency which I think will be generally agreed is more necessary to-day than at any other time in our history. To put into effect the proposal contained in the resolution would at least be a step in the right direction.
I realize, of course, that the worshippers of gold, those who advocate the single standard of gold, are in the majority and that those who have advocated and are advocating that
Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid
[Stage Direction]
silver be used in addition to gold are much fewer in number. However, their numbers are gradually growing, not only in the United States but in all other countries as well. In this country we have quite a few advocates of silver. Some hon. members of this house, including the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), and the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), have at various times advocated the rehabilitation of silver. The Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, as far back as 1931, also made this statement:
I can assure you that I am more and more convinced, as time goes on, that the fundamental cause of our present difficulty is really monetary, and that it is the penalty for a long-pursued and very stupid policy of unduly forcing the gold standard and driving silver-the medium of exchange of half the world-into such low price levels as to paralyze the buying powers of hundreds of millions of humanity. There seems to be no leadership in the present situation at all, and it will have to soon develop or troubles political will follow on troubles commercial.
There is also another prominent advocate of silver in the person of Father Coughlin of the United States, who according to press dispatches, has, it is estimated, more than a million followers who believe that silver should be recognized and accepted as a legal base with gold.
In the limited time at my disposal I cannot go very fully into all the "whereases " of my resolution, but I think it is a fair statement that each "whereas" clause is a statement of fact, and I believe of actual history.
Take the first "whereas":
Whereas, goods or services between nations or people can only be paid for either by other goods or services, or by some unit of value acceptable to those desiring such goods or services, and which unit of value has for ages been the precious metals, silver and gold;
I do not think any hon. member will disagree with that statement. Then I come to the second clause:
And whereas, for centuries past, silver was the only precious metal used, both as currency and as the unit of value for the interchange of goods iand services;
In regard to that I think everyone in the house who has given the matter even a casual examination must realize that in the early stages of mankind's history barter, the exchange of goods for goods, was the first medium of exchange. But early in the history of the world barter was discarded, and man adopted one or other of the precious metals, particularly silver. The history of silver goes away back to Bible times. In Genesis, chapter 23, it is recorded that Abraham bought a field for burying his

people, and in the sixteenth verse of that chapter we are told that he paid four hundred shekels of silver in current money for that field. That is going a long way back and I mention it to show that silver has been used from the very earliest times. Right on down through the ages, through Anglo-Saxon times and down to the eighteenth century, silver has been used. It is true that gold was also used, but silver was the chief medium of exchange and it had its price to gold; in other words, it was a case of gold to silver, not silver to gold. In fact, the pound sterling was based on the price of one pound of silver. One pound of silver was recognized as one pound sterling, and hence we have the term sterling silver.
We come to the year 1717, when Great Britain was the first nation to adopt what we call to-day bimetallism. In that year Great Britain added gold as primary currency to silver. In 1816 a change was however made. Great Britain for the first time in its history, and for the first time in the history of the world, I believe, went on the gold standard. That change was made not because silver had failed or was inadequate but for this reason, as given by those who have delved into such matters:	The bankers, especially
the Rothschilds, controlled the debt after the Napoleonic wars and so benefited by the change to gold. At that time Great Britain was starting in upon her industrial era, and she could therefore purchase more goods abroad in silver countries by purchasing on the single standard of gold. After the act of 1816 she had what is known as a bimetallic standard.
In 1870, after the Franco-Prussian war, Germany compelled France to pay her debts in gold, Germany reaping thereby a great benefit by adopting gold as the single standard.
In 1873 we have the United States discontinuing her silver currency and going on to the gold standard.
I have touched very briefly on these periods, Mr. Speaker, as they are outstanding in any discussion of this subject. I would ask the house to take note that those three periods I have mentioned, 1816, 1870 and 1873, when the bankers of the world compelled the different countries to go on the gold standard and discard silver as the prime metal, were periods of great distress.
We come along to the year 1920, in our own times. Gold has always been an obsession with the Bank of England. In 1920 international bankers met at Berne and there decided to go on gold and to discard silver

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid
entirely. As a matter of fact, Germany in that year was offered gold by international bankers so that she also could go on the gold standard. The price of silver in that year was a little over one dollar an ounce. Gold was at a discount. From 1920-1921 the demonetization of silver started. Great Britain I believe was the first country to demonetize silver, although there is some doubt regarding that, some authorities stating that the United States first started it by demonetizing her silver. These authorities say that Great Britain was the first. Great Britain and the United States, either jointly or following one another, started to debase or demonetize their silver coinage and it was not long before other countries of the world followed suit. In 1925 Great Britain purchased from the United States 260,000,000 silver dollars. These were taken to the old country and melted down. There were added
200,000,000 ounces of copper and from this mixture was fabricated a counterfeit or false coin containing 50 per cent silver and 50 per cent copper. The purer silver coins had been gradually called in and these were melted down and the resultant silver dumped on the Chinese market. It was during this year that the break took place in the price of silver.
Great Britain then went a little further. Two years later she issued a makeshift paper currency for the 350,000,000 people of India. She melted down one billion rupees and issued one billion rupees in paper. When this amount of silver was thrown on the world's markets the price broke to the lowest it had even been. Not only did Great Britain do this but she compelled the Indian government to place a tax of 11 cents per ounce against silver in an effort to stop an influx of silver into that country. I should like to quote from a United States Department of Commerce bulletin, issued in 1933 and referring to a committee which investigated this matter of debasement. One paragraph reads as follows:
According to the sixty-first annual report of the deputy master and comptroller of the Royal Mint for 1930, the weight of the silver coinage withdrawn during the ten years was about
6,000	tons. One can estimate the approximate weight of silver in this amount, which would be about 5,550 tons, or 181,258,560 ounces. The weight of the new coins minted is given in the above-mentioned report as about 4,800 tons. Estimating from this figure, it would appear that the silver content, which would be about 2,400 tons, represents about 78,382,080 ounces. Thus there appears to have been, during the ten years, a surplus balance of about 3,150 tons, or about 102,876,480 ounces.
It is estimated that in the world to-day there is over $6,000,000,000 of debased silver
coinage. Like other countries, Canada followed the lead of Great Britain. It might be interesting to the house to know that until 1920 the silver coins issued by Canada were what is known as -925 fine or, in other words, 9| tenths pure. In 1920 a change was made and from then on the silver content was reduced to -800 which is 8 tenths fine. To-day an ounce of silver minted into Canadian coins produces $1.60 of coinage. Taking silver as being worth forty cents an ounce, for forty cents worth of silver the government issues $1.60 in Canadian coins. I give this illustration as I want to put before the house a clear picture of this matter and endeavour if possible to make my resolution more plain.
The short time at my disposal does not permit me to give the full details of the manipulations of the bankers but in these few remarks I hope I have shown that the monetary system now existing in the world has not been brought about by chance but by straight manipulation by the bankers of the world. It is the worship of the golden calf, and each monetary manipulation has been followed by long periods of low prices, distress and extreme poverty. Clause 4 of the resolution reads:
And whereas, the adoption of trade barriers and restrictions by many nations coupled with the very limited amount of gold available in the world for the interchange of goods and services has in large measure contributed to, if not brought about the unemployment of millions of people with its consequent untold misery and suffering;
I do not think any hon. member will deny the assertion that the adoption of trade barriers and restrictions by many nations coupled with the very limited amount of gold has in a large measure brought about the economic distress which prevails throughout the entire world. I should like to give a few figures with regard to the limitation of gold. It is estimated that in the world to-day there is a total of $12,000,000,000 in gold. This is held by practically three nations, the United States, France and Great Britain; 250,000,000 people own practically all the gold while
1,600,000,000 people have none. As someone has said, this is just like a poker game where all the chips are held by three players. The world's current debt is estimated at $750,000,000,000 which is a ratio of seventy-five to one to the gold held. The interest on this debt at five per cent amounts to $37,500,000,000, The debt of the world to the United States alone is $12,500,000,000. Why delude ourselves about the so-called gold standard when forty nations have abandoned it? Can anyone favour a return of that standard without a redistribution of gold? A few years ago the
Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid
[Stage Direction]
trade of the world was estimated at $68,000,000,000 although it has now dropped to some-think like $28,000,000,000. Trade cannot be carried on against the present tariff barriers which exist plus the shortage which there now is of the one unit of value in use to-day, namely, gold. It has been said that modern engineers cannot conceive of the methods by which the pyramids were erected, but I think we have surpassed even that great feat. We are attempting to balance a pyramid of debt and trade on its apex instead of on its base. I do not think there is any doubt that trade restrictions and lack of gold have contributed to the unemployment and misery which we now have. Clause 5 reads:
And whereas, due to economic and existing monetary conditions many thousands of Canadian citizens have had to be sustained or given employment by the state;
I need hardly dwell on this phase of the matter because it has been brought out amply that there is in Canada over half a million people who are unemployed and well over a million who are being kept by the state. Clause 6 reads:
And whereas, Canada has been borrowing large sums to provide for the relief of the unemployed and destitute;
I think it was the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) who stated that $173,000,000 has been expended by the dominion government on relief. A return was tabled the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) in which it is stated that the province of Manitoba owes over $6,000,000, the province of British Columbia over $7,000,000 and the province of Alberta over $8,000,000, all borrowed for the relief of unemployment or the borrowings made necessary by the lack of employment.
Clause 7 reads:
And whereas the issuing of currency in Canada has been based on certain coverage of gold, thereby restricting the amount of currency issued
[Stage Direction]
I do not think anyone will refute that assertion, nor is it necessary for me to say a great deal regarding it. I am sure that everyone has seen the figures in this connection and knows that the total amount of gold in the country is roughly $70,000,000, whereas the notes outstanding against it amount to $184,427,058, or a coverage of gold of 40 per cent. In fact, I think the banking and commerce committee puts the coverage at exactly 38 per cent.
I come now to the resolution itself, which I will read:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government take immediate steps to adopt silver

in addition to that of gold for the issuance of currency either in the form of paper certificates or as coinage, and that silver be again recognized and accepted as legal tender by the Dominion of Canada at a fixed ratio to that of gold.
In dealing with this proposed resolution I wish to make my position clear with regard to the suggestion that Canada should adopt silver. Personally I am one of those who fear uncontrolled inflation. Those who have read history must realize that no nation can turn on the printing presses and survive, at least without great distress to the people, and especially the common people. I realize that as a cure the printing press cannot be turned on. But if the world must use precious metals I maintain that we should have silver in addition to gold. Certain efforts are being made in the great country to the south of us in connection with gold, but I believe that gold alone will not raise prices, and what is just as desirable to-day is the stabilization of currency. I claim that both these are impossible without the use of silver and especially in order to retain confidence and stability.
Before proceeding very far with the resolution itself I want to dicuss arguments that are sometimes made against the use of silver. One argument frequently heard is that if a country adopted silver as currency that country would be flooded with silver. That this is unfounded and grossly exaggerated I will show by certain figures which I am going to put on Hansard relative to the amount of silver in some countries of the world to-day. Some historians, especially those who have gone into the question of silver, have totalled up the amount produced in the world since the fourteenth century and it is estimated that a total of 14 billion ounces of silver has been produced. But the average world production of silver has run, between the years 1914 and 1930, at around 250 million ounces. In 1914 it was 178,331,433 ounces and in 1930 it was 245,788,030. But taking the average for a span of years it is safe to say that the average world production runs between 225 million and 250 million ounces of silver. The ratio has often been quoted as 16 to 1; this is the proportion which the total world production of silver bears ta that of gold. Over long periods, taking the amount of gold that has been produced in the world each year in comparison with the amount of silver produced, the ratio has been all the way from 10 to 18 per cent; but over an average of years the output of silver has had a ratio to gold of 16 to 1. That explains why rulers in days gone by adopted that ratio, and that is where we have got it.

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid
Canada produces a considerable amount of silver, and in passing I might give the figures for 1932-33. In 1932 we produced 18,347,907 ounces and last year we produced 15,360,764 ounces; and it is carefully estimated that 66 per cent of the silver produced in Canada comes from copper, lead and zinc. Now, regarding the ordinary consumption, if one can use that word with respect to silver, that has also been carefully compiled by those who have given the subject consideration, and it is found that the consumption of silver by various countries has averaged between 200 million and 250 million ounces. But what has brought about the flood of silver during the past few years has been the fact that many countries have not only debased their coinage but have sold the resulting fine silver in the world's markets, thereby bringing down the price. Not only has the throwing of this silver on the market had its effect on price, but there was also the fact that governments were persisting in this practice, and there was no telling how long they would continue to do so. That also had its effect on the price. With respect to the debasement of coinage, it has been estimated by some authorities that Great Britain alone, in ten years, had thrown upon the world's markets 541 million ounces of fine silver-silver taken from her coinage, not silver bought from mines.
During the past number of years, it may interest the house to know, and especially since 1920, there has been an average amount of 200 million ounces of silver thrown on the markets of the world by various countries, all the result of the melting-up of silver coinage. That, on top of world mine production, has demoralized the whole industry and, as I have stated, brought down the price of silver to the lowest point it has been in many years.
Another argument in regard to silver has been that the silver mines would benefit. One man said to me, "You must be boosting for the silver mines." I said to him, "My friend, you have not said anything about the gold mines, though they have had a little Klon-dyke to themselves this past year; for during 1933 they received over $23,000,000 extra for the gold they produced." I am speaking of course of gold produced in Canada. I commented on this not many days ago, and I repeat to-day, that the government should have taken this profit instead of allowing the mine owners to get away with $23,000,000 extra, because I have figures to show that some mines in Canada are producing gold around $15 an ounce, and with the price of gold at $20.67 they were making a fair return on their investment. But when gold went 74726-60
up to $34 and they were allowed to ship it out of this country at that figure they made fabulous fortunes out of gold in one year's transactions. As I have stated, the figures given by the department show the extra money obtained as some $23,380,000. Those profits I believe, during these times especially, should have gone into the exchequer of this country. Others argue that metals are useless. I realize that the ideal system would be one in which the unit of value would remain constant, that a dollar to-day would have the same purchasing value as five or ten years hence. That is something that has been sought for many centuries, but has not yet been attained. I realize also that paper money is not sound money. People still have confidence in metallic coinage. I believe it was the Prime Minister who pointed out in a speech here last year that until the majority of people of the world would confidently accept paper money from other nations, the precious metals, especially gold, if not silver, will have to be used. But one must realize that sixty per cent of the population of the world, 1,600,000,000 people, still use silver; in countries like China, where few banks exist and there it little or no paper money in circulation, every money transaction is carried out with silver or metallic coinage. In India, with its teeming millions, where wealth is reckoned in silver, where dowries given on the marriage of daughters are paid in silver, where money is hoarded as the wealth of the people whether silver is dear or cheap, the accumulated hoards of the people are in the form of silver the value of which is greatly affected by changing values. I am not dealing with a theory; if I were I would probably advocate doing away with all metallic backing for currency, but I realize, as most hon. members do, that most civilized countries-I will not say all civilized, but countries like Great Britain, the United Sates and our own-have built up a monetary system whereby paper has become the instrument of transactions, and in effect the money of the nation.
A change in currency values affects the lives of all, but this power is not held by the government to-day, the money changers own and control the yardstick and can contract or stretch it as they see fit, making the changes to suit themselves, and so in large measure they control the economic life of the people. It has been the bankers and financiers of the world who have forced all countries on to the single standard of gold. As I will endeavour to show, they robbed over 1,600,000,000 people when they forced them to use gold alone as the yardstick or measure of value. Take for instance China; in 1929 the tael was worth.
[Stage Direction]
Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid
[Stage Direction]
I believe, 64 cents. To-day it is only worth 34 cents in gold, because the bankers say; We do not want your silver, we are all on the gold standard now-or they said so until recently. So the value of China's silver coinage fell, with the result that China and countries on the silver standard were able to buy much less, as they had to put up so much more silver to buy from countries on the gold standard.
The other night I asked the Minister of Trade and Commerce a question regarding wheat going to China from Australia. I believe the reason Australia has done this greater business in wheat with China is not that Australian wheat is any better than ours for the purposes of the Chinese, but it is due entirely to the exchange factor. Australian currency has a lower exchange value than ours. I will place on Hansard some figures in support of that contention, just giving round figures. In 1929 we imported from Australia over $3,000,000 worth of goods. In 1933 we were importing a little more; it had gone up to over $5,000,000, but our exports to Australia in 1929 were over $19,000,000, whereas last year they had dropped to just a little over $10,000,000 worth. Take Canada's trade with China and see how the figures compare. In 1929 we imported from China almost $3,000,000 worth of goods. In 1933 we were importing a little less, but the startling figures are those in regard to our exports to China. In 1929 they were over $27,000,000, whereas last year we exported to that country only a trifle over $6,500,000. Looking at Australia's trade with China you find that it has greatly increased in the last few years, due to the fact that the currency of Australia was lower even than that of the old country, and also the fact that China, being on a silver basis, could therefore purchase more in Australia than she could in Canada.
One striking fact that I think should be placed on record is that our loss of trade with China is not entirely due to poverty there, as in the case of our own countries, for internally there has been an industrial boom in China during the past three years. The loss of trade between Canada and China has been due not to the poverty of the Chinese but to the fact that we in this country have refused to accept their standard of value, which is silver, and are demanding that they use ours, namely gold.
There are one or two authorities that I would like to quote in support of this resolution, or the idea that countries should adopt silver as a currency basis. The first is Sir George Paish, the distinguished English

economist, who in his recent very interesting and very illuminating book, The Way to Recovery, says:
In considering the possibilities of trade development in China, one has to realize that one is dealing with the second largest country in the world with an area of four millions of square miles and with a population of no less than four hundred millions of soids (approximately one-fifth of the world's entire population) which is considerably greater than India's, two and' a half times greater than Russia's and nearly three and a half times greater than America's. This immense population at present is supplied with less than 8,000 miles of railway and with very few good roads suitable for motor traffic. Were China to build the 100,000 miles of railway contemplated and designed by Sun Yat Sen. and were she to be assisted to accomplish this work in the not distant future by means of loans supplied from abroad, a great stimulus would be given, both to Chinese trade and to the trade of all countries.
As my time is short I shall have to shorten the quotation; I want to get to his last remark:
Furthermore, more active trade in China and the influx of large amounts of foreign capital for many years would' necessitate a much greater supply of silver currency, and by raising the price of silver would enhance the value of China's present immense stock of silver taels. In this way there would be created a renewed spirit of confidence in China and her obligations could be met with much greater ease than is now possible with the price of silver and the value of the tael at the present abnormally and disastrously low levels.
Again take Mr. Kann's report-I haven't time to read it all, but he states in his report of last year:
The sale by governments had a doubly harmful consequence: first, because large extra quantities of silver were thrown on the market, irrespective of whether, when and where these were wanted; and second, the baneful psychological effect caused by the uncertainty, or rather the certainty, of more coming, in the near future. This has been a huge black cloud overshadowing the silver market like the angel of death.
Then I have another authority, Mr. Montagu Norman, governor, and Sir Charles Addis, a member of the board, of the Bank of England, and certainly among the greatest authorities in the world to-day on currency questions, who in their joint report following an inquiry authorized by the British government in 1931, said:
I think that one has to bear in mind the interaction between gold and silver prices. There is a reaction upon gold when an extreme fall or rise takes place in the value of silver, which is none the less serious, because it is indirect and not very apparent on the surface. The consequential changes in the price generally and in trade conditions which would be produced, the disturbance to the world's peace

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid
and confidence, the interference with the long established social habits of the people of India in the use of silver, the shock to the reliance of a great country like China upon silver as a medium of currency and a common store of value could' not fail to have important effects upon the gold prices of countries in Europe and, indeed, in America.
Then we had the British economic mission to the far east appointed March 18, 1930, to inquire into the present condition of British trade with China and Japan and to report what action should be taken to develop and increase that trade. Mr. Ernest Thompson was appointed chairman of the mission, which left London in September, 1930, and returned in April of 1931. During that time they made an exhaustive investigation of the trade situation in both Japan and China at a cost of some $300,000.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Gagnon):: The hon. member has spoken for forty minutes.


Mr. REID:: I am sorry. I have not come
to the gist of my resolution, but I shall have to abide by the rules of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go ahead.


Thomas Reid: If it is the wish of the house
I will take up my resolution.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would have no objection, by unanimous consent, though I must say that I would like to be not too crowded in the time allotted to me for reply before six o'clock.


Thomas Reid: 
Edgar Nelson Rhodes: You are not allowing me forty minutes.


Thomas Reid: In courtesy to my hon. friend I think I will reserve the rest of my remarks until later.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I hope my hon. friend will appreciate that naturally I desire to conclude anything I have to say before six o'clock rather than to break it into two parts. I hope he realizes that while I should like to extend him the courtesy of a longer period, he has had six minutes additional, and in the circumstances perhaps he will not object.
In the second recital of his resolution the hon. member states:
And whereas for centuries past, silver was the only precious metal used, both as currency and as the unit of value for the interchange of goods and services.
I call the attention of the house to the expression "for centuries past, silver was the only precious metal used." In that statement

he has hardly conformed to the past, because as a matter of fact gold coins were in existence in the days of the ancient Greeks and Romans; in the year 1660 there was gold coinage in Great Britain, and there has been gold coinage from that time down to the present. It is true that prior to that for a period, particularly in the dark ages, silver was the predominant metal, but dating from the year 1660 gold was in the ascendant, until at the beginning of the nineteenth century it had entirely excluded silver as a basis of the monetary standard, and left it to be used as subsidiary coinage. That condition obtained down to the period when, for reasons which one need not discuss at this time, Great Britain in the year 1931 was driven off the gold standard.
In the fourth recital of his resolution the hon. member uses the following expression:
Coupled with the very limited amount of gold available in the world for the interchange of good's and services.
I have no doubt the hon. member has inadvertently fallen into the same error under which so many seem to labour, namely that a shortage of gold was responsible in part at least for the debacle which overtook the worid in the year 1929. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, that statement cannot be substantiated. The most that can be said is that there was a maldistribution of gold, which is an entirely different thing from saying that there was not sufficient gold. In that connection may I point out that the gold delegation of the League of Nations went into this matter very thoroughly in the year 1932, and in the preliminary data prepared for the meeting of that delegation there was some suggestion in keeping with the idea under which the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) seems to be labouring, namely that there is a shortage of world gold. I quote from page 32 of the League of Nations report for the year 1932.
Before proceeding further in our analysis of the problem of gold supply we wish at this point to record our opinion that the world's total stock of monetary gold, apart from any considerations as to its distribution among different countries, has at all times in recent years been adequate to support the credit structure legitimately required by world trade, and that the rapid decline in prices which began in 1929 cannot be attributed to any deficiency in the gold' supply considered in this sense. During the six years from the end of 1925 to the end of 1931 the world's central gold reserves increased from about $9,150,000,000 to about $11,350,000,000, or at an average rate of 3| per cent per annum. Since this rate is not lower than the generally accepted normal rate of growth of production and trade in the

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Rhodes
gold using countries as a whole, and since, in addition, certain economies were made in the use of gold, at any rate in the earlier part of the period considered, there seems to be little ground for believing that the total supplies of gold available for monetary use have not been sufficient to meet all reasonable demands.
In that regard may I point out that I do not think it can be established there was not ample credit in 1929. As a matter of fact I think we may very well argue that one of our difficulties at that time was that there was too much credit, and that being so, that credit was based, so far as gold is a base for credit, upon the then existing supply of gold in the world.
What do we find since that time? In 1930, 20,160,355 ounces of gold were produced which, not at $35 an ounce, but at the old value of $20.67 per ounce, represented an increase in the monetary gold of that year of $416,751,523. In 1931 there was the largest amount of gold produced up to that time in a single year, in the history of the world, so far as history is available on the point. In that year the production was 21,300,000 ounces, at a value of $440,200,000. In 1932 there was a still further increase to 24,163,000 ounces of gold, at a value of $499,444,000. In 1933, on an estimated figure,, the amount of production was 24,282,000 ounces, at a total value of $501,908,940, or a total production in those four years of $1,858,309,463, and these figures represent a yearly increase in the world's gold supply at a percentage greater than was ever known before.	[DOT]


Thomas Reid: What year is that?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The last year for which
there is an estimated figure is the year 1933.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has the minister an
estimate for 1934?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No, it is too early yet to
have that figure, but I would anticipate it would be still larger than for the year 1933. It is true that some of this gold will be required for manufacturing purposes, but allowing a generous figure of $200,000,000 for that purpose it will be seen that over $1,000,000,000 have been added to the world's store of monetary gold during those four years.


Edward James Young: Has the minister any figure as to the amount of gold melted down and used for monetary purposes?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes. As a matter of fact, the question asked by the hon. member for Weyburn raises the age old question which gave rise to the maxim that men dig gold in Africa and bury it in India, because as a
matter of fact down through the centuries, until England went off the gold standard in 1931, that very condition did obtain, and millions upon millions of dollars worth of gold were poured into India to remain there, some to be buried, some to go into the form of ornaments and some to be used in the arts. But, as a matter of fact, that flow into India ceased. In fact, in September 1931 there was an outflow, with the result that the bullion brokers in London estimate that from September, 1931, to the end of 1933 approximately $565,000,000 worth of gold has come out of India. That is the valuation placed upon the basis of $20.67 per ounce and not upon the world price.
So far as the value of gold is concerned I might make reference to the fact that wholesale prices are in a far different status from what they were in 1929. Although I do not think for the purpose of my argument it is necessary to enter into that matter, it is interesting to note, taking the year 1913 as an average of one hundred, that in the year 1929 wholesale prices stood at 135; in 1930 at 114; in 1931; at 92; in 1932 at 81; in 1933 at 81. So it will be seen that while there is not an absolute equation between the value of gold and commodity price?, because the reserves against bank deposits and liabilities have a bearing on the case so that the ratio will not be exact, nevertheless it is certainly fair to say that a given amount of gold will go much further in the purchase of commodities on the lower commodity price scale.
So I would say this, that not only has there been a normal world increase in the supply of gold, but a greatly accelerated increase, and there are four factors which should be considered by my hon. friend from New Westminster in regard to the amount of gold in the world. First, there is the question of increased production. Second, there is the return for currency use of gold hitherto hoarded or stored away in India. Third, there is the question of the revaluation of gold, which has had the effect so far as the United States is concerned, when it increased the price of gold from $20.67 to $35 per ounce, of increasing its value by nearly 70 per cent, or, to be exact, 69-3 per cent. Fourth, there is the factor that while hitherto the accepted amount of gold as an appropriate basis for currency has been in the neighbourhood of 40 per cent, it will be within the recollection of the house that at the recent world monetary and economic conference it was agreed that 25 per cent would be sufficient. Upon that point perhaps I should read from the appendix to the report of the world monetary and economic confer-

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Rhodes
ence, where at page 13 are set out the resolutions that were adopted, and I find these:
(c)	That under modern conditions monetary gold is required not for internal circulation but as a reserve against central bank liabilities and primarily to meet external demands for payments caused by some disequilibrium on the foreign account. It is consequently undesirable to put gold coins or gold certificates into internal circulation.
(d)	That in order to improve the working of a future gold standard greater elasticity should be given to central bank legal cover provisions; for instance, in so far as the system of percentage gold cover is applied a minimum ratio of not more than twenty-five per cent should be considered as sufficient; similar elasticity should be achieved by appropriate measures where other systems are applied. However, such changes must not be taken as an excuse for unduly building up a larger superstructure of notes and credits; in other words, the effect of this resolution should be to increase the free reserve of central banks and thereby to strengthen their position.
My hon. friend at the outset of his remarks said that his resolution was not put forward as suggesting a panacea. To quote his exact words, which I took down at the time, he said that the effect of his resolution, if adopted, would go a long way towards stabilization, or at least it would be a step in that direction. May I say to my hon. friend, with all deference, that the effect of this resolution, if it could be put into effect, would be precisely the opposite, and I will give the reasons why in my judgment that is so.
In his resolution my hon. friend calls for silver to have a fixed ratio to gold. Now assume that we did that. We would have to fix the ratio-a difficult thing at best, but suppose we used our best judgment in respect
to it. This is what would happen. If we fixed the ratio to gold at a point where silver became higher than its present market value we would then have silver flowing to this country from the four corners of the earth, and the principle of Gresham's law would apply. The result would be that our gold would disappear and we would in effect find ourselves on a silver basis, which I think even my hon. friend from New Westminster will agree would be a very unstable basis; for whatever may be said of the respective merits of gold and silver, the fact remains that gold has been far more constant, and in the very nature of things must be far more constant, in its value than silver.
Now let us put the argument the other way. Let us assume that we put the price of silver at a lower figure than its present market price. In that event we would get no silver. We would then be confined to one metal base, and that would be gold.
Again, you might say fix the ratio of silver to gold upon a basis which represents the metallic value of silver to-day. But then what would happen? We would have fluctuations in the price of the metal. If a new mine were discovered and silver became cheap we would have disequilibrium at once. While on that point let me indicate that from the period 1866 to 1885 the average market ratio of gold to silver was 17 to 1. My ho-n. friend in the course of his remarks quoted the ratio 16 to 1, but as a matter of fact from 1866 down to the present time there has not been anything approaching a ratio of 16 to 1. I am taking it at its lowest point from a list of the percentages during past years which I shall now give:
		Commercial Katio	of Gold to Silver	
		Average		Average
Period	ratio	Period	ratio1866-1885..	
17.0	1930	
53.7] 886-1895..	
24.1	1931	
71.31896-1905..	
34.9	1932	
73.31906-1915.. .	
36.2	1933	
82.51916-1925.. .	
27.0	1934	
80.11926-1929.. .	
35.9	Jan. 1-17	
Let me make it clear at once that I quite sympathize with my hon. friend from New Westminster in the object he has in mind in moving this resolution, but as I have already indicated, if we attempted to fix our currency on a fixed ratio of silver to gold the effect would be to make foT disequilibrium, not for stabilization. In other words, it would have the very opposite effect to that my hon. friend desires.

I do not propose'-I would not, even if I felt myself the most competent authority in the world-to enter into an argument in principle as to whether there should or should not be bimetallism, whether we should have our currency based on a fixed ratio of silver to gold. But for the purposes of this discussion we do not need to enter into that phase of the subject at all. Let us, for the purposes of discussion, admit that that is the ideal

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Rhodes
situation. I make mention of that for this reason: If we are to have bimetallism, its only chance of survival is through international agreement. As I have pointed out, otherwise there would be a flow of gold and silver back and forth to the absolute confusion of currencies.
I made note of one or two remarks by the hon. member which show how easily we can be led astray even with the best of intentions. I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens), who has made a great study of this important subject, will refer more particularly to the trade features. I must say that I got some mild amusement from the arguments used by the hon. member with respect to the trade with China. He referred to the fact that because silver was cheap, in order to purchase goods from a gold country the Chinaman had to use more silver. Strange as it may appear, the argument is just the other way. China never purchases goods with silver; she purchases silver with goods. Down through all the years China has been an importer of silver. The fact of the matter is that the cheaper silver is, the less goods it takes to buy it. Possibly this may have something to do with the remarks of my hon. friend concerning the great industrial boom in China. I have no doubt my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce will refer to this at greater length.
The hon. member referred to the silver dollar. I am speaking from memory but I think it is since 1916 that we have had upon our statute books legislation to enable us to mint a silver dollar. Possibly the circumstance that we have allowed that statute to remain unused for some eighteen years is an indication that perhaps the people of this country do not want to carry around a cumbersome silver dollar or, as it is known colloquially in the United States, a cart-wheel. I have an open mind upon the subject and I am sure that no one would be more delighted than this government if the people of this country deemed it wise to take kindly to silver dollars. On that point we have an absolutely open mind and it is a fair subject for discussion. Possibly it might be discussed in the committee on banking and commerce. What holds good with respect to silver dollars, holds equally good with respect to silver certificates which would be covered by an equal metal coverage.
The hon. member commended us for the silver agreement arrived at at the monetary and economic conference, but he said that we should have gone further. May I point
out to the hon. member for New Westminster and to the house that some forty-six nations of the world sat around the table and studied closely this matter. This agreement represents in cold type the maximum distance which they felt they could go. The hon. member referred to certain provisions of this agreement. Provision (c) reads:
That they shall substitute silver coins for low-value paper currency in so far as the budgetary and local conditions of each country will permit.
That provision has no reference to Canada but it does refer to the inordinate use of small denomination paper currency by many continental countries. I may say to my hon. friend that that provision, harmless as it may seem, was the result of a great deal of discussion and it was regarded as a real concession on the part of those countries that they should be prepared to substitute silver coins for their notes of small denomination.
The hon. member referred to what he regarded as the disparity in the proportionate amount of silver which Canada must produce as the result of being a party to the London agreement. Let me poiint out to him that that agreement provides for the removal from the world's markets over a period of four years of 35,000,000 ounces of silver per year. The proportion as allocated to Canada has no reference to-day to its proper proportion as a silver producer of the total amount of
35,000,000 ounces, but it did more nearly when the agreement was originally drafted. There were one or two smaller countries, whose names I need not mention, who were expected to become parties to the agreement, but they did not do so. For reasons which I need not discuss here, the United States, being very anxious that this silver agreement should go through, agreed to add the share which these countries failed to take up to their own share. Barring that contingency, the original setup provided for the purchase on the part of Canada of 1,671,802 fine ounces of silver. That amount represented our fair proportion as a producing country oif silver over a period of years. Under these circumstances I submit that no fault oan properly be found for our not having fallen into the terms and spirit of the agreement. I may say to my hon. friend that no exception was taken; on the contrary, the signatories to the agreement were eminently satisfied with the amount which Canada agreed to take.


Mr. MORAND:: Has the minister the
figures of the totall amount of silver produced per year?

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Rhodes


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not have them before me, but it is something under 200,000,000 ounces.


Mir. STEVENS:: In 1931 it was 240,000,000 ounces.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I ask my hon. friend and
the houlse to note thiat there was a very marked concession in this agreement on the part of, not the silver producing but the silver purchasing countries. Clause 4 reads:
That	the	government	of	China	shall	not
sell silver resulting from demonetized coins for a period of four calendar years commencing January 1, 1934.
I submit that that was a very marked concession'. Again, clause 5 reads:
That	the	government	of	Spain	shall	not
dispose by sale of more than twenty million fine ounces of silver during a period of four years commencing January 1, 1934.
And again, clause 1 (a) reads:
That	the	government	of	India	shall	notdispose by sale of more than one hundred and forty million fine ounces of silver during a period	of	four years commencing with
January 1, 1934.
There is a provision that in the case of India that may be enlarged in the event that the government of India should, after the date
of the agreement, sell silver to any other government for the purpose oif being transferred to the United States in payment of war debts. The agreement provides that such silver shall be excluded from the scope of the clause.


Edward James Young: Is there anything said about the price to be paid?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The market price. We
can discuss gold and silver as much as we like, but I submit that the main factor which we must keep before us is that portion of the resolution which provides that Canada shall fix immediately silver at a given ratio to gold.
For the reasons I have indicated, I submit that instead of having the beneficial effects Which my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Reid) has suggested, it would have precisely the opposite effect, and would be perhaps one of the most damaging things we could possibly do to our currency.
My time is almost up, and as I have an amendment to submit I will present it at once. It is moved by myself and seconded by Mr. Stevens:
That all the words after the word "whereas" in the first line thereof be struck out, and the following substituted therefor:
"at the world monetary and economic conference held in London, England, in the year 1933, attended by the representatives of sixty-[Mr. Morand.l
four nations, the subject of the use of silver in the world's monetary systems was taken under consideration;
And whereas the following resoluton was unanimously passed

Be it resolved to recommend to all the governments parties to this conference V. (a) That an agreement be sought between the chief silver producing countries and those countries which are the largest holders or users of silver, with a view to mitigating fluctuations in the price of silver; and that the other nations not parties to such agreement should refrain from measures which could appreciably affect the silver market;
(b)	That governments parties to this conference shall refrain from new legislative measures which would involve further debasement of their silver coinage below a fineness of 800/1090;
(c)	That they shall substitute silver coins for low value paper currency in so far as the budgetary and local conditions of each country will permit;
_ (d') That all of the provisions of this resolution are subject to the following exceptions and limitations:
The requirements of such provisions shall lapse on April 1, 1934, if the agreement recommended in paragraph (a) does not come into force by that date, and in no case shall extend beyond January 1, 1938;
Governments may take any action relative to their silver coinage that they may deem necessary to prevent the flight or destruction of their silver coinage by reason of a rise in the bullion price of the silver content of their coin above the nominal or parity value of such silver coin;
And whereas on the 22nd day of July, 1933, Canada signed a memorandum of agreement regarding silver, together with Australia, China, United States of America, India, Mexico, Peru and Spain, which agreement has ben laid on the table of the house;
And whereas bimetallism is only practicable if adopted by substantially all the leading nations of the world;
And whereas the above resolution and agreement represented the greatest measure of international agreement which it was possible to obtain;
Therefore be it resolved that the action of the delegate of Canada in signing said agreement is hereby approved."
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the amendment is
put I should like to say a few words. I was hoping some hon. members might have given expression to their views on this important matter.
The amendment is a simple one; it suggests that, inasmuch as certain steps were taken and certain decisions arrived at at the world econ-

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Stevens
omic conference, the house recognize what was done at that conference and endorse the action of the delegates from Canada. I think this is a perfectly sound thing to do. The matter is in a sense of a dual nature; there is the academic side, simply a general study in economics, and there is the other phase, the practical or administrative aspect. I am speaking now of the general question of bimetallism, if you like, or the remonetization of silver, or the problem of currency generally. In the amendment we do not pass judgment one way or the other on the academic question, but welcome measures that were taken at the world economic conference as at least a practical step in the right direction. It is with that view that I have seconded the amendment and given support to the views of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes).
I should like, however, to take the opportunity of saying a few words on the question in a general way. As I said a moment ago, it divides itself naturally into two sections, the academic and the practical or administrative. The success of the latter depends upon the acceptance of the former in a world wide sense. In other words it is not much use in Canada taking steps for the remonetization of silver unless there is some acceptance of the policy by other influential countries. I would not say that all countries must fall into line, but certainly one must recognize that the leaders in exchange and in control of international monetary affairs are perhaps three countries, Great Britain, the United States and France-London, New York and Paris. One of course can add other European countries having tremendous influence, such as Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and so on, but the three great centres I have mentioned have long been recognized as the dominating centres of international exchange. So if those countries at least are not adopting an international exchange policy similar to that proposed by any resolution we may adopt, obviously we could have little success with it. Recognition of that situation caused me to realize long ago that, attractive though bimetallism-and I use the term in its broad general sense-may be, it is impractical and useless for Canada to attempt it alone. But inasmuch as the subject has been brought before parliament, perhaps I may take a short time to discuss the problem from an academic or an economic standpoint. No harm can be done by that, and certainly I welcome the opportunity.
My hon. friend the member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid), who introduced the resolution, brings it forward at this time in
perfect good faith, I have no doubt; but some of us who brought the question up three, four, or five years ago received little support then; until last year very little interest was evidenced in the matter by others in the house or out of it. During the last year it became a much more popular idea and therefore of course attractive from the point of view of its being a matter for discussion in the House of Commons. Perhaps if we had been giving more attention to it during the years of the depression we might have been able to observe a larger measure of progress at this time than we do find in this or other countries. Statesmen throughout the world, during the past four years particularly, have been looking for some measure for stabilizing prices, something that would be satisfactory to all countries. They have also been looking for a better foundation for currency, because it must be admitted that the basis of currency in many countries has been sadly dislocated; there has been loss of confidence not only in the currency of some countries but in the credit of the countries themselves. World statesmen and economists of note have been looking for these stabilizing factors, for some measure acceptable to all for the control of international exchange. But nothing has been found that is generally acceptable to the nations of the world.
A few of us-speaking in a general sense- in different countries have held the view that had silver been joined with gold it would have formed a suitable background for currency; that it would have led to the stabilizing of international exchange and a wider degree of confidence in the currencies of the world, and perhaps would have materially helped towards the stabilizing of prices. That is a view that has been held by many. However, as I have intimated, it has not found acceptance among the nations of the world. It may be recalled that in 1921 John Maynard Keynes, one of the most widely known economists

I suppose one can scarcely say that any one economist is an authority, but certainly Mr. Keynes is widely known-suggested that wheat or butter or iron might be used as a basis for currency. Then another school of thought held the view that currency should be issued against commodities produced, the currency being retired as the commodities went into consumption. But in respect of all these suggestions, and they have been numerous, it immediately became clear that currency resting upon such a basis would be as variable as the quantity of the product upon which it was founded. For instance, Keynes for some time rather emphasized wheat, a commodity of world-wide use, as a

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Stevens
stable basis for currency, but when in 1928 nearly the whole world had a bumper crop and there was a huge surplus of wheat on the markets of the world, he realized then if not before that currency based upon a commodity of that kind would be extremely variable in its character. So these suggestions have not met with favour. But they are indications that thinkers the world over have been trying to find some way in which the currencies of the world might be more firmly founded upon some basis commonly acceptable to all.
Now I should like to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, referring to the subject in a general way and discussing it, shall I say, from an academic standpoint. Silver, as the hon. member who introduced the resolution said, has been used as a background for currency from time immemorial. It might be well to remember that it served in a very satisfactory way all through the centuries until it was demonetized by legislative action in the last century; I think 1873 was the main year of departure. In other words, silver was recognized as a sound and safe background for currency, being used in some countries in conjunction with gold but in most countries as the sole background until it was demonetized. Demonetization of silver took the form of simply closing the mints of the world to silver, and I refer to that for this reason: there are many who contend that because silver has fallen in value, that is evidence that it has no higher value, but the reason silver has fallen to the exent it has in recent years is that it lost its power or its usefulness as money or currency and became a commodity like tin, zinc, lead or iron, and now silver is a commodity and only a commodity. Previously it was a money faotor and was also used in the arts and sciences, but having been denied entry to the mints as a material out of which money was made, it lost that value and became merely an ordinary commodity on the market, and of course it fell in Value.
An interesting thing to note, Mr. Speaker, is the historic ratio of silver, to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) referred this afternoon, as did the hon. member who introduced the resolution. There was a consistency about the ratio of silver to gold as long as it was used as a currency which is rather striking and, to my mind, a bit startling. In the Roman period it was twelve to one and stood at that ratio for many years, in fact for many centuries, I think. Then for several centuries France and England had it fixed by law at fifteen and a half to one. and I think this ratio was accepted by the Stevens.]
United States as well as by the Latin union, that is, France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, if I remember rightly. This ratio obtained for several hundred years. It is interesting also to note that for a period of at least one hundred years prior to 1873 silver did not vary in value more than one point; the variation was very slight indeed. As as matter of fact in 1717 an investigation was conducted by Sir Isaac Newton and a very interesting report on this subject which can be found in the library here, was made to the British government. Sir Isaac Newton confirmed the ratio of fifteen and a half to one and, as I say. that ratio obtained during the centuries with apparent satisfaction.
We have had figures given to-day in regard to the production of silver. I have a few figures that are slightly different, but they largely confirm what has been stated previously. In a period of approximately four hundred years, from 1493 to 1931, there have been produced about 14,500,000,000 ounces of silver. I am referring to this because I think it is importamt to keep in mind the question of the production of silver. There is a fear in the minds of some that the production of silver would increase so rapidly as literally to swamp the market should silver be remonetized. The ratio of production, as I have already intimated, has been about fourteen and a half to one over a period of five hundred years. In the last fifty years, however, the ratio has been about 14-4 to one. The latter figure is accurate; the former figure is accepted the world over as a fair figure. But the significant point is that eighty per cent of the world's silver is produced as a byproduct, and I think this constitutes a safeguard to the overproduction of silver. For instance, if there was a tendency to speed up the production of silver to an unwarranted degree it would result in an increased production of lead, zinc and copper, the three metals with which silver is usually associated, to an extent that would constitute a great overproduction of these other metals and result in a disastrous drop in the prices of such metals. So where there might be a tendency to increase the production of silver unduly there would be that natural brake in the tendency to reduce the production of these other commodities. I do not share the view at all that necessarily there would be an overproduction of silver. The sources of supply are well known; in 1930 Mexico produced 105,000,000 ounces, the United States,
49,000,000 ounces, Canada, 26,000,000 ounces, South America, 25,000,000 ounces, and miscellaneous countries, 35,000,000 ounces.

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Stevens


Charles A. Stewart: But is not
that overproduction always a possibility?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I think not. My
own view is that there is not a likelihood of any overproduction. Mexico, of course, is overwhelmingly the greatest producer of silver.
I do not think there is any danger of overproduction in Canada or the United States.
Now I should like to say just a word as to the use of silver in the arts and industries, which must not be lost sight of. About thirty-five per cent of the silver produced is used in the arts and industries. For instance, the United States uses 25,000,000 ounces annually; the United Kingdom uses 6,000,000 ounces, and the miscellaneous other countries use about 20,000,000 ounces.
Then there is the question of the market for silver. As the Minister of Finance very properly pointed out this, afternoon, India and China have been the great consuming markets for silver; they are importers to a very large extent. As a matter of fact, in 1929 China and India between them imported about 220,000,000 ounces of silver. In 1932, however, they imported much less, China about 80,000,000 ounces and India about 12,000,000 ounces. No doubt this falling off was due to the drop in the price of silver in the world market and also to the adoption in India of the definite gold policy and the offering for sale of large quantities of silver. For instance, as a result of going on the gold standard in 1925, I think, India had about 300,000,000 ounces of silver placed in the treasury which they felt they had to feed out to the market. That was over and above the requirements of the country for coinage, and in a few years about 90,000,000 ounces were sold. It was the sale of this large amount of silver, plus the debasing of the ooinage of Europe, that really created the catastrophe to the silver market of the world. For instance France, by turning to aluminum, to paper francs and so on, released 60,000,000 ounces of silver in the six or eight years between 1924 and 1930 or thereabouts, and India released 300,000,000 ounces. Then in Great Britain, where coinage was debased from -925 fine to -500, they released some 82,000,000 ounces. This gives an indication of the amount of silver which came on to the market, not from production, but from the abandonment of a high standard of silver in coinage, and in the case of India the abandonment of the silver basis for all its coinage and the adoption of the gold standard. It is estimated that as a result of the debasing of the silver coinage of the world during a ten year period 408,000,000 ounces were released on the markets of the world. That is one of the reasons why I
consider that the international conference of last summer in its agreement regarding silver did something that was very useful in this connection, because it bound certain countries to cease the debasing of currency and as early as possible to restore the high standard; and, on the other hand, it provided that certain producing countries should absorb a portion of their production within their own boundaries.
For instance, Belgium has already issued a new silver coinage. One of the first coins minted I received the other day from the International Chamber of Commerce. They have restored a -825 fine standard. That is a practical and useful contribution to the solution of the silver problem of the world.


Thomas Reid: Are you sure it is not -925
fine?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, I am not quite sure
on that point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It provides for -800.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is -800 in the agreement. I should like to have seen it -925, because that is the full silver content of the recognized silver coinage of the world, -925 being looked upon as as much silver as one dares to put into a coin and still have it usable. These are interesting facts, Mr. Speaker.
I wish now to turn briefly to a reference to China made by the hon. member. If he will permit me to say so, the mistake he made in referring to Chinese or oriental trade and its relation to silver is this:	The business of China, as we understand it, is done largely at Shanghai; it is centred at Shanghai. At that point you have the great banks of China, and may I say there are some very powerful banking institutions. [DOT] In Shanghai there are located to a large degree the industrial and commercial activities of northern China. Of course, Canton in the south is the other great centre. But while it is true in the back country of China silver is still used as the currency, and while in those parts they prefer to have silver in some form, yet in the Shanghai centre the bankers are against the readoption of silver as the background for currency in other countries of the world, because, as the Minister of Finance quite properly pointed out, it would mean the raising of the price of silver, and therefore they would have to ship out more goods for the same quantity of silver. They take the position that the low silver market is helpful to the dealer in goods manufactured or otherwise in the exporting centre of Shanghai, and so they are opposed to the remonetiza-

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Stevens
tion of silver. On the other hand may I give my own opinion, for what it is worth. I am of the view that if silver were remonetized and raised in value so that in the older trading countries of the world it would have a higher purchasing value, the people in the back country of China, those parts away from the trading centres of Shanghai and Canton, would experience an increased purchasing power and there would be a stimulus to trade. However, there is a distinct cleavage of opinion on that point. There are those who argue strongly that it is much better that silver should be low so that dealers in goods, and manufacturers, exporters and importers in the great centres of Canton and Shanghai can get silver as cheaply as possible, rather than have it at a higher price to increase purchasing power in the country behind.
Furthermore, it is interesting to note in regard to China that Shanghai is one of the few plaices, if not the only one, in the wodd where gold as sold purely as a commodity. In the great royal gold exchange in Shanghai they have a huge building devoted to this purpose alone, where gold is traded in every day just the same as in this country wheat is traded at Winnipeg, or as in the United States corn is traded in Chicago or the metals in New York.


An hon. MEMBER:: In what form?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is in bars, the exact
weight of which I have not in mind. Each bar consists of a certain number of ounces, but I shall not risk saying what size they are. However it is a certain gold bar, stamped by the Chinese authorities, and traded in the royal gold exchange just the same as other commodities are traded in exchanges. That is a most interesting point. Furthermore it is mot correct to assume that in China there is no understanding of a gold currency, because in that country gold has been used as a currency for some five thousand years. If any hon. member wishes to study the matter he will find in the library a very interesting work on the subject written by a gentleman whose name for the moment escapes me, but who is one of the most outstanding authorities. The book was only recently published and is most interesting reading. I make this reference only because it is well to have the facte before us when we are dealing with these subjects. The question, therefore, of the trade with China does not enter into the matter in quite as aggravated a form as at first it would appear, but it is possible, quite possible-and I do not wish too strongly to contradict the

hon. member who introduced the resolution- it is quite possible if, and I must use capital letters for that word, "if" silver were readopted by the leading nations of the world, that ultimately it would be a benefit to those people living in the oriental countries and away from the great centres to which I have referred.
A word more regarding the position silver has held for centuries in the trading markets of the world. I have intimated there was not very much variation in its price until the year 1873. As indicated by the Minister of Finance, from 1873 onward there has been a constant fluctuation in the prioe of silver, but there is a very definite and distinct reason for that. Up to 1873 silver was recognized in all the great trading nations of the world as a monetary medium. The mimte of these counteies were open to silver. Then, following the Franco-German war and the acquisition by Germany of huge quantities of gold, Germany closed her mints to silver, and 'Great Britam, which had been following a bimetallic system from 1816 onward under which gold and silver were both recognized, closed its mrnte to silver. Shortly afterwards France-and the Latin union were forced to close their mints to silver, and then the price of silver fell off very rapidly.
The Minister of Finance gave prices in percentages, but I have here some prices which
wav diff w amirfte>
and are given in a way different from that adopted this afternoon by the .Minister of Finance. In 1873 the price of silver in New York was $129m France it was $1.31; in England it was but the average was $1.30. That had been the general price over a long period of
hwT-'i In ~1S83 ifc had fallen to ShH; in 1898 it was 78 cents; in 1894, 60 cents, and it
remained , 'at 60 or 55 cents or thereabouts until the great war. During the great war there was a veiy large demand for silver to pay for the goods taken from the orient, and silver rose to $1.30 and, at one time I think, to $1.80 an ounce. But immediately after the war the price fell again to $1.01 in 1920, land in 1930 the lowest price was 26 cents. The decline' over that long period' of years carried silver down to 50 cents, where it remained for a number of years, and then it fell subsequent to the depression to as low as 26 cents. The fluctuation in the price of silver after 1873 was due to the closing of the mints to silver. If anyone is interested in getting a view of that particulfar period when the mints of Great Britain and Germany, and later of France, were closed to silver, they will find in the debates of the British House-

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Young
of Commons of 1889 a debate on a resolution introduced by Mr. W. H. Smith, of Yorkshire.
I <am speaking from memory but I think I have the facts correctly. Mr. Smith introduced a resolution indicating that by 1889 there had resulted such an interference with trade because of the demonetization of silver that it threatened the welfare of the nation, or something to that effect. Sir Edward Go sehen was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time and he took part in the debate. I remember reading his argument, and in a word, it was this: To interfere in 1889, the time :at which he was speaking, with the decision of 1873 would result An such a dislocation of financial arrangements in the money market of London that he did not contemplate the results with equanimity. In his speeich however he expressed a degree of acquiescence in the views of Mr. Smith, and the most interesting feature of all of that debate was an address by the late Lord Balfour, then Mr. Arthur Balfour. He was then a young man and on that occasion he made a speech which would repay the time given to a reading of it because in it he indicated What in his opinion would be the ultimate effect of this demonetization of silver in the leading countries of the world. If you will read his utterances of that day, in 1889, in the light of what has happened since, you can only conclude that he had a prophetic vision. I may say that Mr. Balfour, afterwards Lord Balfour, held that opinion to the day of his death, because only a few months before he died he gave expression to a similar view.
But the point that we are concerned with at the present moment is not the theory of bimetallism, which I frankly state to the house is one that I hold,, bimetallism constituting a suitable backing for international currency if acceptable to the leading countries of the world; but we are dealing to-night with what this country and this government should do. I should like to see this country in a position where it could again accept silver into its mints as freely as gold. I Should like to see the larger 'countries of the world do it; but the world thinks differently. The world monetary and economic conference of last summer went into this matter with great care and came to the decision which we have before us as a parliament.
I submit to the house that whatever may be the view we as individuals may have on the theory of this subject is not necessarily the view which we should ask parliament to act upon, but rather we should act in conformity with the most progressive steps taken by the leading countries of the world, and
that we have before us in the form of the agreement to which reference has been made by the Minister of Finance to-day. It is for that reason, recognizing that we can only go as far as it is practicable for us to go, that I have seconded the minister's amendment, Which virtually declares that this house accepts the decision so taken, not necessarily as indicating final action or the final step, but being for the moment all that we can practically do towards the restoration of silver to its old position as copartner with gold as a backing for the currency of the world.


Edward James Young: Mr. Speaker, both the resolution and the amendment are in my opinion based on the belief so commonly held in these days that you can increase the wealth of the world in some way or other by juggling with the yardstick by which it is measured. We are told that the present depression came upon us because of an artificial increase in the value of gold. Gold is the standard of value of the western countries. Silver is the standard of value of the eastern countries. We are told that by artificially increasing our standard of value disaster has been brought upon the western world; then we are asked by the same persons to do the very same thing with the standard of value of the eastern countries. We are asked to do with silver what was done with gold. Would not the same results follow? If artificially increasing the value of gold brought disaster to us, would not artificially increasing the value of silver, the standard of China, bring disaster to China? China produces no silver; she buys her silver. Does China buy silver with goods or goods with silver? If she buys goods with silver and we artificially increase the price of silver, then when we sell wheat to China we shall have to give her more wheat for the same quantity of silver; in other words, we shall have to accept a lower price for our wheat. If, on the other hand, China buys silver with goods, and you artificially increase the price of silver, you compel China to pay more for the silver she requires. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) had a very clear understanding of this when he spoke this afternoon. I took down his words. He said "China never purchases goods with silver; she purchases silver with goods. Down through all the years China has been an importer of silver. The fact of the matter is that the cheaper silver is, the less goods it takes to buy it. This may have something to do with the remarks of my hon. friend concerning the great industrial boom in China." In other

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Young
words, China is prosperous because silver is of low value. The Minister of Finance showed a clear understanding of the matter when he uttered those words. Then I take the agreement that he signed as Minister of Finance at the world monetary and economic conference, in which I find this:
Whereas, it is to the advantage of China that sales from monetary stocks of silver be offset by purchases as herein provided, with a view to its effective stabilization,
And so on. In other words, the Minister of Finance proved in his speech this afternoon that a low price for silver was an advantage to China, and then he asks us to support an agreement that seeks to bring back prosperity to China by artificially increasing the price of silver. The minister this afternoon made a conclusive answer, an unanswerable answer, to the agreement which he himself signed as minister.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) told us a few moments ago that the big bankers and business men of Shanghai and other seaports of China are opposed to the remonetization of silver. But, he said, when you go into the interior where silver is still the only medium of exchange, to artificially increase the price of silver would increase the purchasing power of the people who live there. A Chinaman with an ounce of silver in his possession, if you suddenly doubled the value of silver, would undoubtedly have his purchasing power increased, but how long would that increased purchasing power last? It would last for only one transaction. The Chinaman with an ounce of silver which he has earned goes into a store, and if you have doubled the value of silver by some such measure as this he can buy twice as much of the things he needs, but then in order to get his next ounce of silver he will have to give twice as much labour or twice as much of the goods he has to sell. So this increased purchasing power that would go to the Chinaman would last only one day.
The Minister of Finance proved conclusively this afternoon that there was sufficient gold in the world to serve as a standard for all monetary purposes. Why then should we go out of our way and pledge this and all other governments to buy silver at more than its value and take it off the market? There is no necessity for it, as it is not needed as a standard. The minister has proved this.
It is the most amazing thing of anything that has happened in public life for many years, to find that a small group of men from the different countries that produce silver were able to influence not only their own governments but all governments of the world to

buy their commodity at more than its worth and take it off the market. This applied not only to the countries that were going to benefit, that is, the countries that had silver to sell, but even to China which had silver to buy. I think it is the most amazing thing that ever happened in the history of lobbying. This group of lobbyists were able to convince not only those members who represented mining districts, not only the governments of the countries that produced silver, but the governments of the countries that had to buy silver. These governments were influenced to increase artificially the price of silver, to buy it and take it off the market. For example, they influenced countries like India which had vast quantities of silver to sell; that country needed the money but they were persuaded to hold their silver off the market in order that the silver producers could dig more silver out of the ground and get a good price for it. When we see such phenomena as that, we almost despair of the power of the human race to govern itself.


Thomas Reid: Mr. Speaker, before the amendment is put I should like to make a few remarks regarding wbat has been said in this debate and to conclude some that I had not time to make before six o'clock. I do not intend to take up the time of the house in endeavouring to answer everything that has been said by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes), by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) and by the last speaker, the hon. member for Wey-burn (Mr. Young). However, I shall take the last first and attempt to answer one or two of the statements made by the hon. member.
First of all, it is not the Indian people that are selling silver. To-day the Indian people are buying all the silver they can get; it is the Indian government that is selling silver. That is quite a different thing from the Indian people. To-day the Indian people are still valuing their wealth in silver and with the low price of silver at present prevailing they are turning in their paper rupees to purchase bar silver for trading and hoarding. It is not correct to say that the Indians are selling silver; the Indian government is but not the Indian people. They are still large purchasers.
The hon. member for Weyburn spoke about the price of silver increasing and the benefits accruing to the mine owners. He did not say anything about the gold mine owners in this country. I am of the opinion that this country will have to follow the example of President Roosevelt of the United States and revalue her gold. To-day, gold is valued at something like $35 an ounce while only a short time ago it was valued at only $20.67. If those who

Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid
are advocating bimetallism or the adoption of silver are crazy, the same remarks could be applied to President Roosevelt. Although Lloyd George has not always been right in his day, he maintains that President Roosevelt is to be likened to Christopher Columbus, with this difference: President Roosevelt knows where he is going and where he will land, while Christopher Columbus did not.


An hon. MEMBER:: But he got there.


Thomas Reid: I have not the time at my disposal to develop the argument made regarding the buying power of the people as fully as I should like, but I would like the hon. member for Weyburn to look at the trade figures of the countries with depreciated currencies. He needs to go back only a year and a half to find that when the people of this country were selling their wheat to England with the pound valued at only $3.50 we -were getting very little for our goods in Great Britain compared with what we are getting to-day, when the pound sterling is worth some $5.60. This takes some answering.
Regarding the boom in China, I desire to repeat what I said previously, and I looked up my remarks during the recess. I stated that the industrial boom in China was due to the influx of capital which had taken place principally from the financiers in the United States who were helping China to build up her industries. This is an influx of capital just the same as if these financiers came to Canada with millions of dollars to build up our factories.
The Minister of Finance spoke about the maladministration of gold. If the rules of the house would permit him to reply I should like him to answer this question: Who will fix maladministration of gold? Mr. Winston Churchill has stated that the road back to gold is not going to be easy, in fact it is going to be very difficult. Three countries own practically all the gold supply of the world and it is going to be a difficult matter to redistribute that commodity. An attempt is being made to do this by revaluation.
I listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Finance who gave figures with reference to the ratio of gold supply to output. I am afraid he and I will have to agree to differ. The figures which I gave before and which I intend to give now were obtained from what I believe to be an authentic source. I believe the United States bureau of metal statistics is a very reliable source of information. They state that from 1906 to the present time gold production has not increased; in fact the production in 1932 was away below
the production in other years between 1906 and 1932. These are the figures given by the bureau of metal statistics and I take them to be fairly authentic.
In connection with the ratio of gold to silver, the Minister of Finance quoted figures to show that silver had depreciated or had a ratio ranging from 12 to 1 to as high as 80 to 1. According to the figures of the American bureau of statistics, the ratios ranged from 7-61 to 13-83 in the period from 1906 to 1932. I have the complete table before me and I am afraid in this instance we will have to agree to differ. According also to these figures, gold production has been decreasing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the hon. member the figures for 1932 and 1933?


Thomas Reid: The gold production for 1932 is given as 23,884,000 ounces and silver as
166,454,000	ounces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Finance was giving the ratios of the values per ounce.


Thomas Reid: It puts a different aspect on the whole matter when he takes the revalued price of gold.
I listened also very attentively to the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The last time he spoke in this house he took me to task about what he thought were some veiled remarks I had made regarding himself. Now it is my turn to take him to task about some veiled remarks I believe he has made about me. I think he was throwing out the inference that since 1925 no one on this side of the house has said anything about silver. Unfortunately I was not in the house from 1925 to 1930, but since I have been here I have made a speech on silver every year. The minister stated that silver was a popular move now, but I do not think it can be said that the member for New Westminster is taking up this matter simply because it seems to be a popular move. If the minister's remarks were intended to be personal, I resent them very much. WThile I do not claim to be an expert, I have made some little study of this matter, both before coming to this house and afterwards, and I have spoken every year on the rehabilitation of silver. Since I have been here I have spoken every year on the subject, but certainly in 1931 and 1932 no one could forecast that steps would be taken in 1934 with regard to the remonetization of silver.
With regard to the amendment offered, I think it is a little unfair, if I may say so, for the government to ask this house, in connection with the motion now before the
Bimetallic Currency-Mr. Reid

chair, to endorse the steps taken by them in signing the agreement; I do not think they should have added that as an amendment to the resolution. Speaking for myself, I am in favour of the step taken by the government and for that reason therefore I will support the amendment. I should not be on very firm ground if I did not support the move that has been taken in that regard, but just the same I feel that the agreement on silver ought to have been brought down to the house for discussion in detail, standing on its own merits, instead of being added in the form in which it has been to the resolution introduced by myself.
Before the resolution was brought forward I was under the impression that the government, if they did not adopt it, might agree to refer my resolution to the banking and commerce committee so that of those who are interested in the whole subject could appear before that committee and advocate the adoption of silver.
As regards the advantages that would accrue to this country if we adopted silver, I would leave these figures with the house. In 1929 there were 4,153 employed in silver lead mining in Canada, and of that number 3,220 were employed in silver lead mining in 'British Columbia. I have not gone back further, but I believe that the figures were even higher than that in years prior to 1929. In 1932 however that figure had dropped to a total of 1,082 employed in silver lead mining throughout Canada, of which number 555 only were engaged in British Columbia, a very considerable decline. I was up through the interior during the fall of last year and was informed on many occasions and by reliable authority that if the price of silver rose to 50 cents an ounce there would not be an idle man in the interior of British Columbia. I still say that if President Roosevelt revalues silver, as he will most likely do, we shall have to do the same, and that will increase the base for our monetary coverage.
I should like the minister to have intimated to the house whether or not it was the intention of the government to issue silver certificates for the buying of silver, because I was going to point out that by the issue of silver certificates, which could not be termed inflation as we know it; by the purchase of silver and minting it into silver dollars, the country would not be put to any further expense than would be involved in the issuing of paper certificates. I know the argument might be advanced that if the price of silver rose those holding silver certificates might demand silver. But I would point out to the

Minister of Finance that there could be a proviso in the act to the effect that silver would be rated as to value and not as to weight. Of the amount which Canada is going to purchase, 1,671,802 ounces, by the issue of silver certificates, at 40 cents per ounce, there would be 668,720 silver certificates of the value of $1 each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many?


Thomas Reid: 668,720.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total number outstanding?


Thomas Reid: That would be the total at
40 cents an ounce; for 1,671,802 ounces, under the agreement, that would be the total number of certificates that would have to be issued; and as a reserve against that there could be placed in the treasury that amount of silver dollars. But it would not take that number of ounces for coverage by silver dollars, because under our present 800/1000 fine it would take only 420,000 ounces of fine silver to make 668,720 silver dollars. I have worked it out carefully.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is, 480 grains of
silver to the dollar?


Thomas Reid: Yes, and according to present dlay mintage, one ounce of fine silver produces $1.60 in coins.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At what price?


Thomas Reid: Forty cents an ounce. Those
were the figures given me by the mint: one ounce of fine silver produces 1.60 in coinage at the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not at 800/
1000 of purity.


Thomas Reid: I am told it is.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a little high.


Thomas Reid: I went into the subject carefully with the master of the mint, who informs me 'that it is so. So that with silver at 40 cents an ounce this country is making a profit at the present time of $1.20 on the coinage issued. I think that should be known to members of the house; a profit of 1.20 is made on every ounce of silver minted into coinage. Now, if silver certificates could be issued in connection with Canada's recent silver agreement, it would not cost this country any more than the cost of issuing the paper, and against that there could be on deposit in the mint 668,720 silver dollars. To make those silver dollars, as I say, it would take only 420,000 ounces of fine silver. There

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Barrette
would still be a balance on hand of 1,252,802 ounces which the government could issue in the same way in silver certificates to the extent of 2,002,083. It would be all profit.
I have worked this out carefully and I was going to urge the government to take note of it. I might point out there are thirteen countries to-day issuing silver certificates. There are also many millions of silver certificates in the United States and many more will no doubt be issued on the silver that is being purchased by the treasury there.
In conclusion, may I assure the house that I am not pleading for the silver mines alone, and I might say I have no personal interest in them; I am simply interested in the welfare of the people of this country and those engaged in that business. I have been making a plea on humanitarian grounds, and this is not the first time in this house that I have advocated the rehabilitation of silver. I should like to have seen the subject referred to the appropriate committee on banking, because if the government would consider the advisability of issuing silver certificates it would add to the base of the precious metal gold, which would act as a brake so to speak, on uncontrolled inflation. I am going to support the amendment; but, I repeat, I think that the subject matter of that amendment should have been presented to the house in a more appropriate form, such as by bringing down the agreement itself, so that the house might consider that agreement on its merits. Certainly, the silver agreement should not have been introduced into the amendment to my resolution.
Amendment (Mr. Rhodes) agreed to.
Main motion (Mr. Reid) as amended, agreed to.



CURRENCY, STATE NOTES AND BONDS STAMPED AND PRINTED IN THE TWO OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Joseph Arthur Barrette: moved: -
That, in the opinion of this house, the question of issuing bilingual state currency, notes and bonds should be referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Hackett, Gobeil, Bourgeois, Bell (St. Antoine), Nicholson, Gott, Plunkett, Price, Malcolm, Ralston, Lapointe, Cardin, Casgrain, Rinfret, and Lucas, with power to send for papers, summon witnesses and report from time to time.
Mr. Speaker, the present question is certainly worthy of the consideration of the House. I, therefore, immediately put the following question: Have not Canadian members an interest in placing the problem of 74726-61
bilingual currency on a basis of " bonne entente,'' so as to better study it in the light of what is right and just and so that the French Canadian element would derive some benefit?
The hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), stated, last year, in nicely couched and worthy terms, when he discussed his resolution, that bilingual currency is not a new question to the house. I note, in the debates of this house, that, at the 1906-07 session, the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), questioned Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, with reference to the stamping of currency and printing of government notes in the two official languages of this country. Mr. Fielding replied that this innovation did not seem to him widely requested. The house will observe that ever since, that date the answer has not varied. You will find the questions and answers at page 6015, volume IV of Hansard, session 1906-07.
I shall not attempt to give an account of the debate which took place on this delicate subject. I am aware that the hon. member for Bellechasse is sincere and I also have no doubt about the sincerity of the seconder; to both I extend my congratulations for their zeal in promoting the success of this cause.
The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), when the resolution of the hon. member for Bellechasse was discussed, proved beyond all doubt, according to the evidence, that bilingual currency should have its place in this country, by virtue of our rights and after proving that it was so stipulated in our statutes, he added:
Is the principle of bilingual state currency, notes and bonds, a sound principle? My
answer is yes.
What is the status of the French language at the present time? To answer, that question I must go back to 1840. At that time, during the third and fourth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, there was passed an act, which in 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 35, to reunite the provinces of lower and upper Canada. By this act the French language was prohibited, but this prohibition was lifted on August 14, 1848, by 11 and 12 Victoria, chapter 56. I should like to direct the attention of the house to that chapter. It is entitled:
"An act to repeal so much of an act of the third and fourth years of her present majesty, to reconcile the provinces of upper and lower Canada, and for the government of Canada, as related to the use of the English language in instruments relating to the legislative council and legislative assembly of the provinces of Canada. This is how the statute reads:
Whereas by an act passed in the session of parliament held in the third and fourth years of her present majesty, intituled an act to reunite the provinces of upper and lower Canada, and for the government of Canada, it

962	COMMONS
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Barrette
is amongst other things enacted, that from and after the said reunion of the said two provinces, all writs, proclamations, instruments for summoning and calling together the legislative council ar.d legislative assembly of the province of Canada, and for proroguing and dissolving the same, and all writs of summons and elections-
I should like to direct attention to the following words:
-and all writs and public instruments whatsoever relating to the said legislative council and legislative assembly, or either of them, and all returns to such writs and instruments, and all journals-
I should like to direct particular attention to the next words:
-entries and written or printed proceedings of what nature soever, of the said legislative council and legislative assembly, and of each of them respectively, and all written and printed proceedings and reports of committees of the said legislative council and legislative assembly respectively, shall be in the English language only: Provided always, that the said enactment should not be construed to prevent translated copies of any such documents being made, but no such copy should be kept among the records of the legislative council or legislative assembly, or be deemed in any case to have the force of an original record:
And whereas it is expedient to alter the law in this respect, in order that the legislature of the province of Canada, or the said legislative council and legislative assembly respectively, may have power to make such regulations herein as to them may seem advisable; be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act, so much of the said recited act as is hereinbefore recited shall be repealed."
In constitutional law does not the repeal of a prohibition render the thing prohibited permissible, permitted, legal and constitutional? Therefore may 1 not conclude that bilingual currency, having been prohibited by 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 35, became permissible, permitted, legal and constitutional when 3 and 4 Victoria was repealed?
Among parliamentarians, who, years ago, shone in the House of Commons and later became distinguished statesmen, I note in the foremost ranks the names of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Georges E. Cartier. Why have these men played such an important part in history? It is because they always recognized and respected the rights of the minority. May I recall to your memory a splendid speech delivered in the house by Sir John A. Macdonald, in which he stated:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in some quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to render it inferior to the other; I believe that would be impossible if it were tried and it would be foolish and wicked' if it were possible. The statement that has been made so often that this is a conquered country is "a propos de

rien." Whether it was conquered or ceded we have a constitution under which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, having rights of every kind, of language, of religion, of property and of person. There is no paramount race in this country, there is no conquered race in this country, we are British subjects and those who are not English are none the less British subjects on that account.
I do not wish to rouse any racial prejudices; however, I put the question to the house, whether this right is embodied in our constitution. Why then not apply it to help the " bonne entente " in all the provinces of confederation.
I recall that, in 1916, the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) raised an interesting discussion in the house. The resolution he introduced became known as the ''Lapointe motion." I should like to see the former Minister of Justice in his seat so as to remind him that, on that occasion, I had the privilege of voting in favour of his resolution. This motion created quite a stir at the time and even brought fame to him.
Hon. gentlemen may perhaps contend that, those in favour of bilingualism last year, wanted the house to vote on the merit of this question; unfortunately, unforeseen events prevented the house from doing so. That is why I wished to remove from party strife, the question of bilingual currency, I was therefore in favour of a committee composed of fifteen members chosen among the leading members of the house. Hon. gentlemen will note that the opposition is represented by five former ministers. One cannot cast any doubt on the good intentions of the former Minister of Justice, no more than on those of the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Hackett). They are legal lights, known for their moral and social probity, which is an assurance that this question will be fairly dealt with and do full justice to the French Canadian element of this country. Thus will disappear all friction which may exist between majority and minority groups.
If one inquires why the question is left to a committee, it is because each time the house was called upon to consider resolutions of that kind, the various groups in the house always made political capital by appealing each time to race prejudice and thus preventing the success of our cause. The committee will be authorized to take down the evidence of persons not connected with the house; such as bank managers, officials of the Finance department, etc.
These are reasons which certainly favoured the appointment of a committee.
Furthermore, I wish to point out to the house that never has a political party been

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Boulanger
able to hoist itself into office by appealing to racial prejudices, and that never will a party hold office by bringing up such questions. I would like to see all my friends present here so as to warn them well, that never a political party will assume power without having the support of the province of Quebec. In 1911, that province gave 27 seats to the Conservative party. In 1921, the Liberal party took office with 65 seats from Quebec, and in 1930, the Conservative party returned to power with 25 members from Quebec. This goes to prove that Quebec is closely linked with smooth and good government. Each time a party takes office, Quebec will greatly be interested, because she will always be the province that has placed that party in office.
If I had a suggestion to make to members on the committee, it would be the following: Let them bear in mind the prayer which they repeat together every day before each sitting of the house, when they implore the Almighty for peace and harmony. I trust that this idea of the " bonne entente " will bear abundant fruit and thus contribute to the welfare of the Canadian people.
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I wish
to congratulate the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) on his comments generally replete with common sense. I must also thank him for his kind references to me. His kindness makes me regret more so that I find it impossible to entirely approve the measure he has submitted to the house. I would be inclined to vote in favour of this resolution if it could bring some result. I may say further: I would even support the measure were I convinced that it would do no harm. Unfortunately, in spite of all the eloquence of my hon. friend, the member for Berthier-Maskinonge, he has not convinced me that his motion would not be harmful.
He requests the appointment of a committee to consider the question whether we should have in this county bilingual currency. I think that this question is no longer debatable. It has been settled. French Canadians, at all events, consider that the question has been definitely settled long ago. By his resolution, my hon. friend from Berthier Maskinonge brings up again the whole question and re-opens the discussion. May I point out, sir, that the question the hon. member wishes a committee to examine is purely and simply a question of law, it is not one of fact. There is no need of witnesses to establish whether we are entitled or not to speak French in Canada or whether we are entitled to have public documents published in the French language. There is nothing to establish, nothing to prove, the question is purely and simply a constitutional one. I even think that it would even be, so to speak, humiliating to have a committee of the house consider whether we are entitled to speak the French language or whether public documents should be published in French. As far as I am concerned and that includes many, the question was settled long ago, ever since we have a constitution and even long before, because the latter only sanctioned-and badly at that, in my opinion-the natural right of one-third of the population of Canada to read in its own language the public documents of this nation


Jean-François Pouliot: Hear, hear!


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: If there be a public document which expresses the character of a nation, it is certainly currency. There should be no opposition against the language of one-third of the population- especially when it is that of the pioneers of this country, of those who discovered Canada, civilized and defended it against the invader -being placed on our currency.
My hon. friend stated a moment ago: This is not a new question, for ever so long has it been threshed out in parliament. He mentioned the name of my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), whom I regret not to see in the house because he is unable to leave his room owing to illness. Then, if the question has been discussed so much in parliament, if it has been the topic for so many years, it is futile to further study it, to appoint a committee so as to again consider and inquire into a matter which is so well known, since it has been before the house for a score of years. No good result will ensue from the appointment of this committee and the question would remain unsettled.
I am quite aware that my hon. friend, the member for Berthier-Maskinonge is sincere in his endeavours; I do not question his good intentions. However, I fully know that the fact of referring .a question to a committee is the usual way of side tracking it. I quite understand that if a first-class funeral is contemplated for an embarrassing question, a committee of the house is appointed to study the matter. I am aware of my hon. friend's intentions and the object he has in mind, nevertheless the only practical result of his motion, if adopted, will be to postpone the question; it will once more be sidetracked and buried. What we want, is not the study of a question already under consider-

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Boulanger
ation for a score of years, it is not more light on a subject which has often been discussed in the house, what we want is action, the settling of this question, once for all, so that nothing more will be heard about it. We demand the acknowledgment of the principle that Canada is a bilingual country, and that the act which governs our metal currency and notes being, by virtue of our constitution, printed and promulgated in both languages, our currency must necessarily also be stamped or printed in the two languages.
When this question is settled, once for all, nothing further will be heard about it, we shall have peace and harmony which my hon. friend mentioned just now. The best way of obtaining peace, order and harmony in this country, is by respecting the rights and privileges of all citizens. To my mind, it is not requesting too much to claim that the Trench language, one of the two official languages of this country, should appear on such an official document as our currency. Therefore, sir, so as to prevent that this motion be adjourned or again side-tracked, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) the following amendment to the resolution of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge:
That the resolution be amended by striking out all the words after "be" in the third' line and substituting in place thereof: "settled once for all and that the government should immediately take the necessary steps to conform itself to our constitution in this respect."
I have but little to add to what the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge has stated just now as to the merit of the question, or to what was said last year in the house by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre).
Bilingual currency is not an extraordinary departure, it exists in half the countries of the world. In Switzerland the money is struck in the three official languages of the country, in Italian, French and German; the currency is bilingual in Belgium, while in India, Ceylon, the Dutch Indies, Tunis, Indo China, Nigeria, in short, I might say, in half the countries of the world they have bilingual currencies. Even in Japan and certain provinces of China, currency is bilingual, not because those countries are bilingual, but in order to accommodate every one. Money is stamped both in English and Japanese, in Japan, and in Chinese and English in certain provinces of China.

For all these reasons, I move the amendment I have just read.


Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks may I say that it is my intention to make them as dispassionate and to remain as cool headed as I possibly can. In my opinion, however, there are some truths that must be told, and I intend to tell them.
When my hon. friend from Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) prepared this motion, and I think before he sent it to the clerk of the house, he was kind enough to write and ask me if I would like my name to appear as the mover. I declined, but when he asked me to second the resolution I gladly accepted. May I say that one of my principal reasons for refusing to move the resolution was that I have lived long enough to have a certain knowledge of human nature, and I knew full well that if I moved the resolution my motives and intentions would be misinterpreted. On the other hand, due to what has taken place in the house since I made mjr remarks on this question last year, and due also to what has happened outside of this chamber, I was very glad to have the opportunity to say a word or two in this connection.
I said just a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, that I knew that if I moved the resolution my intentions would be misinterpreted. I may add that in a great many cases the intentions of public men are more or less suspected, and in my opinion there are many reasons for that state of affairs. To my mind there is no doubt that the deeds of a few public men in the past have had something to do with the spread of this sentiment among the people, and it may very well be that the party press have had a good deal to do with it also. I do believe, however, that the politicians themselves have had a great deal to do with it. I do not mean to say that they have been deceiving the public, but they have brought about that attitude by their lack of sincerity on public matters. I hold in my hand a newspaper containing a letter or an article written by an hon. member of this house.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: What newspaper is that?


Samuel Gobeil: It was copied by several newspapers; the one I have is Le Devoir of November 9. The article was written by the deputy speaker of this house, the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), and is entitled Le Rouge et le Bleu, or the Red and the Blue. Time will not permit me to read

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil
this article, but anyone reading it must arrive at t'he conclusion that since confederation French Canadian public men in the province of Quebec have betrayed their nationality and their race. I want to protest against this suggestion, because I do not think it is borne out by the facts. I do not believe our public men coming from the province of Quebec have been traitors to their race; I believe they hav"e done their best. I know they have not been able to attain their desires in all ways, but it is very regrettable that such statements as are made in this article should be made by a public man of our province.


Peter John Veniot: What is the statement? Would the hon. gentleman read it?


Samuel Gobeil: No, it is too long. Anyone can read it. I am not blaming the newspaper; the article appeared in several newspapers in the province of Quebec.


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but having referred to that article I think he should read the statement which he says was made by an hon. member of this house.


Samuel Gobeil: I want to illustrate what I have just said, Mr. Speaker, by a quotation I gave last year when I spoke on the bilingual resolution. I reminded the house of the remarks made by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1907. Speaking on February 27 of last year I quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier as follows:
But I must protest against the idea that because bank notes are not printed in French as well as English, one can state that the French language is not on a footing of equality with the English.
We have our rights and we should exercise them when it is our interest to do so, but I do not think we should be pedantic and insist that on every occasion the French language should be spoken.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to add to this another paragraph of Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: Would the hon. member allow me juist a question?


Samuel Gobeil: I am sorry, but I have not time. If the hon. member wishes to speak he will have an opportunity.


Vincent Dupuis: What is that quotation from?


Samuel Gobeil: It is a quotation from a speech by Sir Wilfrid Laurier delivered in the
House of Commons on February 25, 1907. He continued:
But to affirm, as he does-
Referring to the hon. member for Mont-magny.
-that the French language should be used upon every occasion, and that every public document should be printed on one side in French and the other side in English, is, I think, going a little too far. For instance, I understand that my hon. friend wants bank notes to be printed either in French or in English. For my part I never yet saw an occasion where a bank note printed in English was not properly understood by the French people; and I am quite sure that a bank note printed in French would be understood by the English people to be exactly what it means. But I see no reason why a bank note should not be printed in French.
At the end of his remarks, Sir Wilfrid Laurier moved the following amendment:
That all the words after "that" be struck out and the following be substituted in place thereof:
"The Freueh language is, in fact, as well as by the constitution, on a footing of equality with the English language."
When last year I quoted these words from Sir Wilfrid Laurier I asked hon. members opposite to rise from their seats and tell this House of Commons, tell the province of Quebec and tell the country, whether Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a traitor to his nationality when he used those words. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what would have happened last year to the humble member for Oompton, or, for that matter, to any hon. member on this side of the house, if we had made a declaration of that kind. If I am to judge by what the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Ohevrier) said, when he spoke after me last year, I think I should probably have been lynched, had I made such a declaration, I well remember what I said; I pronounced myself in favour of the motion. I did not believe that at the time it was wise for this chamber to vote on the matter, and I have not changed my opinion. I still believe it is not a wise move to have a vote on this matter.
Referring to me the hon. member for Ottawa said:
It would have been better for this gentleman if he had never seen light.
Mr. Speaker, what would have been my fate if I had made a declaration such as Sir Wilfrid Laurier made in 1907? Was Sir Wilfrid Laurier a traitor? I am sorry to say that not one member opposite had courage to rise and vindicate the memory of his leader-not one of them, not even the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) who is not in his seat to-day. I say he should be

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil
in the house 'because he knew this motion was coming up for consideration. Not even the hon. member for Quebec East had the courage to rise and state in this chamber whether or not he believed Sir Wilfrid Laurier was or was not a traitor.
Let me tell the house what I think-and I am doing this to illustrate a point I made a few minutes ago: I consider Sir Wilfrid Laurier was not a traitor to his nationality when he made that declaration. But, knowing what he knew and knowing that it was not possible for him to give bilingual currency at the time, he had the courage to get up and to state, not the reasons why he could not do it -because he was then Prime Minister-but to make the declaration to which I have referred. I think we as French Canadians should not consider that man a traitor to his nationality and to his race who, while leader of his party, made this declaration.
Let us come a little nearer to the year 1933, which we have been discussing. May I remind hon. members of what happened in 1929? In 1929 the contract for the printing of Canadian currency, Canadian bank notes, had to be renewed. Every hon. member in this chamber knows the party which at that time held office. Accidentally or otherwise,- I am not in a position to say-during the six months preceding the renewal of the contract 34S petitions were sent from every corner of this dominion to the Minister of Finance asking for bilingual currency. What happened, Mr. Speaker? The contract was renewed. At that time hon. members from the province of Quebec were on this side of the house, but not one of them said a word; not one raised his voice. Even the hon. member for Quebec East, who was the leader of the members from that province, and acted as their tactician, did not see fit to raise his voice in answer to those petitions.


Eccles James Gott: Not even the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Samuel Gobeil: No, not one of them. I want to be fair to hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not even blame them; I do not blame them because they did not give this country bilingual currency. I feel certain they did not do it because they could not do it. I know my hon. friends opposite well enough to know that they love their nationality and their language, and if it had been possible to convince the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) the then Prime Minister, to give bilingual currency to Canada, they would have done it. But they could not do it, and I could not blame them for that. What I do blame them for, however, is their lack 
of sincerity when, in 1933, they came to this House of Commons and moved a resolution such as that which stood in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). The position hon. members opposite took last year has given the public the impression that they cannot rely upon their representatives in the House of Commons.
As I said at the beginning I do not wish to be unfair. I do believe however that there are some truths which should be told, and I intend to tell them. I wish to make a very definite statement, or accusation, if you choose to use that word-I will use the word statement. I want to say that the Liberal party of the province of Quebec, headed by the hon. member for Quebec East, last year induced the hon. member for Bellechasse to move his resolution for no other purpose than to derive political advantage.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a very well known rule of the house that an hon. member has no right to impute motives to another hon. member, and I would ask that the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) withdraw the statement he has just made.


Samuel Gobeil: I have no objection at all, Mr. Speaker, I will put it in another way.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: No, Mr. Speaker. He must withdraw it entirely.


Samuel Gobeil: I withdraw it with pleasure. Let me give the house an example of the sincerity of hon. gentlemen opposite. Did they know or did they not know that the contract was going to be renewed in 1929? Did they know that a central bank was coming sooner or later? I accuse the Liberal party of the province of Quebec, and more particularly the hon. member for Quebec East, because he is their leader, of moving the resolution last year for no other purpose than to place the government of the day in the position of having to face an adverse vote of the house so that the government could not put into effect what they failed to do in 1929.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I make the same objection to that remark.


Samuel Gobeil: Mr. Speaker, I had this information from a very reliable source when I spoke last year, but I did not want to use it because I wanted to give hon. gentlemen opposite a chance to vindicate their position and to vindicate their leader. Does the house want additional proof? All that hon. members have to do is to read the speech made by the hon. member for Bellechasse. Here is an hon. member of this house who comes

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil
before this chamber and asks its members to support his motion, and he cannot finish his speech without insulting them.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: My speech is in Hansard and it speaks for itself, and the hon. member for Compton has no right to put any such construction upon my words. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask him to withdraw.


Samuel Gobeil: My hon. friend from Belle-chasse is not the one to decide whether his speech was offensive. I say that every member on this side or on the other side of the house who did not believe as he did and who did not belong to the same race as he did felt himself insulted, whether the hon. member for Bellechasse meant it or not. As he very well said, his speech speaks for itself.
My hon. friends opposite like very much to pose as champions of the rights of the French race and of the French language, and sometimes even of the Catholic church. Let me suggest to them that if they have at heart, as they claim, the interests of the French race, there are other fields of activity where they can exercise their energy to much better advantage for their race than on this question of whether or not we shall have bilingual currency in 1933, 1934 or 1940. When I say 1933 or 1940, I say it for a purpose.
May I address myself for a moment more particularly to my English speaking colleagues of this house? It is hardly necessary for me to say to the house that I am no lawyer. We have had lots of talk this year and last year about the British North America Act in connection with this matter. Some people claim that according to that act we have the legal right to have bilingual currency in this country, while others claim that we have not. I do not care that about the British North America Act.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Gobeil: I simply appeal to common sense. I look at this question in a common sense way. Here we are a country of ten million people, over three million' of whom are of the French Canadian race. Those are the facts whether we have a right to bilingualism or not. I do not suspect for one minute that my English speaking friends are going to start a crusade and have all French Canadians slaughtered to get rid of them-not for one minute-and I am equally sure that the French Canadians have not the slightest thought of doing that to their English speaking compatriots. I am simply saying that, whether we like it or not, in this country
of ten million people, over three million are of the French Canadian race, and in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is a bilingual country and will remain a bilingual country for years to come. We have, it seems to me, certain rights over other minorities that might exist in this country because we are the first inhabitants of its soil. So why not make this country a real bilingual country? I think it would be to the advantage of all of us to have this country recognized as a bilingual country. As Sir Wilfrid Laurier so well said, where is the French Canadian who objects to an English two-dollar bill? And where is the English speaking Canadian in this chamber or outside who would object to a Dominion of Canada bill printed in French? There is not one I am sure, and so I appeal to our English speaking friends on both sides of, the house, and ask them to accede to the wish of one-third of the population of this country and give the French Canadians bilingual bills, if you like, although I do not care to mention bilingual bills particularly. Rather I say let us make this country a real bilingual country because it is bound to remain so for generations and generations to come.
My time is flying, Mr. Speaker, and as I can speak faster in French I will conclude my remarks in that language.
(Translation): I was stating, sir, that if hon. members opposite have truly at heart the interest of their race or nationality, there are for them matters of greater importance than this question of bilingual currency which will come up and is bound to come up in the near future.


Jean-François Pouliot: If this question is of minor importance why do you second the motion.


Samuel Gobeil: I would suggest to them, sir, if they are so anxious to work in the interest of their race, to travel down in groups to Quebec, so as to request the government of that province to see that the chairman of the two most important committees of the Legislative Assembly be French Canadians instead of being Jews; in the only Catholic province of Canada, as the Hon. Mr. Taschereau delights in calling it.


Mr. DUMAINE (Translation):: That has
nothing to do with the question.


Samuel Gobeil: I would
request them to use their influence with the Quebec government so that the latter may set aside for the citizens of that province what is left of our natural resources.
968	COMMONS
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil


Cyrille Dumaine: That is irrelevant.


Samuel Gobeil: -instead of continuing to alienate them to give them away for a pottage of lentils.


Vincent Dupuis: Who is the
lunatic (aliene) ?


Samuel Gobeil: If the Quebec government, sir, had had at heart the interests of the Quebec people, if our friends had at heart the interests of their fellow-citizens, what good work they could have accomplished! Instead of allowing the names of cabinet ministers of that province to appear on the prospectus of fraudulent companies which exploit the farming class, making use as they do of the names of these ministers to palm off worthless shares, the government of my province should have directed the small savings of our people towards such sound investments as our natural resources. If these hon. gentlemen are so anxious, let them show it by working in the interest of their race; I would advise them to go to Montreal-
' An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	We
shall pay a visit to the people of Compton at the next election.


Samuel Gobeil: -in order to interview the administrators of the university of Montreal-I mean the lay administrators, not the church authorities, who were made ushers, but the lay administrators themselves, or liberal laymen in charge-so as to use their influence to induce them to expel from the university the anti-jewish element which is contaminating our young men.


Mr. BOURASSA (Translation):: The antijewish element, hear, hear!


Samuel Gobeil: Let them
expel from the university the professors who are atheists, those who have no god and who take upon themselves to educate and form the minds of our youth.


Jean-François Pouliot: You are an expert on jam, but when it comes to poetry you are a failure!


Samuel Gobeil: My hon.
friend, reminds me-


Vincent Dupuis: You had better not speak about it. You will get all muddled up.


Samuel Gobeil: My hon. friend reminds me of a fable of Lafontaine: An old cunning fox having had the misfortune of losing his tail in a trap, gathered all the foxes
IMr. Gobeil.]
of the surrounding country and, with his back turned to the wall, made them a splendid speech so as to persuade them to dispense with that appendix which, in his opinion, only served to sweep the dust of roads.


Jean-François Pouliot: You do not like foxes because they do not feed on jam, they are not clients of your brother.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member has never expressed his views on the bilingual question and he would like to see his fellow-citizens do likewise.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): He never speaks!


Jean-François Pouliot: We were ready to vote and you have prevented us.


Samuel Gobeil: Had I a suggestion to make to the hon. member, it would be that he should study this fable of Lafontaine and ponder over the fate of this poor fox when his congeners noticed that he had lost his tail.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Oh! Oh!
Mr: GOBEIL (Translation): I would request you, sir, to maintain order, if you please.
(Text) The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Morand): Order!


Samuel Gobeil: I am aware,
sir, that I have shocked a few in my remarks. I heard certain comments, made by my hon. friends opposite, that this had nothing to do with the question. I beg to differ. I contend that the reason set forth by our hon. friends toward proceeding with last year's motion, was the interest they display on behalf of the people of their province; however, I can show that there are other problems than that of bilingual currency in which they can be of more service to their fellow citizens. I appeal to the educated class, to professional men, on both sides of the house, and I ask them if, frankly, they have well fulfilled their duty as citizens, they that have the task, as the elite of the people, to guide public opinion in Quebec.
May I quote, sir, a small excerpt from Cardinal Villeneuve's speech delivered a few days ago in Montreal.
It is as follows:
Gentlemen, our universities must raise the level of their religious teaching. The various faculties should be replete with it for the sake of Catholic dignity and elementary logic. Have we Catholic universities where students may graduate as lawyers or physicians, just as they would graduate elsewhere, yes or no?

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Mercier (Laurier)
I think, what I request, sir, from professional men in this house, is only rational. I state that it is incumbent on our universities, on the university of Montreal to prepare our young men for their future callings, and if our country is to emerge from this crisis without the convulsions experienced by other countries, it will be due to the Christian spirit, religious spirit and common sense taught to our youth. Is it rational, reasonable and fair to send our young men of 14, 15, to 20 years, to an institution where they are contaminated by anti-Christian, and anti-French Canadian surroundings-
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): Where?
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): In what institution?


Samuel Gobeil: At the university of Montreal-and where professors, I repeat it, atheist professors, anti-religious professors are permitted to give their lectures.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Are there professors who are atheists in the university of Montreal?


Samuel Gobeil: Yes, there are.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Name them.


Samuel Gobeil: It is unnecessary to name them, they are well known.
This bilingual question is very interesting, indeed, to us French Canadians, however, there are other spheres where we can be more useful and render better services, because bilingual currency will come sooner or later, but better soon than later.
I have myself a son who attended lectures at the university; I also have another who will probably attend them in a few years.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: Has he come out contaminated?


Samuel Gobeil: No he did not, because I did not send him to the university of Montreal. I would not care to send him there nor shall I send him there, unless things change.
Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri), (Translation): Where did you send him to the Swiss school?


Samuel Gobeil: Laval university, in Quebec.
This, sir, practically closes the remarks that I intended to make on the motion of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). I did not dwell very much on the merit of the motion itself, as to whether it will settle the problem or not. I must frankly confess that I am not fully convinced that this resolution will be the means of establishing a bilingual currency or preventing it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is that why you seconded the motion?


Samuel Gobeil: I seconded the motion, sir, because I wished to show to my province-


Jean-François Pouliot: Dirt thrown on the university of Montreal!


Samuel Gobeil: -the insincerity of the position taken by members of the opposition on this question.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): It is a pity if you are in earnest.


Samuel Gobeil: I stated that I was not fully convinced that this resolution would give the country a bilingual currency. I am convinced, however, that we shall have it without this motion; I moreover think that this bilingual currency would come even if the motion of the hon. member for Belle-chasse had not been introduced last year.
So as not to question, sir, the sincerity of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge- and I neither question it-I shall support this resolution if a vote is asked, although as I have just stated, I am not quite convinced that it will improve matters. As an hon. member opposite has just asked why I spoke on this motion, I shall state that I wanted to make clear the attitude I took last year, when a vote was taken on this question; furthermore, that I have not since changed my views and 'that I think, as I then thought, that the house should not be called upon to vote on this question.


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate but when the hon. member for BeMechasse (Mr. Boulanger) put my name to his amendment, it necessarily fell to my lot to say a word or two. After the remarks of the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) it became more incumbent on me or some hon. member on this side of the house to say something. The hon. gentleman who preceded me stated his remarks in a very benign manner and although he did not make himself absolutely clear as to his intentions in connection with the motion before the house, I think we can take it that he is in favour of a bilingual currency in this country. We on this side are in favour of such a currency, not as a matter of begging but as a matter of right.
There is a certain fact which is so selfevident that I hardly think I need mention it to hon. members, but for the sake of my argument I refer hon. members to section 133 of the British North America Act. This section recognizes the fact that there are two
970	COMMONS
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Mercier (Laurier)
languages in this country and states that either the English or the French language may be used in the debates of the houses of parliament as well as in the houses of the legislature of the province of Quebec. This section likewise recognizes the right to the use of both official languages in the records and journals of parliament. Under this section it is also given to the people of Canada to plead before the courts of the country in the language in which they are accustomed to express themselves.
The hon. member for Compton sidestepped the issue when he went back to that state of mind for which he is well known and attempted to abuse hon. members on this side for certain happenings last year. If the house will remember, the hon. member for Bellechasse moved a motion asking this house to decide that it was the right of a certain section of the Canadian population to have a bilingual currency. After a protracted discussion the hon. member for Compton moved a motion to give the resolution of the hon. member for Bellechasse the six months' hoist.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I stand corrected. His motion was that the debate be adjourned, and later the debate went on and the question was talked out. Now this year the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge, whether he recognizes the principle of the resolution or not, comes forward with a resolution to the effect that this question should be submitted to a special committee consisting of certain hon. members. 'Well, we say that either this question is worthy of consideration or it is not. I have just said that the French language is recognized under the British North America Act, and we well remember that under the previous administration the same difficulties arose that are arising here to-night. When the hon. gentleman who occupied the portfolio of Postmaster General at that time brought down a resolution to have the stamps of Canada printed in both languages, there was a great deal of talk over this resolution but it went through, and I ask any hon. member in this chamber whether anyone was done any harm 'by the fact that the stamps of the country were printed in both languages. In asking Canada to accept stamps and currency in both languages, I would say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if it took away a right from any individual in Canada, or called upon any individual in Canada to do something that might 'be detrimental to him, then a resolution along those lines should not be supported. But the
[Mr. J. A. Mercier. 1
bilingualism of the stamps in this country has done no harm to anyone. The hue and cry raised at that time has died down; the good sense of the Canadian people recognizes that no harm was done anyone, and no one objects now to having the stamps of the country printed in both official languages. The same question comes up at this time. What harm could be done anyone? Where will anyone be deprived of a right inherent in him as a Canadian citizen if our currency is stamped or printed in both languages? No difficulty was found in adapting the new issue of stamps to the needs of the country, and there will be no difficulty in adapting the currency on the lines of the resolution presented by the hon. member for Bellechasse last year, and on the lines as will be approved by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge, because I am sure he is in favour of that, and on the lines approved by the hon. member for Compton in what he said.
If the hon. member for Compton had stopped when he said that he could not see why anyone should object to having the currency of the country made bilingual, he would have met with the approval of the house. But he went off at a tangent that was not worthy of a member of the house, when he brought up-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That must be withdrawn.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must ask the hon. member to withdraw those words with reference to the hon. member for Compton.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I
necessarily bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but I say that it was with the greatest surprise and the greatest sorrow that we listened to the last remarks made by the hon. member for Compton, who got away from the issue and brought up matters absolutely foreign to the debate, without being called upon by the chair to stick to the question. I think that the remarks of the hon. gentleman-and I am speaking of those remarks he made in French at the end of his speech-should be brought to the attention of the house and of the country. The hon. member, leaving aside the merits of the resolution, said that we on this side could have used our activities for more meritorious purposes than asking that this right which is ours should be recognized by the house. He said we could find a better use for our activities by going into the province of Quebec and blaming the Quebec government for the fact that the legislature of that province named as chairmen on some of its most important committees persons who

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Fafard
were of Jewish nationality. I have no mandate to defend the government of the province of Quebec, but the members of the legislature of Quebec, the same as the members of this House of Commons, have rights there whatever their nationality may be, and if the government and the legislature of the province of Quebec see fit to name as chairmen of their committees people who are not of the two great nationalities of this country, it is no affair of ours and it is no affair of the hon member for Compton. The hon. gentleman went further and said that if we wanted to use our activities in the proper channel we should blame the Quebec government for having allowed ministers of that government to have their names appear on the prospectuses of fraudulent companies.
I repeat, I have no mandate to defend the government of the province of Quebec. It has been at the head of the administration of that province for thirty-four years. Election after election has taken place in that province and time after time the people have given their stamp of approval to the existence and the acts of that government.
The hon. gentleman goes further. He comes into this house to wash linen that may not be clean in the eyes of some, and to discuss matters that should not have been brought before the house. He spoke to us about the university of Montreal. We citizens of Montreal and of the province of Quebec regret the situation that exists there, but we say that the hon. member was absolutely wrong in his statement when he said that it was wrong for the people of Quebec to send their children to that university and put them in a milieu which was anti-Christian in its nature, where professors of atheistic views teach the youth of this country. I ask what has that to do with the resolution under consideration? I say the hon. member should have been called to order.


Samuel Gobeil: It has a lot to do with it.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: The question is whether or not the house is going to adopt a resolution asking that our currency be stamped or printed in both languages; it does not matter what happened in the university of Montreal or what happened in the legislature of the province of Quebec. I say with all due respect that this resolution asks only for a right to which the minority in this country is entitled. Granting that right will do harm to no one, will deprive no one of any of his privileges. So w'hen the hon. member for Bellechasse asked me to second his motion, Mr. Speaker, I did so with the greatest of pleasure.


Mr. J. FERNAND FAFARD (L'Islet) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I had prepared a few notes with reference to the resolution of the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette); however, as I notice it is 10.25 p.m., I think the best thing I can do so as not to delay the vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), is to sit down and thus allow enough time for the house to decide the issue.


Jean-François Pouliot: Regina will come next.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what prescience my hon. friend who has just spoken possesses, but he probably is aware of some arrangement of which I know nothing.
My attention was attracted by the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Mercier) who has just sat down. He has said that this resolution is asking for what is a matter of right under the British North America Act. It is quite true that section 91 of that act commits to the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada the subject of currency and coinage. But turning to section 133, to which my hon. friend was referring, one sees that if from the first section I have named any deduction were to be drawn as to the resolution now before the house, the matter in question is governed by section 133, which clearly and expressly sets forth the position in regard to language in this country. Section 133, which my hon. friend did not read, is as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and botli those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
I do not ask the house to accept my opinion as one on which the subject is to be decided; but it does seem to me that you have in that section a clear definition of the occasions on which the different languages may be used. It is directed to the use of the two languages not only in the courts and houses of parliament of Canada and legislature of Quebec but also in the respective records and journals of those houses and in pleading or process in the courts. And lest it be thought that perhaps printing might include something in the na-

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Geary
ture of coinage, I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the second paragraph of the section I have just read:
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
That is, it is confined, as far as printing is mentioned, to the acts of the legislature of the province of Quebec and the parliament of Canada.
That act, Mr. Speaker, is almost a legislative bargain; it was at all events the result of an agreement arrived at in the year 1867 between elements that perhaps at times were rather in conflict. It is not an act with which all the people in my province are satisfied. But it is an act under which people in my province have lived and acted and carried on their business and affairs, political or otherwise, not because they liked it in some instances, but because they had said they would do it, and they proposed to stick with their bargain and follow the provisions of this act.
I must say that last year the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) did not approach this subject in a way calculated to induce that friendly feeling which we think should obtain amongst us, because at the beginning of his address and at the end of it he used language of a highly provocative nature, language which I resented at the time but of which I did not think I should take notice. It seemed to me that I should almost lower myself by taking advantage of the opportunity then afforded to me and expressing resentment of it in words. The hon. gentleman, opening his speech at that time-the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil) referred to it, and I have here a copy of the speech-said he had hopes of convincing people whom he described in very laudatory terms but he had no hope of convincing ignorant or bigoted or silly people. Surely, Mr. Speaker, there is room in all kindliness, in all confraternity, for differences of opinion; but to describe those who venture to differ from the hon. gentleman by such words as those was, as I say, provocative rather than conciliatory, and did not tend, had we chosen to take it that way, to promote the good feeling of the debate. Then he ended by addressing hon. members of this house, if you please, as "hare brained people of the Orange Order, who have brought into this free and peaceful country the narrow and ignorant fanaticism of foreign countries." I took no notice of it; neither did any other hon. member of the house that I know of, but I draw attention to it now because the hon. gentleman spoke of it, and I say it is not conciliatory language, not the kind of language to address to any

hon. member of this house. Yet the hon. member closed his speech upon the resolution by using just those words.
The hon. member for Laurier-0ut remonit (Mr. Mercier) says it is provided in the British North America Aot that there should be this use of the two languages. If it were so I would not be one to raise a finger against it. I miight diisiliike it intensely-I do not as a matter of fact-but I would not raise my hand or my voice in gesture or whisper against what is the law, much as I or as anyone might feel that he was opposed to it. But then my friends say:	"Be agreeable; give us a concession". They treat it as though it were something we should agree to and hand to them. But, Mr. Speaker, I am not warranted in doing that. I respect the opinions of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this resolution on the other side of the house; as far as I understood them I respect entirely the views they express. I acknowledge that they are held in all sincerity and that they are entitled to express them; to their love of race credit is to be given. But I say to them: Give me credit also for the same thing; give me credit for honesty and sincerity in holding my view; do not ascribe to me fanaticism or improper motives. Let us agree with one another that n.o concession outside of the aot is warranted. The people I represent do not want and have not authorized me to give a concession, to go outside the terms of the bargain that was entered into in 1867 and under which we have lived. I do not think my hon. friend should ascribe to any desire to be disagreeable my inability to enter into such concession-giving. God knows I like to be agreeable as weffl as any man in the world, but the people who have sent me here are entitled to have me represent their views as best I can, so I do not believe I am warranted in going outside the act or in giving concessions. It is not my privilege it is not my duty.


Peter John Veniot: Will the hon. gentleman
allow me to interrupt a moment? The French people are not asking for concessions. Deal with it on the ground that we are asking it as a matter of night.


George Reginald Geary: If that is the point at issue, well and good, but I did not understand that to be the view of all hon. members. Certainly it was not the view of the hon. member who introduced the resolution last year, and it was not the view expressed by different speakers this evening or when the matter last came up for discussion. So I feel that I must carry out my duty, despite the cries of my hon. friends opposite Who derided me when I

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Sullivan
rose to speak. Perhaps that was only a natural ebullition, of spirit, and perhaps I should not pay too much attention to it, but whether one likes it or not that is the feeling one has. That is why I am bound to take the position I have expressed.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-cuoata): Mr. Speaker, I have just one question to ask some hon. gentlemen. I will ask my good friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre), my good friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois), the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay), the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon), the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Laurin), the hon. member for Ricbmond-Wolfe (Mr. Lafleche), the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette), my hon. friend from Shefford (Mr. Tetreault), my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Baribeau), my hon. friend from St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan)-


Mr. SULLIVAN:: I am going to vote for the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not my question; let me finish. I will ask my hon. friend from Mount Royal (Mr. White), that dear old gentleman whom we all like; I ask them all if they approve of the speech delivered this evening by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil), in which he said that one of his children had been contaminated in the university of Montreal.


Samuel Gobeil: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I never said that.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was said in French, and I repeat it now in English in order to secure an explanation.


Samuel Gobeil: I never said it.


Jean-François Pouliot: He said he had not been contaminated because he had not been sent to Montreal university.


Samuel Gobeil: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is what he said; there may be a little difference in the words but the meaning is the same. I ask all the hon. gentlemen I have named to be courageous enough to answer my question yes or no.


Samuel Gobeil: I spoke for myself.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the hon. member for Long Lake (Mr. Cowan) ; I ask the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull), who prevented a vote last year by his speech at the last moment-and he a member of the Ku Elux Klan-when we on this side of the
house asked for a chance to vote. I ask them if they support the words of the hon. member for Compton. Sir, this is political propaganda which is brought once more to the House of Commons in order to create prejudice among the different races in this country.
Now, sir, I shall conclude my speech. I know that none of these hon. gentlemen will answer my question. No mtsnber from the province of Quebec and no member belonging to the Ku Klux Klan will answer my question, though I give them an opportunity to state their position.
Mr. JOHN A.SULLIVAN (St.Ann): Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken in this house very often. I am a graduate of Montreal university; my son, a lawyer, graduated from the same university, and I am quite sure my hon. friend from Compton (Mr. Gobeil) went beyond what he intended to say when he stated that he would not send his son to the university of Montreal. I am sure that was not his meaning, because we on this side of the house believe that the university of Montreal is certainly worthy of the French Canadian race, of the province of Quebec and of Canada.
I want to add just a few words. My hon. friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) said the British North America Act did not give us the right to have bilingual currency in Canada. Possibly this is true in the strict letter of the law, but at the present time everyone is asking for an amendment to the British North America Act. This government can do anything it wishes except change a man into a woman. If this right does not exist under the British North America Act, I ask the house to pass a resolution ateking for an amendment of that act so that we may have bilingual currency in this country.
In order to understand the situation we must study the history of Canada, which was ceded to Great Britain in 1763. The battle of the Plains of Abraham took place in 1759; Canada was surrended in 1760, and finally the Treaty of Paris was signed in 1763. At that time there were sixty thousand French Canadians living in this country; in 1774 there were about one hundred thousand, while there were only five or six hundred English people in Canada. Sir Guy Carleton, later Lord Dorchester, one of the greatest men in history, certainly understood the situation. Sir Guy Carleton, governor of Canada, went to England and explained the situation in this country to the British parliament. It is one of the miracles of history that the British people, after having failed to keep in one community those of
974	COMMONS
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gagnon
tiheir own race who had settled in what is now the United States, were given the rare chance, the great advantage, of establishing a foothold in this territory. I say without fear of contradiction, and history will prove my contention, that Lord Dorchester, by obtaining for Canada the Quebec Act of 1774, performed the greatest service that could have been performed for this country and the British Empire. That act gave to the French Canadians the right to follow their own religion and to be governed by their own civil laws; it gave the priests the right to exercise their ministry; and that act kept the French Canadians together when Canada was attacked by the United States. But for the Quebec Act of 1774 this country would belong to the United States, and there would be no British Empire.
I will conclude my remarks, sir, by addressing myself to every element in this chamber, French or English speaking Canadians, Roman Catholics and all other denominations. I ask only one thing: I ask every member of this house to read history and be inspired by it. If we want to keep this country united let us forget our differences; let us see that all races profit by our good and proper administration of the affairs of our country.


Onésime Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the house for a few moments. First let me say, however, that in view of the fact that my hearing is not as good as it might be I did not hear everything said by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). Nevertheless, Whatever his expression of opinion might have been, I feel I must dissociate myself from any criticism against the distinguished personnel of the university of Montreal for Whom, in Quebec, irrespective of any party affiliations, we have nothing but the greatest admiration and respect.
Sometimes it is sickening and discouraging when, on occasions when French Canadians on both sides of the house ought to present a united front in order to appeal to the sense of justice of the majority of Canadians, we lose our time and discredit ourselves by hurling insults at each other and indulging in personalities which, on occasions, call for action by Mr. Speaker. We ought not to resurrect old party quarrels; as I have said, We ought to be united in asking from the majority in this House of Commons a recognition of the letter of the British North America Act and, if not the letter at least the spirit. (Because, as has been said, sometimes when the letter is not dear the spirit vivifies.

I must disapprove of the expression of opinion voiced to-night by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) who stated that he is not ready to make concessions. I think we ought to rise to higher ground. Listening to such statements from him I remembered that only on Saturday last, the day before yesterday, there was invited to the city of Quebec a distinguished educationalist from the university of Toronto, Mr. Dunlop, director of public relations, who appeared before the Canadian Club on Saturday afternoon and pleaded for cooperation between the Canadian races, and the recognition of the French language in Canada. He stated that in the university of Toronto lessons are given in the French language not only by distinguished French speaking professors from Canada but by professors from Paris. He stated that over the radio inter-university debates are being held in the French language between the university of Toronto and universities in the province of Quebec. He stated, further, that this week there would be a bilingual debate between the students of the university of Winnipeg, Manitoba, and those of Laval university at Quebec.
If we were basing our contentions only on the letter of the British North America Act, would we be on safe ground? I say yes, but I understand some people might say no. I repeat we ought not only to look at the letter of the contract, but we must also look at the spirit of it. Let us take inspiration from the eloquent words expressed in the Canadian House of Commons in 1890 by one of the greatest of the men who have led the Conservative party, Sir John A. Macdonald. His words are as follows:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in certain quarters that by any mode whatever there should' be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to make it inferior to the other.
I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible. The statement that has been made so often that this is a conquered country is "a propose de rien." Whether it was conquered or ceded we have a constitution under which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, having equal rights of every kind, of language, of religion, of property, of person.
There is no paramount race in this country. There is no conquered race in this country, we are all British subjects and those who are not English are none the less British subjects on that account.	,
Let us be inspired by the words of Sir John A. Macdonald; let us discuss and study the rights of the French language on a broad and higher plane. In that respect, Mr. FEBRUARY 26, 1934
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Turnbull
Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall gladly vote for the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: The same as last year.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: Mr. Speaker, some comment has been made regarding the fact that I spoke on a similar motion a year ago. If I remember the circumstances correctly, we have spent at least ninety-five per cent of the time allotted to this debate in listening to hon. members from the province of Quebec, and it does seem strange if one English speaking person from the rest of Canada should not be allowed five or ten minutes to express his views, without being subjected to criticism. My hon. friends opposite say: Why should this matter have been talked out-as they call it-in 1933, when they were anxious to have a vote? Why was it necessary to wait until 1933 to have their great anxiety satisfied? Where were those hon. gentlemen between the years 1905 and 1911? Where were they and their predecessors in this house? Where were hon. gentlemen opposite and their predecessors between 1922 and 1929, if they were so anxious to have this legislation passed? Why did they wait until 1933 to bring the matter up?
If I have time I shall refer to some of the remarks made by their leaders, with respect to action lion, gentlemen have taken in the debate this evening and in that of 'last year. I want to say this, that so far as I could judge the debate this evening, with my limited knowledge of the French language-I shall read it to-morrow morning and get it more clearly-it seemed to me more like a political fight among members from the province of Quebec as to who would get the most kudos from the province of Quebec for raising this question. If there had been any great desire to have this legislation passed in days gone by, it would have been shown by the action of hon. members. I should like to place on record the action taken in 1905 by the Liberal party with respect to this very question. I am sorry the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) is not in his seat. It is a matter of comment that he has not been here this evening to listen to the debate. I am sorry also that the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) who is said to be the champion of the French speaking people, is not in his seat to-night.
The matter was formally raised on May 21, 1905, and is reported at page 6826 of Hansard
for that year. Further reference to the matter was made by the hon. member for Montmagny in the debate which took place in the session of 1906-7. I wish to place on record questions asked of the government of which Sir Wilfrid Laurier was leader, and which had his approval, or they would not have been, placed on Hansard. The answers were given by Mr. W. S. Fielding, the then Minister of Finance. The questions are in these terms:
1.	Do any grave reasons of state exist that might prevent the Minister of Finance from having the dominion one dollar and two dollar notes or all other bank notes printed simultaneously in English and French?
2.	Are they unaware in the Finance department that the two languages are official in Canada?
3.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to rectify in the future this state of things by ordering that those bank notes be printed in both languages, English and French?
The answer by Mr. Fielding is as follows:
There is nothing in the British North America Act or in any act of the parliament of Canada which requires or contemplates the printing of dominion notes in two languages.
The Finance department has not contemplated the advisability of any departure from the practice which has existed under all governments from the beginning of confederation down to the present time.
That was the official statement of the Liberal party on this question in 1905. That position has not been departed from by the Liberal' party in this house since then. No matter what hon. gentleman opposite may say in this debate here to-night, they cannot convince their own party that the answer given in 1905 was wrong. They cannot get the support of their own members on this question and they probably owe me a debt of gratitude for talking till eleven o'clock so that the rest of the party will not be put on record on this question to-night.
There is only one solution of this question, Mr. Speaker, and that is the solution that I think was suggested by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) to-night, the resolution he might have suggested last year, and that is that the government of this country in the printing of bills, notes, currency and all these other departmental forms follow the constitution of this country and the British North America Act. If it is necessary to find out what the British North America Act means, there are ways and means of doing so. I maintain that whatever rights the French language has in this dominion there is not the right to have pieces of paper printed by this government with both French and English on it. There is the right to have the statutes printed in French; there is the right
976	COMMONS
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Turnbull
to have the statutes printed in English, but there is no right to have a bilingual set of statutes. There may be a right under the act to have bills printed in French; there may be a right under the act to have bills printed in English; but there can be no two questions about it that there is no right under the act to have bills printed in both English and French-that is bilingual bills. I am prepared to go further and say with regard to postage stamps, to which my hon. friend referred, and other departmental forms, that there is no legal right under the act to have them printed in the two languages. You may have French stamps; you may have English stamps; you may have French post office forms, or you may have English post office forms; but you have no right under the act to have them printed in both the English and the French language.
Whatever the British North America Act says, whatever the rights are under that, when they are decided upon I am prepared to abide by them. If they say we are to have bilingual currency, well and good. I do not wish to take from the French people one single jot or tittle of what was given them by the British North America Act. There is my hon. friend from Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) who says: We want concessions if the British North America Act does not give us enough. Then there is my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) who says: No, we do not want any concessions; we only want what the act says. What are we to believe, Mr. Speaker, in regard to what they desire? Those are the two opinions that I heard expressed here during this debate.
Let me say that in speaking as I do tonight I am not one of those who were referred to in the debate a year ago by the hon. inember for Bellechasse; I am not one of the bigoted class. I do not belong to the Orange order; I do not belong to the Ku Klux Klan;
I do not belong to the Knights of Columbus, and I am not speaking as the representative of any one of them, I have the greatest admiration for them all, but I do not belong to any of them. I am speaking here as the member for the constituency of Regina, and expressing the views which the people of Regina would wish to have me express on this question which is before the house.
I have heard it said that the French language has rights in this country derived from treaties. I have looked at the Peace of Paris and at the terms of capitulation of 
Quebec and at the terms of capitulation of Montreal, and there is not one word in any of those three documents with regard to the use by the French speaking people of the French language in this country. So whatever rights the language might have in this country do not depend at all upon the terms of treaties or the terms of capitulation, but must rest upon statutory laws subsequently created by competent authority. As I say, in standing by the terms of the constitution, in standing by the terms of the British North America Act, I am in good company. .
And may I say that the feeling that exists in certain parts of Canada is not a feeling of resentment against the French language. In the province of Saskatchewan there is no person who would prohibit the use of the French language anywhere in the province by anyone who wants to use it. As a matter of fact, the provincial government is teaching the Frenph language both by correspondence and by lkssc>fs over the radio in the province of Saskatchewan, and yet Saskatchewan has been represented as the enemy of the French people. We do object to being made to use the French language, and we do object, owing to acts of administration by the government of this country, not this government, but previous governments, and this government as well, I might add, to being compelled to use the French language when we desire to use the English. With regard to post office forms in Saskatchewan, for instance, a French postinaster may send into the central office and get post office forms printed wholly in French. An English postmaster cannot send into the central office and get forms printed wholly in English. He has to take them in the two languages. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite from Quebec if they think that is fair. Then they ask us for further concessions. I say it is not fair. I say along with the leaders of both parties for many years that I stand by the constitution, and I think that is the only solution of this question we will ever get that will be a reasonable solution.
I want to refer in the few moments that are left to me to a resolution which was passed by the government of Canada and the opposition combined on the eighteenth day of February, 1890, which will be found in Hansard of that year at pages 881 and 882. Part of the resolution is in these words:
That, on the contrary, this house declares its adherence to the said covenants-

Canned Salmon Exports
That is, the covenants of the British North 'America Act:
-and its determination to resist any attempt to impair the same.
I stand in my place and say, as Sir John A. Macdonald said, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, as Sir John Thompson said, as the Hon. Edward Blake said, and as other great leaders of the Liberal party have said, that I adhere to the covenants of the British North America Act and to my determination to resist any attempt to impair them. That is the position I take here this evening.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 27, 1934