[Stage Direction]
First report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.-Mr. MacLean (Prince).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) moved that the recommendations contained in the third report of the standing committee on industrial and international relations, presented to the house on Monday, June 15, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved that the second and final report of the special committee on the marketing of wheat and other grains, presented on Thursday, June 11, be concurred in.
Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word before the
TMr. Bennett.]
report presented by the special committee is concurred in, because the producers of western Canada may regard it as very brief. I think it is only fair to say to the public and to hon. members of this house who were not members of the committee that the committee were of the unanimous opinion that nothing should be done to injure or jeopardize the sale of our wheat and that nothing should be done to handicap the board in its selling operations. The evidence was somewhat confusing, but once the majority of the committee had decided that a royal commission should be set up to review the evidence taken and to carry on further investigation, it was felt that no useful purpose could be served by further discussion or by going into more detail with respect to the evidence.
It is true the report is brief. One paragraph in particular might be termed a majority and minority opinion. It states that there was no conclusive evidence that the board had protected1 speculative shorts, and it states also that the committee found no conclusive evidence on that point. I think this brief explanation in due to the public and I do not believe any useful purpose can be served by further reviewing the evidence. With this explanation, I am prepared to concur in the report.


Mr. HARRY LEADER (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a word or two, having been a member of the committee appointed to investigate this particular question. I am glad that we brought in a unanimous report and that a further investigation is to be undertaken to find the best method of marketing our grain. May I take this opportunity to present a resolution passed by one of the farmer organizations in my constituency. It is typical of others that I have received. I received this particular one some months ago and have taken up the matter with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler). The resolution reads:
That whereas there being a guaranteed minimum price established for wheat, and no protection afforded coarse grainB, we are of the opinion that unless there is a radical change in the coarse grain situation before seeding time 1936, there will be a very large increase in the acreage seeded to wheat.
Therefore we the shareholders of this association strongly urge that the principles contained in section 14 of the Canadian Wheat Board Act be applied by which coarse grains may be brought under the operation of the Canadian wheat board.
A. W. Hawker,
Secretary,
Oakville Elevator Association.
If I may be allowed a moment or two, I should like to say a word with regard to the

Wheal and Other Grains
grain situation. The people in the district from ivhich I come and throughout the province of Manitoba realize the danger of overproduction in wheat and have been switching gradually to the growing of barley. The barley crop in western Canada is becoming increasingly important. If we could produce more barley and less wheat, I think all hon. members will agree that it would be in the interests not only of the farmers but of the whole of Canada. We can produce a splendid quality of barley in western Canada; all we require is a market for this grain. There has been considerable investigation with regard to the finding of markets for our barley. During recent years the government of Manitoba has endeavoured to find 'better markets for barley. Doctor Grant was appointed in 1929 to investigate the possibilities in this regard.
The British brewers made a survey of Canada with regard to the quality of barley grown here. They found that our barley was of a superior grade and could be used for malting purposes, but they also found that the best grades were being used by the Canadian and American brewers. They were getting only the poorer grades. They complained that the malting barley they were getting from the terminal elevators in Canada was mixed and unsuitable for malting purposes. They found that the 3 C.W. barley contained many weed seeds and frosted grains and other foreign matter which made it useless as a malting barley. The eastern Canadian farmers have declared that our 3 C.W. barley contains too many weed seeds. They do not want to buy this barley even for the purpose of hog feed. I should like to read an extract from an editorial which appeared in the Manitoba Tribune, as follows:
British maltsters are not the only ones to complain. Speaking to the national barley committee this week in Toronto, Professor R. G. Knox of the Guelph agricultural college, said that if western growers wanted a better eastern market they would have to send out a product free from weed seeds. "The great prevalence of weed seeds in western barley," he said, "was a serious handicap to its sale to Ontario hog raisers as feed.
What we want is another grade of barley, suitable for malting purposes, which will be stored in special bins in the terminal elevators where it will be available to foreign buyers and be guaranteed as suitable for malting purposes.
I should like to place on record a resolution passed by the Portage local of the United Farmers of Manitoba. I shall hurry with this, sir, as I know you do not expect any extended remarks at this time. It reads:
Be it resolved whereas the descriptions and definitions of "statutory grades" of barley are reproduced in accordance with schedule one of the new Canada Grain Act on grades of barley, whereas the act reads "number three extra six row barley shall weigh 48 pounds and equal in value for malting purposes to
O.A.C. '21," we find that many samples of malting varieties going forward for inspection only grade three C.W. on account of being under the weight of 48 pounds and whereas many cars being inspected that weigh 46 pounds to 47 pounds are graded three C.W. barley or lower according to weight, it is resolved at this meeting that a new grade of six row barley be established for malting barley that weighs between 46 and 48 pounds. We suggest a grade of 4 extra six row barley. Due to the fact that the existing spreads between three C.W. barley of malting variety and three extra six row barley of malting variety have been too wide during the past two years, running from 2 to 35 cents per bushel, with only one pound difference in the weight, it is therefore apparent that the malting companies have derived considerable values on malting barley under the weight of 48 pounds.
Respectfully submitted to your government.
It is a well known fact that barley weighing less than 48 pounds to the bushel is being used by Canadian maltsters. Barley weighing 47 pounds is fit for the maltsters and is being used by Canadian maltsters at the present time, but simply because our regulations do not allow barley weighing less than 48 pounds to the bushel to be classed as six-row, we are losing a special market which would be available. This resolution therefore asks the government to give us a new grade between six-row and 3 C.W., weighing less than 48 pounds and guaranteeing a purer quality for the buyers overseas. I suggest that this barley be special binned on reaching the terminal elevators and not mixed with foreign matter as I have indicated in my remarks. I have taken the question up with the Minister of Trade and Commerce and he in turn has taken it up with the head of the grain commission, who has pointed out that the grain act will be completely overhauled next year when this matter will be taken into consideration. There is nothing to prevent the grain board from giving us the benefit of this new grade in order to take care of the 1936 crop, and for that reason I am on my feet, urging the government to see that this is undertaken.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Big-gar):: Representing as I do a large grain
producing constituency in western Canada, I wish to concur in the remarks just made by the preceding speakers, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) and the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader),
Questions

but particularly would I impress upon the government the fact that in western Canada there is a desire that the government shall make an unqualified pronouncement in favour of continuing a wheat board, and setting an adequate price for wheat and other grains. That is the issue which is engaging the minds of the producers of western Canada at the present time, and I hope this will be done at no far distant date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Will the Department of Trade and Commerce shortly send a commercial mission abroad, as intimated to the house by the minister on June 8, instant?
2.	What are the names and the duties of the individuals who will take part in this mission ?
3.	What countries will he visited?
4.	On broad lines, what will be the objects of this mission?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The director of the commercial intelligence service and the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
3.	Great Britain and continental countries which cannot yet be definitely named.
4.	To discuss and promote trade relations.



' QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: 1.	How much rental has the federal government paid for the post office building at Broadview, Saskatchewan, since the first of November last to date?
2.	How much has been paid by the government for the caretaking and heating of the new post office at Broadview, since the first of November last to date?
3.	Did the government call for tenders for the installing of equipment in connection with the said post office?
4.	If so, on what date were tenders called?
5.	Who received the' contract and for what amount?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled herewith.


FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. LECLERC:: 1.	What is the number of men employed in the forest industry in Canada?

2.	What is the number of men employed in the textile industry in Canada?


Mr. EULER:: Return tabled herewith.


PENSION TRIBUNAL-NEW BRUNSWICK SITTINGS
Mr. PATTERSON:: 1. What were the names of the pensions tribunal commissioners who conducted the soldiers' pensions tribunal in session at Fredericton, New Brunswick, on December 22, 1930?
2. What were the names of all pensions tribunal officials, employees, doctors, pension advocates, clerks, stenographers or any others serving in any capacity whatsoever or in any way connected with the proceedings of the above mentioned pensions tribunal in session at Fredericton in the month of December, 1930?
3.	(a) At what other places did the pensions tribunal hold sessions in the province of New Brunswick, outside of the city of Fredericton, from 1930 to 1933 inclusive; (b) what was the complete personnel of each such sitting of the pensions tribunal in the province of New Brunswick from the year 1930 to 1933, both years inclusive?
4.	What were the salaries and expenses, per annum, of each such person in any way connected with the pensions tribunal in the province of New Brunswick from 1930 to 1933, both years inclusive, whether employed full or part time; whether employed only at actual sittings of the pensions tribunal, or at any work in connection with the same, before, at, or after the actual sittings of the pensions tribunal, at or in any place in the province of New Brunswick in the above stated years?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams or any other correspondence or documents between the Canadian Radio Commission and the Moncton broadcasting station or any other party ^ or parties relative to any complaint or complaints against Reverend Henri Lanetin, in connection with his broadcasting over the Moncton radio station and the subsequent investigation, if any, and the suspension of the said Reverend Henri Lanetin.



HAMILTON POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. WILTON (Hamilton West):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Elliott) as to whether he can say why J. M. Semmens, who for the past twenty-four years has been in charge of a subpostal station located at

References to Supreme Court
423 King street west, Hamilton, during which time there has never been a single complaint as to his efficiency-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Herbert Earl Wilton: was advised the day before yesterday-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.


Herbert Earl Wilton: I am asking a direct question, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Edward Foster: The question is one that should be put on the order paper.


Herbert Earl Wilton: It is a simple question and it is important that I should get an answer to it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What is the
question ?


Herbert Earl Wilton: I should like to know why this man was advised that he was dismissed from the service, the postal station having been transferred yesterday to Reynolds' drug store across the street, Mr. Reynolds having been appointed postmaster to replace Mr. Semmens.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Postmaster General):: I think perhaps I can answer the question just as well now as ask that it stand as a notice. My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice that he would ask the question, and I may tell him that the change was made with a view to giving the patrons of that subpost office improved service, including better accommodation and longer hours per day. The post office was formerly in a grocery store which closed at six o'clock in the evening and it has now been placed in a drug store that remains open until eleven.
SOCKEYE SALMON TREATY On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: May I ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Michaud) a question. What is the present status of the Fraser river sockeye salmon treaty, in view of the announcement in to-day's press of ratification in the United States senate?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I regret that the Minister of Fisheries is not in the house at the moment. Perhaps my hon. friend will allow the question to stand, to be answered to-morrow.



REFERENCES TO SUPREME COURT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Melfor.t):: Has the Minister of Justice any idea when we may expect a report from the supreme court on certain legislation placed before it?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I have just been handed a summary of the decisions that were given this afternoon in the supreme court. It is as follows:
1.	Reference re section 498A of the criminal code.
The court is unanimously of the opinion that as to subsections (b) and (c) the enactment is not ultra vires.
As to subsection (a), in the opinion of the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Rinfret, Mr. Justice Davis and Mr. Justice Kerwin, the enactment is not ultra vires; in the opinion of Mr. Justice Cannon and Mr. Justice Crocket that subsection is ultra vires.
2.	Reference re the Dominion Trade and Industry Commission Act.
Our answer is directed only to those sections of the act upon which we had the benefit of argument.
As to section 14, that section, in the unanimous opinion of the court, is ultra vires.
As to sections 16 and 17, these sections are, in the unanimous opinion of the court, not ultra vires.
As to section 20, that section, in the unanimous opinion of the court, is not ultra vires in so far as the enactments enumerated in section 2(h) may be intra vires.
As to sections 18 and 19 these sections, in the unanimous opinion of the court, are ultra vires.
As to sections 21 and 22, these sections (as applicable to the criminal offences created by such of the enactments enumerated in section 2(h) as may be intra vires), in the unanimous opinion of the court, are not ultra vires.
3.	Reference re the Employment and Social Insurance Act.
Mr. Justice Rinfret, Mr. Justice Cannon, Mr. Justice Crocket and Mr. Justice Kerwin are of the opinion that the statute is ultra vires; the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Davis are of the opinion that the statute is intra vires.
4.	Reference re the Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act; The Minimum Wages Act, and The Limitation of Hours of Work Act.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Davis and Mr. Justice Kerwin are of the opinion that (except as to section 6 of The Minimum Wages Act) the statutes are intra vires; Mr. Justice Rinfret, Mr. Justice Cannon and Mr. Justice Crocket are of the opinion that the statutes are ultra vires.
5.	Reference re Natural Products Marketing Act and Amendment.
The statute, in the unanimous opinion of the court, is ultra vires.
6.	Reference re the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act. [DOT]
379S	COMMONS
Bank of Canada-Mr. Woodsworth
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Rinfret, Mr. Justice Crocket, Mr. Justice Davis and Mr. Justice Kerwiu are of the opinion that the statute is intra vires; Mr. Justice Cannon is of the opinion that the statute, except _ section 17, is ultra vires and that section 17 is intra vires.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Arising out of that question, will the Minister of Justice state before the house prorogues whether it is the intention of the government to appeal the decisions -of the court?


Ernest Lapointe: If my hon. friend will restrain his eagerness, I think the first thing to do will be to read the reasons which have been given.
Mr. HEAPS; What I said was, would the minister be prepared to make a statement Defore the house prorogues.


Ernest Lapointe: I cannot 3ay until I have seen the reasons for the decision.



YIMY PILGRIMAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview); Two months ago I asked the government if they were prepared to consider sending all the returned soldier members of the House of Commons to the Vimy Ridge unveiling ceremony. The reply then given was that they would consider it. I should like to know whether they will favourably consider sending these returned men; there are not very many of them who could go. The Ontario legislature are sending all the soldiers in their house. We can afford to send a big delegation to the League of Nations; why not here?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are some further supplementary estimates to be introduced, which will1 include an item relative to the pilgrimage to Vimy. At that time the government may attempt to give an answer on this matter to my hon. friend.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 16, consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Dunning for the third reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre); Yesterday the house spent the entire day in discussing what words should appear on the bank notes, or more properly speaking, what languages should appear on
[Mr. McLean.1
the bank notes. It seems to me there are other aspects of this legislation that are of immensely greater importance to the people of Canada, and which we are in danger of overlooking almost entirely. For some years we in our group have urged a government owned and controlled central bank; indeed we have gone so far as to urge the nationalization of our entire banking system. I admit frankly that unless the monetary policy is changed, government control of the central bank would not bring the desired results. I admit further that under this or any other government dominated by capitalist ideals no fundamental changes are likely. But I would urge that government control is a step at least in the right direction, and again, that a central bank controlled by the government would be necessary in order to carry out the policies which we in the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation advocate.
It is not my purpose to-day to make any extended speech. Our position has been stated on the resolution and in the committee. May I summarize what we have tried to say? We believe that this central bank as constituted cannot perform the functions which a central bank should perform. We believe that this legislation is a surrendering of sovereignty in the monetary field. Whether the parliament of Canada ever had that sovereignty is, perhaps, a matter to be discussed; but in any case we have in the central bank a more powerful instrument than w-e have ever had before, and as we see it, this instrument is being-given over into private hands and Canada cannot be sovereign in that monetary field under the existing arrangement. Again, this legislation grants special1 privileges and powers to a group of shareholders who constituted a very small proportion of the citizens of Canada. Further, this legislation does not, as we see it, implement the promises made by the Liberals during the election. Yesterday some of the Liberal members claimed that they had a mandate with regard to what language should be placed on government bills. I cannot see that they had any mandate with regard to that matter, .because it was not generally discussed at the election, but I think they did have a mandate to carry out certain financial or monetary reforms. Undoubtedly all over the country many Liberals said that if their party were returned to power we shoulcj have a national central bank. I do not want to go over the field again. I want just to put that on record. In my judgment the general belief was that if the Liberals were returned

Bank nj Canada-Mr. Woodsworth
to power we would have a nationally owned and controlled central bank. I do not believe this legislation gives us that.
So far there has not been an opportunity formally to place our position on record or to ascertain what support it has in this house. I attempted during the resolution stage to move an amendment, but it was ruled out of order. Possibly I could have moved on the second reading a resolution similar to that which I propose to move to-day. As a matter of fact the Speaker passed so quickly over the second reading that, although I was in the house and paying attention to the proceedings, I had not the opportunity to move my resolution. So I take this occasion to place our position on record.
As it has become almost the practice since the Liberals have been in power with such a large majority to challenge, as being out of order practically any motion that is made-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: -I take this opportunity of reading the rule in this regard. I quote from Beauchesne, page 217, section 755:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or; differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress; or seeking further information in relation to the bill by committees, commissioners, the production of papers or other evidence or the opinion of judges.
In my resolution I propose to express an opinion declaratory of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of this bill. I know this rule refers to the second reading-


Mr. DUNNING:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. gentleman says "hear, hear." I rather imagined that would be said, so I should like to give another citation, paragraph 814 at page 230 of Beauchesne:
On the third reading of a bill such amendments as have already been described in reference to a second reading may be proposed to the question for now reading the bill the third time.
In order to make quite sure-


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Would the hon. gentleman please complete that paragraph?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so.
A member may then move that the third reading take place "this day six months." The question for the third reading may be negatived, but as previously stated (in reference to the second reading) such a vote is not fatal to the bill.
In order to make sure that the clerk of the house, who is our authority, is on safe ground I should like to give one more authority that will meet the incipient objection that is in the mind of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We do not know what the amendment is as yet.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so; I am preparing the way.


Charles Avery Dunning: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend is out of order right now, because he is not discussing the bill before the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am discussing the bill; I am presenting my reasons for moving my amendment at this time. I read from Bourinot at page 530, under the general heading Third Reading:
Or the house may be asked, at this as at any other stage of a bill, to divide on a resolution relative to the principle of the whole measure.
My amendment has reference to the principle. The suggestion has been made that hon. members have not the amendment before them, so I shall be glad to read it at this stage:
That the bill be not now read a third time, because it does not provide for complete government ownership of the Bank of Canada.
That is a clear statement of a principle adverse to or differing from the principle involved in the bill, and hon. members will now understand why I ihave given these citations from our recognized parliamentary authorities. I could have moved to refer this bill back to the committee of the whole, as we so frequently do, for further consideration or with instructions that the committee have power to do certain things, but I knew perfectly well that if we offered any fundamental changes in a bill affecting finance we would be confronted immediately with the old objection that no private member may move to alter the financial structure of a bill.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the house should not be deprived of its right of expressing an opinion. I recognize clearly that no private member may introduce an amendment involving increased expenditure. The amendment which I introduced at the resolution stage did not involve increased expendi-
3800	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Woodsworth
ture. That was conceded. It did involve taking over all the stock, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) made a great play on the fact that the bill provided for only t'he majority of the stock being taken over, although taking over all the stock would involve a lesser expenditure than taking over a majority of the stock.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Charles Avery Dunning: I wonder if my hon.
friend would permit a question. Is he aware of the fact that the new government in New Zealand, which he so frequently quotes and which has bought the stock of that bank, paid a great deal more than par for it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know it paid
more but I am speaking of the par value, and further I am speaking regarding a point of order. The minister did not rely upon that particular point of order but found refuge in another, that since this bill in its original form had been approved by the governor general we could not make any alterations in it. Well, that seems to me to be carrying the powers of the governor general to an altogether unwarranted degree. However, it was on such grounds that my amendment was ruled out of order. I suggest now that, thanks to the wisdom of our ancestors or our predecessors in parliament, we may still express our opinions, unless indeed accepted rules are to be entirely disregarded.
We believe that this bill is designed to somewhat improve the situation; it looks in the direction of greater government control, and for that reason we propose to vote for the bill. I should like that to be understood. On the other hand we do not believe the bill goes far enough. I should like to point out that my amendment, if carried, will not kill the bill. There are always some timorous souls in the house who are afraid of what might happen if tlhe bill were to be killed. I do not think there is any danger that the amendment will pass while the government have such a large majority, but these members think they should vote as though the amendment might carry and they fear that then the bill might be killed. Let me reassure them. If the amendment carries the bill is not killed: its passage is simply delayed. On that point I should

like to direct attention to a rule appearing in May at page 392. May is here speaking of the second reading of a bill, though as I have said our authorities, both Beauchesne and Bourinot, state that what is true of the second reading is also true of the third reading. May says:
It must be borne in mind, however, that the resolution, if agreed to, does not arrest the progress of the bill, the second reading of which may be moved on another occasion.
The effect of such an amendment is merely to supersede the question for now reading the bill a second time;-
Let me note that the "now" is in italics.
And the bill is left in the same position as if the question for now reading the bill a second time had been simply negatived or superseded by the previous question. The house refuses, on that particular day, to read the bill a second time, and gives its reasons for such refusal: but the bill is not otherwise disposed of. Such being the technical effect of a resolution, so carried, it need scarcely be said that its moral and political results vary according to the character and importance of the resolution itself, the support it has received, and the means there may be of meeting it, in the further progress of the bill.
It may be that I have adopted an unusual course in presenting these rules of order at this stage, but, as I said before, it has become almost a practice for the government to object to any amendment that may be moved from this side of the house. I think we are on sound ground in this instance. We are attempting to express our opinion by means provided by the rules of the house, the only means that I can see by which we as a minority group may put our opinion officially on record, and may ascertain, as I said earlier, what support we may have. I therefore move, seconded by Mr. Heaps:
That the bill be not now read a third time, because it does not provide for complete government ownership of the Bank of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member's amendment I think is out of order. In the first place it is a direct negative. The motion is that the bill be now read a third time. My hon. friend's amendment is that the bill be not now read a third time. If he does not wish the motion carried all he has to do is to vote against the third reading. The argumentative part of his amendment does not alter the fact that it is a direct negative; it gives a reason, but that does not affect the substantive part,


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask if we are not on the order as to whether the bill be now read a third time?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, that is the motion.

Bank o) Canada-Point oj Order


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I have a perfect right to move that it be not now read a third time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The motion is not in order, unless my hon. friend adds to his amendment that the bill be read six months hence or other like words. I also think the amendment is out of order because it purports to present an alternative proposal, that is, complete government ownership. In that respect it differs, as was pointed out at a previous stage of the discussion, from the essential principle of the bill.
My hon. friend has quoted Beauchesne as authority two or three times. May I particularly point out that Beauchesne at page 126, citation 394, has the following:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (e) by inserting or adding other words.
This motion of my hon. friend does not do any of those three things, therefore it is not in order as an amendment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker; I need not read again the passages which I have previously read. It is clearly provided that special reasons may be given for not now reading the bill. The authority the Prime Minister himself referred to, Beauchesne, page 217, citation 755, says:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, ...
Further, let me give one example of a number given by May, at page 393:
Where the resolution relates to a matter which is incidental to the legislation intended by the bill, such a resolution does not arrest its progress, provided the principle affirmed can be considered at a further stage. Thus, on the sixth May, 1872, on going into committee upon the education (Scotland) bill, a resolution was carried, affirming that instruction in the holy scriptures was an essential part of education and ought to be provided for in the bill. To give effect to this resolution, an amendment was moved in committee; the amendment was negatived; and thus the resolution of the house was practically reversed 

a proceeding, however, in strict conformity with parliamentary usage.
There is a case in which it will be readily observed that the amendment was almost directly opposed to the principle of the bill, yet the amendment was carried, although afterwards the provisions of the amendment were
not carried out. On the grounds stated by the Prime Minister I think there is every reason why this amendment should be regarded as in order.


Walter Edward Foster: Do any other hon. members wish to speak to the point of order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I add to
what I have already given a citation from Beauchesne, page 127, section 400:
An amendment that is merely an expanded negative cannot be proposed by the chair.
This surely is an expanded negative if ever there was one.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are dealing with the motion that the bill be now read, and a motion that it be not now read but be read three months or six months hence would be quite in order. Along the same lines, we find that at this same stage a member is given the privilege of stating a position, differing from the principle of the bill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not moved that it be read six months hence. He knew he was at liberty to do so.


Walter Edward Foster: I have listened to the arguments on both sides, and I am of the opinion that the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) is not in order. I do not think it comes within the provisions of standing order 48, under which he refers to citation 394, to which the leader of the government has alluded, as well as to citation 400 on page 127. I therefore declare the amendment out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am afraid the only thing to do is to appeal against your honour's ruling. We must retain, if possible, some of the privileges and rights of this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I appeal against your honour's ruling.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
Mr. Dunning moves that Bill No. 82 an act to amend the Bank of Canada Act, be now read a third time. To which Mr. Woodsworth moves in amendment that the bill be not now read a third time, because it does not provide for complete government ownership of the Bank of Canada.


Walter Edward Foster: A point of order having been raised, the decision of the Speaker was that the said amendment was out of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) having appealed from said decision, the question is now Shall the said decision be sustained?

3802	COMMONS
Bank of Canada-Point of Order


Walter Edward Foster: The question is on the main motion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. MacINNIS:: What does it mean?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It means exactly what it says, and what I said it meant at Seaforth. It does not mean what my hon. friend and some of his friends have been trying to make the public believe it means, namely that it is not the public need which the bank is to serve, but the private needs of individuals.


Angus MacInnis: Does it mean what the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) says it means?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It means exactly what is stated here. My hon. friend who has just spoken and some of those who are associated with him have tried to have the people believe that the Liberal party had committed itself to a bank which was going to supply private individuals, with all the funds they require to satisfy their individual needs.


Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Oh, no.


Angus MacInnis: No, it was Liberal party speakers that did that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all. My hon. friend has done it. And may I point out at once what is going on at the present time by way of political propaganda, from quarters which probably hon. gentlemen in some parts of the house can tell me about. Since this debate commenced post cards by hundreds and I might say thousands have been coming in, all printed alike, mailed, some from Toronto, some from Montreal, and others from elsewhere, addressed to
3806	COMMONS
Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
"Mackenzie King, Prime Minister, Ottawa," marked "personal" in print, and worded as follows:
Dear Sir,	_
As Prime Minister of this country I feel it is your duty to end unemployment immediately.
The tragic and demoralizing situation of the past seven years demand you take over the complete control of the finance of our country so that you may give useful employment to all without increasing the burden of taxation.


Angus MacInnis: It may be from the Young Liberal Association of Saskatoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It continues as follows:
By this means alone can you raise the standard of living and keep your election pledge.
If you have the courage to act, all Canada will stand behind you.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Hear, hear!"


Ernest Lapointe: It comes from over there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think now we may see the source.


Mr. DOUGLAS:: Does the Prime Minister say that it came from this quarter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Mr. CAHAN:: May I be allowed to point
out that certainly it is incorrect to say that the bank as at present constituted by statute is privately owned and privately controlled? To a certain extent it is privately owned, but I cannot understand how any person with a clear vision of the actual facts can say it is privately controlled.


Ernest Lapointe: That is
a speech.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, everyone in the house except my hon. friend and a few of those who are around him have criticized the present bank as being privately owned and privately controlled.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And it is an utterly
erroneous criticism.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does not appear to be so when it comes to effective control. I think my hon. friend is entitled to have it said that the governor and deputy governor have been appointed by the government of the day, but all the directors of the bank are appointed by those who are private shareholders except the deputy minister of finance who has not a vote.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And the governor has as effective control to-day, as he will have after the passing of this act.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not control such as he has to-day. As a matter of fact the governor to-day has the power of veto, which veto is absolute. When the present bill passes the governor will have a veto, but once that veto is exercised it becomes the obligation of the governor to report the matter immediately to the Minister of Finance; it becomes the obligation of the Minister of Finance to report the matter immediately to the governor in council; and the governor in council may refuse to sanction the governors veto. So that under the legislation now before the house the last word is not with the governor of the bank but with the governor in council, which is the cabinet, which represents the House of Commons, and which in turn represents the people of this country.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I ask the Prime Minister if he does not recognize that, had my amendment been regarded as in order, and had it been carried, it would not have delayed beyond one day the passage of the bill? My motion was that this bill be not now read. That was all. It might have been read to-morrow. That was all the amendment amounted to. It was the only way in which I could make a protest.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the bill had been defeated on the third reading it could not have been reintroduced this session.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not at all. I read the authorities. It did not affect the status of the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend cannot deny the fact that in 1934 he voted for a bank of Canada which he believed to be privately owned and privately controlled. He cannot deny that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I hope the Prime Minister does not want to be unfair. It was that measure, rather than an entirely privately owned system, without any public control whatever. I said it was only a step in the right direction. I have never-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member is out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the Prime Minister allow me-?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
may go on.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say that I have never charged the Liberals with having definitely committed themselves against a publicly owned and controlled bank or in favour of a privately owned bank? The Prime Minister knows the situation, and because we in this group want something more than either the Conservatives or the Liberals are prepared to give I do not think it is fair that we should be accused of being in favour of private ownership.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to eDter into an argument with my 'hon. friend; I am simply pointing out the fact. When there was before this house a bill providing for the establishment of a bank which he himself regarded as privately owned and very largely privately controlled, my hon. friend voted for that bill. To-day, when there is before this house for third reading a bill which changes what is a privately owned bank into one in which the preponderant interest is public ownership and the control of which, instead of being partly private and partly public, is to 'be effectively public, the hon. gentleman introduces a motion that the bill be not read the third time, thereby killing the bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My motion was
not that it be not read but that it be not read now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Well, now is
the time to read it; now is the time it is before the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; a big majority.
3808	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me proceed a step further. I have said it was on February 27, 1933, that the Liberal party made the pronouncement it did in this House of Commons with respect to the creation of a properly constituted national central bank, as one of a series of policies it intended to fight for to the end of that parliament and to carry, if necessary, from parliament to the people. It continued to advocate these policies in this house, but it was not until July 31, 1933, that the government of the day accepted the view of the Liberal party that something in the nature of a national central bank was necessary. I should perhaps not say that they accepted it at that time, but rather that they accepted the view that it was necessary to inquire into the matter and to that end appointed a royal commission on banking and currency in Canada. The commission recommended the creation of a central national bank.
I hope I made clear the fact that it was the Liberal party which put forward in 1932, as a part of its program, the establishment of a properly constituted national central bank; that it was the Liberal party which advocated that policy in this House of Commons to the point that it became necessary for the then government .to recognize the necessity of having the matter inquired into, which advocacy brought about the appointment of a royal commission; that the commission endorsed the view of the Liberal party of Canada, previously and continuously expressed, that there should be a national central bank. In the following year, 1934, as a consequence, there was introduced a bill for the creation of a national central bank.
The attitude of the Liberal party with respect to the functions the bank should discharge was set forth very clearly in the course of the discussion on that bill. Our position was stated in the course of debate time and again by myself as leader of the party. Hon. gentlemen know that within the ranks of a great political party, while there may be one general view on which all are united, there are shades of opinion which tend towards one extreme or the other. That is true of every great gathering of human beings, but the Liberal party in its pronouncements, in the terms I have read to the house, stood for the thing upon which it was possible for all to agree. In the course of debate it became necessary to expand our views a little, in particular with regard to the question of whether there should be any private directors on the board at all and with regard to the question of whether government ownership was an absolute essential for a properly

constituted national central bank. I contend that there; is no possible room for doubt as to the position then taken by the opposition having regard to what was said by myself in this house as leader of the party. I refer first to what was said on .the second reading of the bill. This will be found in Hansard of March 8, 1935, where again I set forth the functions of a central bank as we had contended all along they should be:
A central bank, as we view it, differs from other banks in that its function is primarily regulatory and controlling-and not commercial in the sense of being intended primarily for private profit or gain. In other words, the function of a central bank in the world of banking and finance, as we view it, is that of subordinating the special to the general interest or. to express the matter more concretely, that of subordinating the private interest in banking and credit to the public interest. In no sense should the bank be, or be permitted to become, a banker's bank. It is and ought to be a government bank, the government being representative of the interests of the country as a whole. Its main purpose is and should be to protect the public interest in banking and credit.
That was on the second reading of the measure. The other day my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) gave other quotations from some of the statements I made during the course of the discussion in this house. One of those quotations will be found in Hansard of June 1, 1936, as taken from page 4228 of the revised Hansard of 1934. This statement sets forth very clearly what was in the mind1 of the.Liberal party. Addressing my right hon. friend, who was then Prime Minister, I said:
The Prime Minister will notice that at the moment I am not suggesting the government should own the bank. I am not at the moment discussing the question of ownership at all. As I said last night. I think the question of ownership is debatable.
I said that at the beginning of the discussions; I said throughout the discussions and during the campaign, and I repeat it now: I think the question of ownership is debatable, for reasons which appear in what I have said repeatedly in this house. I do not think the question of effective control is debatable. I think if you have effective public control it matters relatively little where the ownership rests, but if you have not effective public control then ownership in full may be desirable should it prove to be the only way to acquire it. At the time, speaking of the importance of effective public control, I went on to say:
I am however discussing the question of control of policy, and I do say that with respect to policies, whether they relate to trade, to shipping, to marketing, to finance, to defence, or to any other phase of a country's economy, those policies, if they are the expression of view of a government representative

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
of the people, should be capable of being carried out without interference from any institution whatever, but rather with the sympathetic cooperation of all institutions. That is the only way in which in a country we can have either democratic or responsible government.
During the course of his speech in this house on June 1 the Minister of Finance made further reference to my remarks on- June 22, 1934, when I gave my reasons for believing that there might be wisdom in having on a board of directors, even as representative of private interests, some men with special knowledge of the great commercial1 and financial interests of the country. Let me say this: For the life of me I cannot see why it should be assumed always that private interests and public interests are necessarily opposed to each other I believe that in the long run it will be found that the thing wLich is most in the public interest ultimately will prove to be best for private interests. Take any of these great public utilities, street railways or the like; let them operate in any way other than that which tends best to serve the public interest and in their private interests they begin to suffer immediately. However there may be and undoubtedly there are times, and I have made that clear in what I have quoted from my speech at Seaforth, when private institutions may view matters exclusively from the point of view of the interests of their immediate shareholders and investors, and that the private interest may be contrary to the public interest. When such times come, and there is a conflict between private and public interest then at all such times the public interest should be made to prevail.
But there may also be times when those exercising or seeking to exercise control in the public interest may be mistaken in their views or the course they may wish to pursue. They may err in judgment, and if they do they make serious and grievous mistakes with regard to matters which affect the credit of the country as a whole and the interests private as well as public of all its citizens. I would ask the representatives of the people in this House of Commons whether on such occasions it is not in the public interest to have, if he can be found, some individual, associated if you like with private interests, who will be in a position to direct the attention of his colleagues, and through his colleagues or in other ways direct the attention of government and of parliament and of the public to what is an apparently mistaken course of procedure before it is taken and it is too late to remedy it? I say that in great transactions which affect the well-being of the industrial and financial and commercial life of the
country, too much in the way of special knowledge cannot be obtained. I have sufficient faith in the power of truth of itself to believe that no man, whether representing private or public interests, can get anywhere with representations which he may make unless those representations have a substantial element of truth behind them. I said to my right hon. friend at the time we were discussing the matter of direction, because I thought he was one who had had experience with large business in a large way, that I thought he ought to be the first to appreciate the necessity of having check and countercheck in all matters of this kind. The situation was reversed at the time. I was pointing out the need of directors appointed to represent the public interest in addition to directors selected by private interests. I did so in the following words:
I think my right hon. friend must agree that in these matters of large finance, cheek and counter check is wholly advisable. It is advisable in financial transactions of a limited size, and it is more necessary as well as advisable in those of considerable size. But here are financial transactions of the greatest magnitude conceivable, and check and counter check are imperative. I do think the directorate of the bank ought to be so formed that, whether the pressure is upon the bank from the government on the one side, or upon the government from the financial interests and through the bank on the other, there should be on the board of directors some one or more persons who will be quick to sense the situation, give the danger signal, and arouse the country to the pressure which is being brought to bear. There is the danger of a government bringing too much in the way of pressure to hear on a central bank. On the other hand, there is equal danger of the financial interests that are allied with the banks bringing influence to bear upon a government. There will be both these dangers always, and the only way in Which that possibility can be lessened is by making sure that both powers, the money power and the power of government, are represented on a common board so that one or the other will be in a position to direct the attention of the people at large to the dangers which they may see developing in the affairs of an institution which is or ought to be a great national trust.
In the face of a statement of that kind, made in this parliament and recorded in Hansard, a volume which all hon. members of parliament know well, and which statement was there all through the general election campaign, how can anyone say that as leader of the Liberal party I stood for complete government ownership of the national bank? I made it repeatedly clear that I thought the question of ownership was debatable, but I went much further and pointed out wherein there would be a distinct advantage in having private interests as well as government interests represented on a board of a properly consti-
3810	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
tuted national central bank, so long as care was taken to see that the effective control rested with the government through its nominees on the directorate and in other ways.
That is not the only statement which I made on this phase of the matter. On the third reading of the bill, when my right hon. friend had spoken and stated that we had said some things over and over again, I said I thought they needed to be said once more, as apparently up to that time they had not made any real impression on him. I then made quite clear my own position. Here are the words I used, as they appear in Hansard of 1934, at page 4361:
Speaking for myself, may I repeat that I can see wherein the question of public ownership of a state bank may well be a debatable question. I regard it as debatable for the reason that there is much to be said on both sides.
Then I gave the reasons. Here is one objection to complete public ownership of a central bank which I pointed out. I ask if it is not pertinent to much that is being said on monetary matters in our own country at this very time:
The objections that I see, so far as it can be named an objection, to public ownership of a central bank is that it may raise in the minds of the people of the country many expectations which may not be capable of ever being realized. Many will believe that because the state owns the central bank it will be able to meet each and every disorder that may arise in the country from any financial cause. We here all know that a state-owned institution any more than a privately-owned institution, will not be able to do anything of the kind. At the same time there would be occasioned the thought in the minds of many people that having set up a publicly-owned institution we had discovered a public remedy for all social and financial ills. I do not think it is advisable, or in the public interest at any time, for parliament to create in the minds of the people at large expectations which are not capable of being realized.
In the second place, I believe there is always a possible danger to the position of the state itself in the event of anything untoward happening to a bank which is owned by the state. There may quickly arise in the public mind confusion between what may be matter confined in its effects to the bank, and what may be assumed to concern the very life of the state itself. This may not happen so much within the bounds of the country where the situation may be known and understood as beyond its confines, and in the minds of peoples of other nations.
And I gave examples of how panics have arisen in the state because of the identification in the public mind of some government-owned institution with the state itself. I was most careful to point all this out, because I believed and do believe very firmly, that a government cannot be too careful, that any

political party cannot be too careful, about raising in the public mind expectations which cannot be satisfied, or in any way claiming for an institution which has to do with the issue of money and currency, powers which it is well known in the last resort cannot be exercised in ways which some may be led to' believe they can.
In the same speech I added:
I wish at this time to make clear the grounds upon which I personally have advocated the institution! of a central bank and the grounds upon which the Liberal party has made the institution of a public bank part of its policy.
I then restated what I have read here from the statement of government policy as given in 1933, and when I came to certain words I emphasized them:
... to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need.
Following those words "in terms of public need," I said:
Note "in terms of public need" not possible private gain.
I was making very clear the contrast intended, making very clear at every stage in the discussion that there were certain distinct limitations upon a central bank, and that to create any false impression with regard to what the government, through an agency of this kind, could or might do was only working an injury to the people of the country.
May I conclude with this last reference,
I wish to include it, because here I stated the issue between the then government and the Liberal party very clearly, and I stated it in terms of an issue. At page 4363 of Hansard of 1934 I am reported as follows:
That is the issue, as I see it, the crux of the whole situation-whether this parliament, representing the people of Canada, is to create a great financial institution which is to control the credit and currency of the country, place that institution in private hands, both as to ownership and control, hand over to this privately-owned and controlled institution many of the functions and powers which the government itself at the present time is exercising, part in large measure with w-hat the government now possess in the way of control of credit, part with what it possesses at the present time in the matter of the right of issuing currency, and hand over gold reserves and securities which are at the present moment in its possession-all this to be handed over to an institution which is to be privately-owned and controlled, or whether the institution to which these rights, powers, possessions and privileges are to be given is to be subject to an effective measure of government control.
That, I think is a very serious situation, and there is no argument, it seems to me, which it is possible to bring forward that can really

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
defend action of that kind on the part of this parliament. If it were of necessity a choice solely between the extreme of absolute government ownership and government control on the one hand, and on the other complete private ownership and private control, I could understand that there might be many who would find it difficult to decide one way or the other, there being no possibility of a middle course which would help to avoid what would be regarded as the dangers in either extreme. But there is a middle course, and it is that middle cimrse which the government is apparently unwilling even to consider at the present time. That middle course would be to enable the government-
And I ask hon. members to see whether this legislation does not implement to the full what was there stated as the Liberal party's position:

to appoint a certain number of directors, a number sufficient to give the government control of the central bank, directors who would not own shares but would represent the government, and who would sit along with the directors who were the nominees of those who owned the shares. Short of complete government ownership and control, could there be anything in the interests of all classes generally which obviously would serve the common interest better than that? One group of directors would be watching the actions of the bank from the point of view of investors, and the other group would be watching the actions of the bank from the point of view of the interests of the public at large; and these two in conference from day to day would undoubtedly be able to prevent many extreme actions being taken which might be contrary to the public interest, and they would also be able to bring about that unity and continuity, in the affairs of the bank which the Prime Minister regards as so all-important.
Those statements do not permit of any doubt as to their meaning. They are as clear-cut and frank as statements can possibly be. May I read this one further statement as presenting the major objection of the Liberal party to the Bank of Canada as it was being constituted by the then government?
The present legislation, establishing the Bank of Canada, is a definite step in the establishment of an imperial policy of finance, under which the financial destiny of Canada is placed under persons independent of parliament, who can maintain, through the Bank of England and the other central banks of empire nations, a definite and positive control of empire currency, credit and trade. That being the case, I feel very strongly that this measure ought to be reconsidered before we are asked to vote upon it.
The Bank of Canada, as constituted by this proposed enactment, will undoubtedly be the means of vesting in the Bank of England the management and control of Canada's foreign exchange and Canada's internal credit administration. As I said the other evening, once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of
the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. Those are strong words; they constitute a strong argument, and they are words of which this house ought to take full account before it is too late.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that paragraph makes perfectly clear what I meant when I spoke about the control of currency issue and credit being the most conspicuous and sacred responsibility of government. I was speaking there of whether the great financial powers were to control in policies relating to finance, or whether the government of the day, responsible to the will of the people, was to control in the matter of giving effect to these policies. I said that as the act was then framed all control by parliament through its representatives was being wholly removed, and that what was necessary was to bring back that control and to see that it would be effectively exercised in the interests of the people.
I touched amongst other things upon the struggle that Mr. Gladstone had with the Bank of England, and showed how Mr. Gladstone himself had found the bank, instead of being a help to the government, was often an obstacle, and that he had to overcome difficulties with the bank before he could get his own government policies under way. I pointed out that what was necessary was that no institution, and least of all a great banking institution, should ever be created in this country with any such power, or be so constituted that it could be a force to oppose the will of the government of the day. I said that what was necessary was to get the central bank into a position where the government of the day would be in a position to control its policy. Speaking of my right hon. friend's measure as it was then I said:
That is exactly what the government proposes to see is done by this bill in its present form. In matters of finance it makes the bank supreme; it makes the bank the body that will determine the monetary policy of the country, that will have the power to enforce that policy and to resist any monetary policy that may run counter to it. This privately owned and privately controlled institution is to be permitted to do that. The government itself is not to be a substantive power.
It was that point of view which I presented so strongly to the electorate in the campaign when I asserted that if the Liberal party were returned to power the first thing we would seek to do would be to restore to the control of the government the powers which had existed under the Finance Act, and which had been taken away from the government and had been given to this privately owned and privately controlled institution. I said we would restore these powers to the government so that it could effectively control the
3812	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
bank, and that we would constitute the bank accordingly.
There have been a good many quotations from speeches made in the campaign. I have already referred to what was said in this House of Commons, and which being on the records of this house was available to all speakers in the campaign, if they wished to refer to the exact words of the leader of the Liberal party in setting out what the policy of the party was. There have been many references to press clippings and the like, but I notice that one reference has been significantly omitted, and it is the most important of all. The omission is also most significant.
In stating the policies of a government or a political party there is no way in which those policies can be more effectively and unmistakably stated than over the radio. It is not possible for a leader of a political party to make an address over the radio and have his address subsequently printed and distributed and then say that he did not make the pronouncement which was then made. I ask why it is that throughout the whole of this debate, in referring to what was the policy of the Liberal party as stated by the Liberal leader in the campaign, not a single member has quoted what was said by myself in presenting to the electorate over the radio the policy of the party in respect to currency and credit.
I have in my hand a copy of the addresses I delivered over the radio during the eom-paign, and I refer now to one which I claim is authoritative and authoritative above all others. It is the second radio address I delivered; it was delivered on August 2, 1935. It was an address of Liberal principles and policies, a statement of the Liberal party's position on present day problems. These are the words I used in setting forth the Liberal party's policy in the matter of the control of credit, and I ask again hon. gentlemen to say if in all particulars the pledge which was made over the radio is not being faithfully carried out to the letter in the legislation which is now before us. I said:
The Liberal party-
I began by repeating over the radio the statement which I had made in this House of Commons in 1933, and which at different times and in different places I continued to make throughout the country.
The Liberal party believes that credit is a ublic matter, not of interest to bankers only, ut of direct concern to the average citizen.
It stands for the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank, to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue* considered in terms of public need. A central bank is necessary to determine the supply of currency in relation 
to the domestic, social and industrial requirements of the Canadian people; and also to deal with problems of international commerce and exchange.
As a national central bank has been established by the present government since this statement of Liberal policy was issued, I feel it necessary to say here that the Bank of Canada as established is far from being the institution contemplated by the Liberal party. The Bank of Canada is, as more than one of our leading economists has said, of the fascist type. It is a private corporation, with power to control the volume of the country's credit. Let me repeat what I said in parliament in protesting against the surrender to a private institution of the state's control over the nation's currency and credit:
"Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile."
To regain for the nation what has been lost and to secure a properly constituted national central bank, will continue to be a first objective of Liberal effort.
There is the pledge which was given to the people of 'Canada over the radio by myself as the leader of the party. I say that every word and every line of that pledge is being literally and absolutely fulfilled in the legislation that is before us.
Let me now go one step further. Reference has been made to what I said to the public on the night of the great Liberal victory of the significance of the results. The statement which was subsequently issued in the form of a leaflet entitled the Voice of the People, was made on October 14, 1935. Here is what I said in reference to the central bank and the control of credit:
The election is an endorsation of the Libera] view that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to every citizen. It is a verdict against a privately owned and controlled central bank, and in favour of a properly constituted national bank to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue considered in terms of public need. There can be no mistaking the demand for a restoration to the government of Canada of control over credit and currency issue. As the campaign proceeded, the issue of the control, by the people, of all functions of government, through their representatives in parliament, and not by any other power, became increasingly clear. The electorate has declared that a responsible ministry, not organized finance and international money power, is to control in all matters of state.
I ask if that statement in what it foreshadowed was not on all fours with the statements made during the days of the election, and whether that statement is not being literally and absolutely fulfilled in the legislation which is before us at the moment?

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King


James Shaver Woodsworth: How can the
Prime Minister say that the present bill contemplates control by the bank over credit?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the main function of the bank, to control the issuance of currency and credit. Referring the other day to this statement by myself, my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre said that it was an undertaking to have the government control credit and. currency issue. He did not read the sentence as if the word "restoration," or the words "a restoration to the government," had any significance. He took care not to place any emphasis upon those words. I had pointed out in previous addresses that under the Finance Act, the government of this country, through the Department of Finance, was controlling the issue of currency and credit, it was issuing currency and controlling credit, but that those functions had been taken away from the Department of Finance and given to this privately owned and privately controlled institution. I stated that until this control of credit and the issue of currency were restored to government-which is what we are doing now by this bill-and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all balk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy was idle and futile. I was stressing the importance of these functions being restored to government and discharged by the bank under public control as contrasted with being exercised by a privately owned and controlled institution. Why did I speak of the control of the issue of currency and credit as the most conspicuous and sacred responsibility? It is most conspicuous because without currency and credit there can, be no trade or commerce in the land, and a country organized as a modern country is organized could not carry on its everyday business. It is a sacred responsibility because, unless great care and caution is taken with the way in which currency is issued and credit is controlled, a nation may be quickly brought to disaster.
Something was told the house the other day by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) of what he had witnessed in his visits to Germany and other countries of the effect of inflated currencies, not only upon those who had substantial incomes but upon the humblest in the land, upon the mechanics, the artisans, the peasant proprietors and all1 classes and upon their means of livelihood and standards of living. Where there is the power to issue currency and control credit, there is placed the power to bring a nation to disaster unless this power is carefully exercised as a sacred power. That word
"sacred" is the only word that could be appropriately applied to it.
I think I have made very clear and brought up to date the position of the Liberal party as stated by myself as its leader. I challenge any hon. member of this house to find in any place any statement of mine which can be regarded as authoritative, which is at variance, in the slightest particular, with what I have read to this house this afternoon. It cannot be found as it does not exist. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson), acting as the financial critic of the opposition, undertook one afternoon not long ago to criticize this measure. In so doing he characterized it as a delusion and-I cannot at the moment think of the other word he used.


Mr. LAWSON:: Subterfuge.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend had it off by heart-subterfuge and delusion.


James Earl Lawson: That is why he did not stumble.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It might have been better for him if he had stumbled a little.


James Earl Lawson: Possibly so, but harder
to listen to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I read what my hon. friend said at the time. He said:
I say to you, sir, and through you to the members of this committee and the people of this country, that having regard to the statements made by the present Prime Minister throughout the country during the election campaign when he asked the people for votes based on those statements, this measure is a subterfuge and a delusion, and out of the mouth of the present Prime Minister I shall attempt to prove that it is a breach of the pledge he gave to the people.
He then proceeded to quote from clippings from different papers. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George said a day or two ago to one of the members of another group that it was inadvisable to proceed in the course of a debate with a scrap album of petty extracts from newspapers, but his own colleague, sitting only two seats from him, had his scrap-book beside him full of petty extracts from newspapers. He sought to make good use of them. I am going to read the extracts which my hon. friend cited, in order that the house may see whether what he quoted, in an effort to show that I was not thoroughly consistent with the position I had taken in this house and elsewhere all through the campaign, was at all at variance with
3814	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
what I have said and quoted this afternoon. What the hon. member for York South produced at the time represented the search of his entire party through the papers of the country to see what extracts might be discovered to use against the Liberal party at this time. Those extracts, it may be assumed, were the most vulnerable of any that could be found. He said:
First, I should like to refer to a report appearing in Ottawa Citizen of August 3, 1935, reporting a speech made by the present Prime Minister. I quote now what appeared in that newspaper in quotation marks, as being the words of the right hon. gentleman:
"The Liberal party stands for the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank to perform the function of rediscounts and the control of currency issue considered in terms of public need."
Is that not exactly what I have just stated? Some hon. members then said, "hear, hear," and the hon. member for York South continued :
Keep right on. I will soon get to a point where you will not shout "hear, hear."
"Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. To regain for the nation what has thus been lost will continue to be the first objective of Liberal effort."
That was followed by more "hear, hears." Is there anything contradictory there to what was said? Those are the exact words that were used in this house and in the previous statements. The hon. member then continued :
Again I quote from the Ottawa Citizen, this time of August 8, 1935-Mr. Mackenzie King speaking at Kingston; and again I give the words which the newspaper puts in quotation marks:
"He (Mr. Bennett) had taken the gold reserves from the federal treasury, the backing for the country's currency, and' turned them over to a private corporation."
And as the right hon. gentleman travelled west he waxed even more eloquent in that regard, because I observe that according to a report appearing in the Vancouver Sun of September 30, 1935, he had this to say.
He was trying to leave the impression that because I was in Vancouver, where I knew that some of those who had taken an interest in monetary matters held extreme views, I was seeking, if you wish to put it that way, to cater to such extreme views. And what does he quote?
Criticizing Mr. Bennett's bank, he said it was owned and controlled by private stockholders. It had been given by the government $60,000,000 gold reserve and the vast number of securities held by the government from the 
private banks. These were the property of the people of Canada. To-day they belong to the private shareholders of the Bank of Canada, he said.
That is the quotation. Well, is it not true? The statement is there; is there any exception to be taken to it? But let us go further. The hon. gentleman said:
I turn to a report of a speech of the right hon. gentleman contained in the Vancouver Sun of September 30, 1935. I imagine most hon. members of this committee are familiar with the fact that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation was pretty well in its stride in Vancouver, and is reported so to be in British Columbia.
As I say, seeking to create the impression that there were some who had extreme views to which I was catering. And what does he quote? He goes on:
Out there the right hon. gentleman had this to say:
"We believe that credit should be a social service to serve the needs of the people." "Credit is not the concern of the bankers only but is of concern to you and me."
Credit is to-day controlled by the great international money power. The first step, then, is to establish a national central bank -not another private bank as has been done -but a government bank able to control credit according to the will of the government in matters of great national concern.
The Liberal party believes it is a public matter of direct concern to the average citizen to have a national bank to control currency and credit so that they may serve the public needs.
The first objective is to get back the control that was taken from us. The next is to see that the bank is made national in the truest sense of the word.	[DOT]
That was what I said, speaking to the Canadian Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Vancouver. Is there one line there that contradicts the statement of policy given officially in this house and the statements of the party, with respect to that policy, as I have read them? Then he goes on, always by insinuation, seeking to leave the impression that something different was said in another place. He comes next to Calgary, where he finds most in evidence not the Canadian Cooperative Commonwealth Federation but the members of the Social Credit party. He directs attention to the fact that Calgary was the centre of social credit, and then he says:
Then the right hon. gentleman went to Alberta where the social credit group appears to have been in its stride. According to a report in the Calgary Daily Herald of October 1, 1935, the right hon. gentleman said.
Now listen to what I said there:
A central bank is necessary to determine the supply of currency in relation to domestic, social and industrial requirements of the Canadian people, and also to deal with problems of international commerce and exchange.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
Then he continued:
So far the leader of the social credit group might have been making the speech. The right hon. gentleman continued:
"That was a clear statement"-
He was referring to a statement he had made previously.
-"that	what	we	wanted at Ottawa	was acentral	bank,	or	wanted in Canada,	was acentral	national	bank which would	enableprivate banks to be controlled by the central institution in a manner which would make credit be considered more from the point of public	need,	domestic requirements,	social
requirements, and the like, than from the point of view of the interests of capital investors and private bankers only."
Is not the objective as clear and plain as it can be in that statement? The difference is clearly indicated between a bank serving the interests of private investors and a bank which will serve public interests in the sense in which I have described them. I quote further from the hon. gentleman's remarks:
Then he went on.
"Then the government policy, if it were one of extension of credit, would be in a position to put that policy into effect"-
That must be a misprint, because I doubt whether the right hon. gentleman would have repeated the word "policy." I continue:

"through having a central bank which would give more in the way of credit at the time when the need for more in the way of credit was uppermost. It would regulate credit in a manner which would serve the needs of the country, prevent excessive speculation on the one hand, and on the other hand help serve to increase the currency and the facilities for credit when need for increased currency and increased credit facilities were required."
And then this last touch, which I think is sublime.
Listen to the sublimity of it:
"We have in the federal field the great issue of monetary reform. I have merely indicated what I have thought was the first step, and if that first is not won then all our efforts at further financial reform so far as the federal field is concerned will be materially impaired."
Will anyone dispute that? Then he quotes further:
"Equality"-
Says the right hon. gentleman to the electors of Alberta.	_	_
-"if they are materially impaired it will have a very serious effect as far as I see it upon the efforts of any province to improve financial conditions there, so I hope when Monday fortnight comes you will think not only what is important to you locally and in a provincial way, but that you will think even more deeply of what is going to be of vital concern to our country with respect to our policy during the next five years."
That was a statement made in the province where social credit was being discussed on all sides. I ask hon. members from that province: Is there a word I said there which is different from what was said in this House of Commons by myself before the election
took place? Then the hon. member for York South concluded with a reference to one other speech which he says was reported in the Vancouver Province of September 21. From that source he quoted me as follows:
Canada is faced with a great battle between the money power and the power of the people -a battle which will be waged in the next parliament. He pleaded for a sweeping Liberal majority in order to carry out his policy of public control of currency and credit, nationalization of the Bank of Canada and monetary reform.
With the word "parliament" the direct quotation ends.
Now this is the only place I have been able to find, in any report anywhere, where mention is made of the words "nationalization of the Bank of Canada." Those words appearing in the report were not mine; they are the reporter's own representation. I am not responsible for the words, and anyone who was present at Vancouver and heard the speech will know that I never used the word "nationalization" there, and I might add that I never used it at any time throughout the whole of the campaign in respect to political policy respecting the Bank of Canada.


Major James William Coldwell: Did the right hon. gentleman correct that statement in view of the serious nature of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My recollection is that I did correct it. The hon. gentleman concluded:
He finished his observation by saying:
"Until the control and issue of currency and credit is restored to the government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and democracy is idle and futile."
These are the quotations which the hon. member for York South gave to the house the other day as a result of the researches of himself and others of his party through the files of the press containing the reports of a great political campaign.


James Earl Lawson: I am reluctant to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but I cannot allow him to impute to me something that is not correct. Anything I quoted I searched for and found myself in the press without assistance from others.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
doubt my hon. friend's search was very diligent. He said that he was proving, out of what he had discovered, that this present measure was a subterfuge and a delusion in the light of statements I had made. I say that the statements which my hon. friend quoted proved not only that I was consistent throughout but that the legislation before
3816	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
the house is a full implementation of what was said by myself as leader of the Liberal party of the party's policy.
I leave this matter now. I hope that the house will vote on the third reading of the measure, so that its records may show how members view a measure which seeks to restore to the government of Canada control of currency issue and of credit, taking back this control from a privately owned and] privately controlled institution and placing it in the hands of a government institution of which the preponderating interest of ownership will be with the government, and over which the government will have effective control. Observe the extent to which that control goes. It is the control, not only of ownership in the preponderating interest, but of an effective directorate, and is the control of the government itself, which has the right to refuse to accept the veto of the governor of the bank where a difference arises with respect to any action of .the directors. Speaking of effective control may I point out that, behind all which takes place by virtue of any power which the government itself may exercise and which the bank itself may attempt to exercise, there must be present at all times to the minds of all concerned the view this parliament is likely to take of whatever transaction is being reviewed. When this act gives to the governor in council power to review any action of the board, where there is a difference between the directors and the governor, and the governor's veto has been exercised, it means that the minute that difference is being discussed, those parties themselves must feel that the difference in question is so important and acute that it is advisable to bring the matter to the attention of the parliament of Canada in order to avoid some great mistake being made. I ask my friends, no matter to which party they belong, is not that in your interests and in mine? We here establish a government controlled central national bank. To-day it is in the control of a Liberal administration. If the Liberal administration, through pressure on the part of its followers or for any other of the alleged reasons that have been given, were capable of having its directors seek to exercise some power in the bank which is not wholly in the public interest, is it not in the interests of all other parties in this country to see that such a move, if at all possible, before it succeeds, is brought up for discussion here on the floor of parliament? When this act takes effect the bank will be under the control of the Liberal administration. It may be under the control of a Conservative administration at some later date.


Mr. MacNICOL:: About four years hence.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: About four years hence? Then, I say, beware of what may take place four years hence, because then again you will have an effort made to have this bank restored to private ownership and private control. And if an effort is made to have public interests subordinated to private interests, is it not well that there should be an opportunity for this House of Commons and this parliament to know what is the difference of view between those directors who cannot see eye to eye with each other or with the governor, before some far-reaching mistake is made? Similarly I say to my hon. friends of the more radical groups-if I may use that term in its best sense-."Some day you hope to have control of this bank. This bank would then have on it your directors and others. Do you wish to have a bank in which there is to be no opportunity whatever of any possible difference of opinion with respect to the issue of credit and currency being made the subject of debate in this parliament and matters decided by a governor and directors other than your own before you have an opportunity of coming to parliament with power to legislate in a manner which will cause the bank to operate more in accordance with your views?" When we are legislating here we have to think not only of the government which may be in office at the moment but of all the changes that may come with time, changes which may come much more rapidly in times like the present than they have done at any preceding period in the history of the country.
I conclude with this one word. No men who have to do with the responsibilities of government, no men who have to do with what affects the lives and well being of the great masses of the people of this country can wish other than that, if any mistake is being made in connection with financial policy there shall be an opportunity to have the matter discussed on the floor of this house before that mistake takes effect. When hon. gentlemen opposite say it is not in the public interest to have, on a bank which is preponderantly publicly owned, and effectively publicly controlled, a few individuals with special knowledge-knowledge acquired, if you wish, from long business experience with private interests-who may differ if need be with colleagues whom they believe are about to take a wrong course, they belie, in my opinion, the very position that as an opposition they exercise in this house. I am one of those who believe that a government is all the better for having an opposition. The country is all the better for having a government

Bank of Canada-Mr. Cold well
and an opposition, for the reason that men who are absorbed in many great activities may not see all sides of a problem at the same time. Men do not see every angle and aspect of a question when they have a thousand and one different matters to discuss; and when they are determining policy, what is the consideration that, more than anything else, controls a ministry? First of all, their own sense of integrity and right; but secondly, what may be said on the floor of the House of Commons by their political opponents and how the country may view what is so said. In the last resort it is public opinion which controls, and it is in order to inform public opinion and to make public opinion effective as well as to establish an effective government control which will govern this bank in all its actions, that we have adopted the course we have in this legislation.


Major James William Coldwell: It was not my intention to speak this afternoon, but after listening to the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), I could not refrain, on behalf of the little group with which I am associated, since certain of his observations were directed to this .corner, from replying to some of the things he has said. First of all, I feel like congratulating myself-


Ernest Lapointe: Hear,
hear.


Major James William Coldwell: -for this reason, that apparently during the campaign which preceded the election last October, my judgment of the Prime Minister's pronouncements regarding this matter was accurate. I told the people of Saskatchewan and of western Canada, when I had the opportunity, that nowhere in the Liberal leader's pronouncements could be found any warranty for the statements which were being made that the Liberal party was committed to the policy of the nationalization of our banking and financial institutions.


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly not.


Major James William Coldwell: And because I said
that, it was alleged on more than one occasion that I was accusing the leader of the Liberal party and the Liberal party itself of practising something of a deceit upon the people of western Canada. Again and again at my meetings I was asked if I had not read the resolution which was moved by the hon. gentleman who is now Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), on March 15, 1934, and which was supported by, I believe, 12739-243
every Liberal on that special committee of the House of Commons, and I was taken to task because I dared to suggest that there was something which was not clear, not above board, in relation to this matter. Moreover we have seen in recent days the Saskatchewan Liberal, a paper devoted, as it says, to the interests of the Liberal party, state very clearly and explicitly that there is disappointment in Saskatchewan with the bill which is now about to receive its third reading. May I add that, in introducing the remarks he made this afternoon, the Prime Minister did, perhaps unconsciously, an injustice to some of the men who have sat in this chamber. He said that prior to 1932 there was very little in the way of discussion about the central bank. .Yet every year from 1921, when the first Labour member and the first little group of Progressives sat in this house, they brought before parliament again and again the question of a central bank of issue and rediscount, and as the days went on proceeded to develop that policy until it became one of complete nationalization. Those are matters of public record.
I am not going to refer to the speeches of the right hon. gentleman which have been quoted again and again in this house, nor shall I refer to the speeches of various members of the cabinet. In the present debate the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer) has, I think, well expressed the opinion held by hundreds and thousands of people throughout this country, many thousands of whom voted for the Liberal party last October, namely that it was the intention that a Liberal government, when returned to power, would institute a central bank which would ensure to the people of Canada national ownership and national control of both currency and credit.
In the latter portion of the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister there was one observation that I was surprised to hear. He spoke of the present control of the Bank of Canada as a control of that bank by the Liberal government, and warned the people that subsequently it might be controlled by a Conservative government or by a Cooperative Commonwealth Federation government or some other sort of more radical government which might come in future. That is not my conception of either a nationalized bank or a bank that stands midway between private and national ownership. My conception is this: The government of the day ought to lay down, by and with the advice of parliament, the policies that shall be followed



Bank oj Canada-Mr. Caldwell
in relation to finance, money, currency and credit in this dominion. Then those men engaged or appointed by government should, to the best of their knowledge and ability, carry out those policies in the interests of the people of Canada, and they should do so whether there is in power a Liberal government, a Conservative government or a more radical government. Therefore I was surprised to hear that remark, which may have been made by the right hon. gentleman without intending it to be capable of the interpretation I placed upon it.
Now I should like to say that in my opinion this bill falls far short of what is really required. I have said that a national bank should carry out the policy communicated to it by the government of the day by and with the advice of parliament. Under the present act that is not the case. The Bank of Canada Act is restrictive in most of its sections and permissive to a limited degree in others. This afternoon mention was made of the bank in New Zealand. May I point out that section 10 of the new bank act of New Zealand, a copy of which I hold in my hand, states:
It shall be the general function of the reserve bank, within the limits of its powers, to give effect as far as may be to the monetary policy of the government, as communicated to it from time to time by the Minister of Finance. For this purpose, and to the end that the economic and social welfare of New Zealand may be promoted and maintained, the bank shall regulate and control credit and currency in New Zealand, the transfer of moneys to or from New Zealand, and the disposal of moneys that are derived from the sale of any New Zealand products and for the time being are held overseas.
In other words the government of New Zealand has taken some effective steps at least to endeavour to deliver the producers of that dominion from the control of the international financiers whom the Prime Minister considers, according to one of the speeches to which he alluded this afternoon, responsible for a great many of the difficulties which exist in the world to-day.
As I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to speak at any great length, but I want to make one point abundantly clear. I believe that this afternoon I speak not only for the little group with which I am associated but for many hundreds, probably thousands, of people who are associated with the party which elected the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada. I believe further that if the speech delivered by the Prime Minister this afternoon, explaining his many speeches made in this house and throughout the country, had been made prior to the election of October 14, 1935, there would not be as many
[Mr. ColdweU.J
hon. gentlemen sitting opposite as there are to-day. Again and again during that campaign I met men who said: "We are going to support the Liberal candidate because we believe that the government of Canada, if Liberal, will take over the banking system and give us national control of currency and credit." That inference was drawn, to a large extent, from what was said by the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard, who campaigned in the province of Saskatchewan. It was drawn also, if I may say so, from many quotations from the speeches of hon. gentlemen who campaigned in Saskatchewan in 1934. May I add that while it had nothing to do with the provincial government it was an effective campaign from the point of view of the provincial Liberal party in that province. A year later, those seeds then sown having flourished and produced fruit, that fruit was garnered by some of the hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side of this house. So I say that if the speech delivered by the right hon. gentleman this afternoon in this chamber had been made prior to October 14 last the Canadian people would have had a much clearer idea of exactly where the Liberal government of Canada was going to stand if elected.
There are one or two other little matters to which I should like to refer. I thought it was undignified on the part of the Prime Minister this afternoon to read that little postcard and, when some of us said "hear, hear" to the sentiments therein expressed, to look across and say "Now we see the source." I want to say to the Prime Minister that hon. gentlemen who sit in this corner of the house do not indulge in the sending of anonymous postcards.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not anonymous; they are all signed.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Then that just shows that the right hon. gentleman should have known that this group, or any other group in the house, was not responsible for sending those postcards. If they are signed the remark he made is all the more inexcusable. I received one of those postcards through the mail, in common with many other members.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend could have hardly done so unless it was misdirected, because the address on all is printed and all are addressed to myself, and marked "personal." He might have received a similar card.


Major James William Coldwell: The point I am endeavouring to make is that it was rather uncalled for to lead the house to believe that those postcards might have emanated from one , of these groups.

War Veterans' Allowance Act


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say at once I did not wish to create that impression at all, and if what I said did create it I certainly withdraw it. But when I heard someone say,."hear, hear" to the sentiments expressed upon the card, I supposed it had, at any rate, their approval.


Thomas Miller Bell: I am glad to accept the explanation in the spirit in which it is made. Now it is nearly six o'clock. In conclusion, I just say that I believe the government have made a mistake in setting up a bank of this description. To my mind there are only two methods of control of a central bank to be considered. One is private control, independent, altogether of the government, and for which control the government could deny any responsibility. I do not believe that would be in the interest of the people of Canada. On the other hand I believe that a national central bank, established as such, ought to be owned and controlled by the people of Canada, so that parliament may exercise the fullest possible control, and the people of Canada can place upon the shoulders of the government, and the government can accept, the responsibility for the policies of that bank. Consequently, although we of this little group are glad to see a step taken in the direction in which we wish to go, and therefore shall vote for the third reading of the bill, nevertheless we believe that if the government are wise they will again consider, before parliament meets next year, taking complete ownership and control of the Bank of Canada.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the third reading, and I suggest that you now call it six o'clock, as I shall take at least fifteen minutes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say that I have an arrangement made with the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) to allow him to proceed this evening with his legislation, because he is obliged to leave later. If my hon. friend will be so kind as to move the adjournment of the debate, we would like to take that other measure first. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) might then go on with the amendments to the criminal code. We shall take this measure up again to-morrow.
On motion of Mr. Cahan the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 109, for the relief of Albert Leonard Johnson.-Mr. Ross (Moose Jaw).
Bill No. 110, for the relief of Reva Marcus. -Mr. Factor.
Bill No. Ill, for the relief of Ethel May Luckie Atkinson.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 112, for the relief of Edythe Mary Ross Brown.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 113, for the relief of Joseph Paul George Marcoux.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 114, for the relief of Adjutor St.-Jean.-Mr. White.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 27, to amend the War Veterans' Allowance Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Powers of the board.
Mr. BENNETT:: What are the modifications? I understand that this bill has been agreed to unanimously by the committee. Is that correct?


Mr. POWER:: To one clause, clause 3, there was some reservation on the part of certain members of the committee who felt that perhaps this legislation did not go far enough in liberalizing the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. The report was unanimous with a reservation by certain members of the committee. Clauses 1 and 2 of the bill were passed unanimously.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-To whom allowances paid.
Mr. GREEN:: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot agree with the minister on this section. I believe that he enjoys the confidence of the returned men of Canada; I know he has done good work for them over a period of many years, and I hope he will be spared to do the same for them for many years to come.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Howard Charles Green: Although I am a member of the opposition, it is my intention to cooperate with the minister in every way possible in dealing with the soldier problems as they arise from time to time during the life of this eighteenth parliament. However,
3820
War Veterans' Allowance Act

on this particular section we have been obliged to agree to disagree. This is the section setting out the class of veterans who are eligible for assistance under the War Veterans' Allowance Act. In my opinion this is the most important section of the three bills, Nos. 26, 27, 28, which have been before the house at this session, dealing with soldier problems. I say that it is the most important section because it is the only one under which help can be given now, without any delay, to a considerable body of returned men who are burnt out, men who are really unemployable.
Bill No. 26, to amend the Pension Act, is of course important, because after all the pensioner will always be entitled to first consideration. His disabilities are directly attributable to service, and for that reason, I repeat, he is entitled to first consideration. However, Bill No. 26, as passed by this parliament, gives direct help only to a very limited group of pensioners and their dependents. The main object of Bill No. 26 was to simplify the administration of the Pension Act and to achieve a certain measure of finality. Speaking of finality, I believe that new problems will arise from time to time, and I do not think we can expect the Pension Act to stand without amendment because such new problems as they arise will have to be met by amendments to the act. So much for Bill No. 26.
Bill No. 28 is also important because it provides for the setting up of a veterans' assistance commission. We hope that eventually it will lead to the employment of a great many returned men who are at the present time out of work but who are employable. I wish to distinguish clearly in my remarks between the employable returned man and the unemployable returned man. I say that Bill No. 28 should be of assistance to the employable returned man who at the present time is out of work, but if the members of the committee will refer to Bill No. 28, section 6, they will see that the key words of that bill are "investigate and report," which means that no immediate result can be expected even for the employable returned man. The bill as I see it cannot be of assistance directly to the returned man who is unemployable.
To come to the third bill, Bill No. 27, which we are now considering, my submission is that it is the one bill of the three which will be of any help to the returned man who is unemployable. Speaking for myself alone, I am afraid that the particular section now before the committee, even as it has been amended, will not meet the need. In order
{Mr. Green.]
to explain that statement, I must review the present provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. It was passed in 1930 and has never been amended. The act was passed to benefit the front line man who is defined as a veteran who served in a theatre of actual war. Although there is also provision made for the small pensioner who did not serve in a theatre of actual war but served in England or Canada, the act was primarily intended to benefit the man who served in a theatre of actual war. A returned man must be without means to be eligible for the allowance; he is allowed an income of only S125 per annum if single; if he receives an income larger than that, the difference is taken away from his war veterans' allowance; if he is a married man he is allowed an income of $250 per annum, and in either case he is allowed an interest in his home of a value not over S2,000.
Practically all applicants for war veterans' allowance are returned men who are on relief or who are faced with the necessity of going on relief. I cannot make that point too clear. These men are being largely supported by the government at the present time. The War Veterans' Allowance Act was intended for the benefit of the pre-aged and burnt-out man, the man who is really unemployable. At the present time the allowance is paid to only two classes of veterans: first, those over sixty years of age and, second, those who are permanently unemployable by reason of physical or mental disability. A man may receive a maximum of $20 per month if single or $40 per month if married. No matter how many children he may have he cannot get more than $40 per month. This is not as much as a man could receive on relief in certain cities, but the evidence given before the pension committee was to the effect that the returned man preferred to be under the War Veterans' Allowance Act as he considered he could accept the benefits under that act and still hold his head high. This fact should be kept in mind by hon. members of this committee.
As I have said before, this act has been in force for six years without amendment, but experience has shown beyond question that there are many men under sixty years of age who cannot prove themselves to be permanently unemployable-I make no complaint with reference to those over sixty years of age-but there are many men under sixty years of ago who cannot prove themselves to be permanently unemployable and

3S21
War Veterans' Allowance Act
yet actually they are pre-aged and burnt out and really unemployable. This fact was admitted by the chairman of the war veterans' allowance committee when he appeared before the pension committee, and it was pointed out time and again by representatives of the soldier organizations. There can be no question that this class of returned men are not being provided for at the present time.
The soldier organizations had two suggestions to offer to remedy this defect. One suggestion was that the age limit of sixty years now in the act should be reduced to fifty-five years; in other words, that there should be a general Lowering of the age limit from sixty years to fifty-five years. The other suggestion was that the definition "permanently unemployable" should be changed to "industrially unemployable" without any age limitation whatever. What section 3 of this bill does is to make a very restricted provision for the returned man between the ages of fifty-five and sixty years. This section sets up a new classification and if the bill is passed we shall then have a third group eligible for the war veterans' allowance defined as follows:

or having served in a theatre of actual war, has attained the age of fifty-five years and is, in the opinion of the board, incapable of maintaining himself because of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness.
The committee will notice that the qualifications necessary for a man to obtain an allowance under this new classification are that he must be between the ages of fifty-five and sixty years and be incapable of maintaining himself by reason of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness. The word "or" is not used there; the man must be incapable by reason of all three, disability, preageing and general unfitness. It will be noticed that a wide discretion is given to the board; an applicant does not get an allowance as a matter of right; the allowance is confined to veterans who served in a theatre of actual war and of course they must be without means.
My criticism is that this classification is too narrow as it overlooks the veteran below fifty-five years of age who is burnt out and unemployable. The only provision made for such a man is found in a recommendation in the report of the pension committee, which reads as follows:
Your committee also recommends that the veterans' assistance commission to be appointed under the provisions of Bill No. 28 make an investigation into the position of those veterans under the age of 55 years who are by reason of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness, incapable of maintaining themselves.
This means that those unemployable veterans who are under fifty-five years of age will have to wait for a report from the veterans' assistance commission. No action can be taken until next year, and perhaps even later. In the meantime this class of returned men are on relief with the government paying most of the cost. They are competing in the labour market, sometimes with their own sons. If they are over fifty years of age there is very little chance that they will ever get work again. I suggest to the minister that the proper thing to do would be to provide for this group in the new classification. The range of the new classification is not wide enough to cover these cases. There should have been no age limit or at any rate the group should have included veterans aged from fifty to fifty-five years. If this change were made I believe there would be more chance of getting some permanency in the act and it would go a long way toward meeting the need which obviously is not met by this section.
I think a word should be said for the soldier representatives who appeared before the pension committee. Just a few days ago we saw in the newspapers that the American treasury was sending out truck loads of bonds to American veterans. In contrast there was not the slightest suggestion of high pressure methods being used by our Canadian soldier representatives when they appeared before the pension committee. They presented carefully prepared briefs in a business-like way and I think all members of the pension committee will agree that the representatives who appeared before them were a credit to the returned soldier body of Canada.
In conclusion, I should like to remind the committee of a fact sometimes forgotten. The great majority of returned men have been fortunate enough to fit themselves into the life of the nation; they are bearing their share of all burdens just as are their fellow-Canadians and they are asking nothing of the nation for themselves. But they do ask and ask most earnestly that their comrades who were disabled or who are burnt out should receive reasonable assistance and continued sympathy from the people of Canada.


Mr. NEILL:: This section, to my ignorant layman's mind, constitutes two distinct conditions. One is that of the man who has attained the age of sixty, or if he is under that, apparently, because it says:
-or is, in the opinion of the board, permanently unemployable by reason of physical or mental disability.
War Veterans' Allowance Act

And the word "veteran" means a man who has been in a theatre of war. So that the first part of the section is a continuation of the present condition. Then the alternative is:
-or having served in a theatre of actual war.
I do not think there is any necessity for this; if he is a veteran he must have served in a theatre of war.


Charles Gavan Power: The original act provided that the beneficiaries should be either those who had received pension or had served in a theatre of actual war, so that it was possible for a man who had served only in Canada or in England and had 'obtained a pension to come under the provisions of the War Veterans' Allowance Act. That is carried out in the first part of the .section we are discussing. As regards the other point, persons who are now in receipt of pension and who do not comply with the conditions with respect to service in an actual theatre of war shall not be entitled to receive benefits under the act.


Alan Webster Neill: Unless such a man has been in a theatre of actual war.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes.


Alan Webster Neill: The other point is this. The alternative provision in the case of a man of the age of sixty is that he must be permanently unemployable, and that is a very difficult thing to prove because the board always trots out an elevator and says that if he is not able to do the work to which he has been accustomed all his life he can at any rate run an elevator. The fact that there is not an elevator within 200 miles makes no difference. The minister realizes, of course, that it is difficult to handle such a case. He is, therefore, going to improve matters so far as the man of fifty-five is concerned by making the requisite disability take the form of being incapable of maintaining himself because of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness. I would rather have seen the word "or" inserted instead of "and" before the words "general unfitness." It appears to me that the man of fifty-five is in a preferential position to the man of sixty. If he is fifty-four he has to prove that he is permanently unemployable by reason of physical disability, but if he is fifty-five he can get past by proving general disability and pre-ageing. Preferential treatment is given to the man of fifty-five. Why not leave out the words "fifty-five" and let the man prove disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness, the age being below sixty? If that were done it would apply to men of fifty-four or fifty-two.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the point which was raised by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Green) who preceded my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni. The difference as between certain members of the committee was this. The majority of the members thought that since we were creating a special class it was very difficult for us to go below fifty-five. As a matter of fact, there is a potential number of 33,000 men who could apply as being between fifty-five and sixty, and if you bring the age limit down to fifty under the same circumstances there is a potential of 88,000, indicating, as my hon. friend recognizes, that soldiers are getting older as time goes on. In view of the fact that this was creating a new class it was thought well to experiment in it before embarking very largely upon any plan in this direction.


Alan Webster Neill: 
Charles Gavan Power: I know quite well that there is, both under the Pension Act and in connection with the War Veterans' Allowance Act, a very large number of cases that are

War Veterans' Allowance Act
really hard, deserving the utmost sympathy of every member of the house, but I believe there is an old adage that says that hard cases make bad law. It would be impossible by legislation to cover all the cases that are meritorious in themselves and that attract our sympathy.


Alan Webster Neill: But there is precedent in this case.


Charles Gavan Power: When the War Veterans' Allowance Act was first introduced it was intended to look after soldiers only. It was only under pressure by members of the committee of that day that it was decided to look after the wives of ex-soldiers. This is a provision to take care of burnt-out ex-soldiers themselves. There has been a tendency ever since the act was passed to extend it to everybody, to children and adopted children, and to carry on the allowance for the wife after the beneficiary's death. As a matter of compromise and in order that something should be done for the wife, the law provided that she should receive an allowance for twelve months following her husband's death. Pressure is now being brought to bear to continue this during the lifetime of the wife, and doubtless after that there will be further pressure to continue it during the lifetime of the children. So far as I am concerned, I think this is good legislation. It has served its purpose; it has met with the approval of all sections of the country, and personally I should be very reluctant to change the principle upon which it was based.


Alan Webster Neill: I entirely concede everything the minister has said with regard to the merits of the legislation; I think it is the best in the world. But I do not think he entirely answered the point I made. There is precedent for what I suggested. I am merely asking that the same principle be applied to the burnt-out man as to the military man, and I do not think the number of cases would be excessive. I believe there are very few. This legislation is said to be intended for the burnt-out man, who is unable to work; that is the general acceptation. But I am quoting a case-and there must be very few- of a man who is permanently and entirely bedridden, who cannot turn in his bed without assistance, and who has no wife to help him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is his age?


Alan Webster Neill: He is under the age of sixty, but he is qualified because he is burnt out and unable to help himself, and ordinarily he would get $40, but because it is his daughter instead of his wife who is attending him she is unable to draw that allowance. We have
a precedent under the military pensions regulations, so that to make provision for such a case would not start a new precedent, nor would it involve any great expense if the same conditions were to apply to such a case as apply to military cases. I would not have the minister think that in pressing him in this matter I fail to appreciate the benefits of this act. I think it is the best legislation of its kind in the world. I would not even ask at the moment that the age should be reduced to fifty. I think when that is done we should also reduce the old age pension age to sixty-five. But in the case I have mentioned, and in the very few isolated cases of the same kind that must occur-and the minister's officials will know how few they are-I ask that an allowance should be made for what is called total helplessness, and that where the man is drawing only $20, he should be given an extra $20 to help him pay an assistant.


Mr. CHURCH:: I wish to say a word about this particular section, as I come from a district called Broadview, referred to yesterday by the Minister of Justice. This is the riding which has such a broad point of view that it sent more troops to the front than did any other riding in Canada.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Except Davenport.


Thomas Langton Church: I used to represent Northwest Toronto, in which was Christie Street hospital. My present riding has the most men who are affected by this particular clause and who are fifty-five years old being bom in 1881, about four years before the northwest rebellion, when troops to the number of three battalions, composed to the extent of seventy-five per cent of Toronto men, went to the northwest to save this country from disintegration. The men who served in that campaign were treated disgracefully by this parliament. Many of them died without a pension. I was struck by the contrast when I was in Washington recently and saw how readily a bill was passed, involving hundreds of millions of dollars, for the benefit of former members of the American expeditionary force. Many who never saw the front lines. Yet, compared with the achievements of the troops who went from Canada, the accomplishments of the American army were small and insignificant.
I commend the work that has been done by this particular committee. It is glorious work, well done as far as it went. Consider what this country has done for some of the people who stayed at home. Take the DuPont corporation; think of the hundreds of millions of dollars which it made during the war and after. One of its Canadian officials, a man who did not go to the war, has been appointed
War Veterans' Allowance Act

chairman of the employment commission. I refer to Mr. Purvis, head of the DuPont in Canada. What did the returned men get as lompared to him?
This particular bill refers to unemployment. Every day I see men who went to the front and served there in the battle for civilization, and it is humiliating to me, as one of those who presided over a great city during the war, to note the present condition of these men and their children in distress. I do not know what they would have done but for the Poppy Day fund and the women's organization connected with Christie Street hospital. I see the children of these veterans on the streets wearing second-hand clothing; I see the wives with second-hand baby carriages. Such things are a disgrace to the people of this country.
Once again I commend the good work that this committee has done. The present minister does not need to have sitting beside him a schoolmaster when he is passing the items of this bill; I can give him that credit, anyway. I note that the purpose of the amendment in section 3 is to provide that in specially meritorious cases, such as preageing and general unfitness, a veteran may be classified as permanently unemployable on reaching the age of fifty-five instead of sixty, which is the age mentioned in the first part of section 4. I might remark for the benefit of the Minister of Justice that next Sunday there will be about 30,000 troops assembled in the Broadview riding, at Riverdale park for their annual service, but that is a broad place. I take a broad view when I am dealing with any question. But he promises in a bill to do something, and does nothing. These 30,000 men will meet in Riverdale park. I do not often go down there, because I never appeal to the soldier vote; I am not a soldier and so am not in a class to talk to the men who went to the front and gave service. But I see these men on the streets every day, and I visit their homes. Some of them, because of the way in which they are treated by the people of this country, cannot to-day send their children to high school.
Christie Street hospital was in my riding. When the war closed the military hospital was just a factory; this country put its wounded men into an old base hospital on Gerrard street, which as mayor of the city, I refused to allow to be used. It was not good enough for civilians, and was closed; why was it considered good enough to be occupied by men who served at the front? Some of them were supposed to be put into the Toronto gaol, but I said on behalf of the city that,

by the grace of God, no man who had served in France and Flanders would ever be put into a Toronto gaol for one small breach of military regulations, and we refused them the use of this old building. I speak only as a civilian, but I see these men in Christie Street hospital, away on the top floor. Why should they be there, serving what amounts to a life sentence? For they are sentenced by this high court of parliament to a life sentence three or four floors up in the Christie Street hospital. I am not criticizing those who look after them, the nurses and others, for they are a wonderful lot of people.
Persons who are fifty-five years of age should be taken off the labour market altogether. In the meanwhile it seems to me that better jobs could be found for some of these men. All the jobs the returned soldiers in this country get are pick and shovel jobs. I am not criticizing the present government, or the minister, who served with a Toronto battalion at t'he front, and who is admired and respected by the exservice men of Toronto. But I do not think ,the amendment goes 'half far enough, considering what these men have done, and what was done at Washington. The United States did not vote a few millions; as every banking house knows, the amount they granted runs into billions. Yet some of t'he men who are receiving this money never left t'heir native shores. The 347th regiment of the United States army, which came from Seattle, went through Toronto. I saw other battalions also, some of them from the states and some never did a day's fighting; yet the men are getting pensions and allowances and need do no work after they are forty. They never fired a pinwheel, a. firecracker or a skyrocket on behalf of the President of the United States.
I desire to commend this section, although, when I consider what this dominion has wasted, in natural resources of soil and forest and mine, to American millionaires and their friends, I think the section does not go far enough. The farmers, the Ontario Drury government, gave away a whole principality half the size of Belgium, to an American millionaire, Mr. Backus.
When a returned soldier comes home, and is fifty-five years of age, do you think he is 100 per cent efficient? If the whole 245 members of the present House of Commons were transported to Belgium and France; if they had to sleep, with hardly anything to eat for three or four nights at a time, away below the ground, as the present able young minister and colleagues of his on both sides

War Veterans' Allowance Act
of the 'house had to do; if members went over there and suffered the privations and human tribulations and trials of every kind that these men went through, and then came back from the front with no better conditions facing their children than are experienced by many of our returned men to-day, they would realize the position of many men in my constituency. When the children go to high school, although the teachers, many of whom are returned soldiers, are friendly to them, they cannot afford any longer to pay their fees. The result is the boys of the family go to new Ontario, and are sent to gaol because they are vagrants. I brought in a bill and appealed to the House of Commons; yet not one member supported it.
I saw these conditions while I was an officer of the municipality for fourteen or fifteen years, and I see them now as a member of parliament. I do not care about the race or religion of these returned men; I am trying to help them. I have never seen anything like the suffering they and their families are undergoing at the present time. I have visited their homes; I have seen them in rags and in want. I do not know what they would do if it were not for the Poppy Day fund. Every day in the daily newspapers of Toronto I see advertisements asking for second-hand baby carriages, secondhand socks, second-hand shoes and secondhand clothing of all kinds. This is a disgrace to the people of this country. I want to commend the government, or rather the committee, for the work they have done, but when I see one of the DuPont crowd appointed as chairman of the employment commission and at the same time see the men waiking around the streets of Toronto, I think this is a disgrace. The city of Toronto cannot carry the whole burden, as it has done in the past. To the 245 members of this House of Commons I say: Go to Christie Street hospital; see the rooms and wards up on the top floor, where the men never get a breath of fresh air. See the wifes and children of these veterans, some of them five and six years of age. I say that this is a disgrace to the people of Canada. We talk about sending a few men to the old country. Well, after spending about four and a half million dollars on the League of Nations, which gets nowhere, the government cannot afford to send thirty-five members of this house over to the reunion at Vimy Ridge. Vimy Ridge cost the city of Toronto 2,000 men and $2,000,000 in insurance which was carried on the men by the city. I started to
help recruit tihe 75th battalion; it raised 16,000 men, of whom more than 1,200 fell at Vimy Ridge. I have visited the homes of some of the members of this battalion, and what I have seen there makes me ashamed to be a Canadian. Upon my word I am ashamed to be a member of the House of Commons of Canada when I see the conditions that exist in my constituency. I know of one case, a woman whose husband might have had a good job in this country to-day, an educated woman, who has to take in washing in order to support her small children who are attending a high school in my riding. I protest against that sort of thing.
I may talk too mueh sometimes; I hope all talk for this session will be over tomorrow at midnight, but I do not think we can talk too much about these matters. I knew the minister during and before the war, as a hockey player, and I want to thank him for what he has done. Both he and the young minister from British Columbia came to Christie Street hospital and saw the conditions that exist on the upper floor of that institution. I hope the Minister of Finance may find it possible to release a few thousand dollars in order to relieve the condition of these men who have been sentenced to life in an institution where there is not a breath of air and where the thermometer may stand at 96 or 97 degrees. If we gave these men full pay we could not begin to compensate them for what they have done and what they have gone through. What is the situation in the United States? There are generals and brigadier-generals around Washington getting full pensions though they never set foot in France. And colonels! They have about 367 colonels in Kentucky who have never fired anything more dangerous than a pinwheel, a firecracker or a sky-rocket, who have never been outside the United States and who also are drawing full pensions.


James Earl Lawson: The war veterans' allowance board, however, has ruled, in pursuance of an opinion given by the Justice department, that irrespective of whether the man himself served in the theatre of war and irrespective of whether or not he has all the other qualifications, he cannot receive a war veterans' allowance unless his unit served in a theatre of war.
I took occasion to lay before the committee one concrete case which I believe is illustrative of some twenty-five or thirty cases in this country. A man was assigned the job of non-commissioned conducting officer. His job was to conduct troops through the dangerous channels from the base in England to the place in France where they joined some other unit. The men who did that work were subjected to the hazards of war both by sea and on land just as much as those who served in almost any of the transport services. But because a man was attached to a unit which was situated in England, even though he may be qualified on all other grounds under this act, it is said that he cannot obtain a war veteran's allowance. I suggested to the committee that since that interpretation of the definition contained in the act seemed clearly contrary to the plain reading of the act, the necessary amendments should be made to clarify the situation. I see the committee has not seen fit to recommend such an amendment. As far as I am concerned I merely desire every member of this committee to realize that the definition in this act does not mean one who served in a theatre of war; under a ruling or interpretation by the Justice department, no matter what service a man rendered he is still out of luck unless his unit actually served in France, thus coming within the definition of service in a theatre of war.


Charles Gavan Power: The case presented by my hon. friend is quite familiar to me. As the hon. gentleman says, quite a number of claims -probably ten or fifteen-have been made for war veterans' allowance by men who went on a Cook's tour to France or served as conducting officers. The war veterans' allowance board consulted the Department of Justice some time in 1932, and the department ruled that such men, though they actually did set foot on the soil of France and under a strict interpretation of the definition of a theatre of actual war could be looked upon as having served in a theatre of actual war, could not be considered under the War Veterans' Allowance Act because they had not been attached to a unit situated in France.
The same ruling was given, I am informed by the militia department in connection with the medals which were issued to those who saw service in France and in connection with

various other matters having reference to military service. If my hon. friend wants my opinion may I say that I would be glad to discuss this matter with the law officers of the crown. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the interpret ation of the act given by the hon. member. But there was no amendment which we could make. As he himself has said, the act is quite clear. "Theatre of actual war" means in the case of military or air forces the zone of the allied armies on the continents of Europe, Asia and Africa. Well, the person on whose behalf my hon. friend speaks did serve in one of the armies of His Majesty in a zone of actual war on the continent of Europe. That is quite clear; there could be no argument about it. It would not have been possible to amend the act to cover it, because it is there in the act as I read it. But in this individual case there is a ruling, which I believe has been in existence since the war, that conducting officers, those who have been on Cook's tours and who just went around France to visit the trenches, were not to be considered as people who served in the theatre of actual war. I do not think it is within my jurisdiction or part of my duty as a minister to order the war veterans' allowance committee to issue an allowance. I would think I was acting in an arbitrary manner and in a manner parliament did not intend a minister to act if I were to take that duty upon myself.
Very properly, I believe, the chairman and members of the war veterans' allowance committee referred the disputed point to the Department of Justice. I have nothing further to say on the matter, except that we could not meet the hon. member by making an amendment. I could not meet him by issuing an instruction to the war veterans' allowance committee to accede to his wishes. I think he has a perfectly sound legal argument to make before the Department of Justice, and I wish him well when he makes his argument.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. member for York South has said that the section refers to a person whose unit served in France.


James Earl Lawson: No, that is what the Department of Justice says it means.


Alan Webster Neill: It says "any former member who served in a theatre of actual war."


James Earl Lawson: Yes, but the Department of Justice says that it does not mean that. Hon. members will see the position into which we are getting at this time. My hon. friend, whom I shall refrain from commending as a lawyer -because at the moment he happens to agree with me-says that to him it is just as plain as it is to me that the law means what I say it

War Veterans' Allowance Act
means, and what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) and any person who reads it must conclude it means. Here we have before parliament a responsible minister of the government who says: "Plainly that is what the law means, but I cannot instruct the Department of Justice not to thwart the law and to say that it is something other than parliament says it is. I cannot instruct the war veterans' allowance committee." I do not think any blame attaches to the board. Being confronted with a case they submitted it to the Department of Justice. They could not set themselves up as interpreters of the law and give to that law an interpretation different from that given by the Department of Justice.
I shall not take the time of the committee to deal with the statement made by the minister with respect to Cook's tours. If some other members will keep this debate going long enough to let me go to my office and get my files I could show the minister that the person to whom I was referring was not on a Cook's tour.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps the hon. member misunderstood me. I spoke about conducting officers and people who went on what we called Cook's tours. As my hon. friend must know, so that they would not return to Canada without having at least set foot in France and been in the front line, a large number of officers managed to arrange what were called Cook's tours. They spent a week or a few days with the battalion, and then returned home. If my hon. friend's-interpretation of the act is accepted, then certainly those men would be entitled to war veterans' allowance and to the same military medals as those men who served in the front line. It must be remembered, too, that the conducting officers did not have an extremely dangerous job. In fact they had what might be called "cushy" jobs; I do not want a better one in the next war.	.


James Earl Lawson: I want to say at the outset that I am very sorry if I misinterpreted the remarks of the minister, or if I said anything that would injure him-


Charles Gavan Power: No; you did not.


James Earl Lawson: I may have misunderstood him. I want to say, however, that some of these non-commissioned conducting officers had just as hazardous occupations as many others who are drawing pensions, and I am not referring to the miserable pittance obtained under war veterans' allowance; I refer to pensions. Conducting officers did run a hazard, if they had to cross the English channel they were on a hazardous voyage.
If they had to make trips from the landing point in France to the base line of action, they ran a hazard; they ran the hazard of shell fire, and the hazard of bombs from aeroplanes. I do not wish to get into a discussion of that kind, but I know of no way of preventing the Department of Justice from saying the law is what parliament says it is not, unless parliament changes the wording to make it so plain that the Department of Justice cannot possibly say that that is not what the statute means.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to
referring the case back to the Department of Justice, if my hon. friend so desires. I believe he himself discussed it with the law officers of the crown, if I am not mistaken.


James Earl Lawson: No.


Charles Gavan Power: I have no objection to referring the case back for decision.


Alan Webster Neill: As we are confronted with a situation wherein the Department of Justice has given a ruling which appears to be contrary to the spirit of the act-


Charles Gavan Power: I would not say it was contrary to the spirit of the act. Quite frankly I am willing to tell the committee I do not think it was ever the spirit of the act to have a condition whereby conducting officers would come under it, and I will take the responsibility for making that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: The spirit of the act would certainly refer to those who served in the theatre of actual war. Could we not say, "who served in the theatre of actual war," and exclude those people, who, as the minister says, were on Cook's tours? We could make a provision whereby a trip to the lines not exceeding so many days would not count. Surely it is possible for us to frame a definition in such a way as to meet the objection of the Department of Justice and still be fair to the cases about which the hon. member for York South has spoken. That should be within the legal ability of the minister and his associates; surely they could draw up a section which would be proof against the opinion of the Department of Justice.


Richard Bedford Bennett: About how many men of sixty are now drawing those allowances, and what was the amount paid last year? With respect to the last point made may I say that I believe the difficulty lies in the word "served." The men to whom the hon. member for York South referred have not served in a theatre of actual war, within the meaning of
3S28
War Veterans' Allowance Act

the statute. They were there merely as conducting officers, or whatever they may be called, and therefore did not serve within the meaning of that word. Does not the Department of Justice say that?


Charles Gavan Power: The Department of Justice alleges that there must be attachment to a unit. On the other hand I shall have to say this to the hon. member for York South, that certain staff officers could not be said to be attached to units, and yet they no doubt would be qualified for a war veterans' allowance.
With respect to the first point raised by my right hon. friend may I say that there are altogether about 9,000 enjoying war veterans' allowances, and of that number about two-thirds are above the age of sixty and one-third below sixty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Between fifty-five and sixty?


Charles Gavan Power: No. At the present time the act provides for those who are unable to maintain themselves and have passed the age of sixty. We assume that they are permanently unemployable if they have reached sixty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That has been the law for over five years.


Charles Gavan Power: Since 1930. If they are below sixty years and can establish that they are permanently unemployable on account of mental or physical disability, they come under the act.
The present section which is being proposed to the committee creates a new class. The war veterans' allowance committee, in travelling throughout the country, found that there was a large number of men who were not quite sixty years of age and not quite physically unemployable. They are fairly well recognizable problem oases, and it is to cover these cases that we are introducing this amendment. It is for those over fifty-five years of age, most of them problem cases, who cannot obtain a doctor's certificate that they are permanently disabled. Most of these cases are approaching sixty; they are between fifty-five and sixty, and it was thought we should create a class between fifty-five and sixty years of age of those who were disabled, pre-aged, infirm, and who, while not quite permanently unemployable, yet were incapable of maintaining themselves. It was very difficult to express in legal language the thought that was in the mind of the members of the war veterans' allowance committee, but they were given a discretion to take in a certain number of men who undoubtedly should be looked after in some way.

My hon. friends who have spoken have suggested that we should take in all those down to fifty years of age. The average age of our soldiers is now approximately forty-seven, and to adopt that suggestion would really mean an unemployment relief measure. This act, I submit, was never intended as an unemployment relief measure for soldiers. It was an extension of the principle on which every government and every soldiers' committee has acted since these committees have been studying this question. The principle is that no one is entitled to a pension unless he has a disability which was incurred on or due to service. That is to say, disability due to sendee is the determining factor whether he shall get a pension or not.
Then, in 1930, it was found that there was a large number of men who could not possibly establish their right to pension, so this parliament established a species of presumption that they were over-aged, burnt out, and parliament made that age ten years less than that provided under the old age pension legislation. They said that a man of sixty who served in a theatre of actual war might be presumed, on account of the hardships he had undergone and on account of the life of the trenches, to be burnt out, and therefore they said that he would get an allowance. Then they said that if a man were permanently unemployable on account of some physical or mental disability which he could not trace to service, he too, if he were ill, if he were indigent, should be entitled to an allowance.
Now it has been found that the words "permanently unemployable" did not cover a sufficiently large number of men, and certain service associations and certain of my hon. friends felt that we should perhaps say "industrially unemployable." I think every hon. member will immediately understand that that means unemployment insurance; in other words, that would have taken in every soldier, every man who put on a uniform, the moment he became unemployed. I do not think that was ever the intention of parliament, and certainly it was not the intention of parliament when this act was introduced. We have gone a long way in saying that we would endeavour to take care of the problem cases.
I do not know that I should discuss the question of cost, but my right hon. friend has asked me certain questions. With respect to the number of persons who are now in the enjoyment of war veterans' allowance, those sixty years of age and over number 6,194, and the amount expended during the last fiscal year on that class was $1,892,672; under sixty years of age and permanently unemployable

War Veterans' Allowance Act
on account of physical disabilities, the number is 2,626, and the amount expended $887,599; making a total for the last fiscal year of 8,820 persons profiting by the allowance, at an expenditure of $2,780,271. We have asked the house-and the estimate has been passed-for an amount of $3,200,000 this year.
Under this new amendment we are asking that an amount of $200,000 be inserted in the supplementary estimates to cover the balance of the fiscal year, making it roughly $300,000 additional a year, taking in the class from fifty-five to sixty years of age. I have no means of knowing how much more it would be if we took in the class from fifty to sixty years of age, but I think it is at least fair to assume that there would be at least as many, and the proposal made by my hon. friends in that regard would add to the bill something like $600,000 a year. The total of war veterans' allowances is now accelerating at the rate of $400,000 a year, without the provisions of this amendment, and I am informed that the amount next year will be $650,000 more than it was last year. Perhaps the committee would be interested in getting some of the figures. The amount of war veterans' allowances paid in 1933 was $2,224,000; in 1934, $2,500,000; in 1935, $2,800,000; in 1936, $3,200,000; in 1937, $3,500,000. Now I jump to 1940, when the estimated amount will be $4,700,000; 1945, $6,300,000; 1950, $9,174,000; 1951.	$10,090,000;	1955,	$11,269,000;	1956,
$11,602,000; 1957, $11,809,000, and in that year we would have reached the estimated peak of expenditure if no change was being made in the War Veterans' Allowance Act. Under this legislation we are accelerating the total amount paid by at least from $200,000 to $300,000 a year; the peak will probably be reached a great deal earlier, probably some time in the early 1950's, and I say that without having any figure before me. The amount which will be expended over a period of ten years will be considerable.
Had we accepted the proposal made by certain soldier organizations and others outside, that the age limit be reduced to fifty-five without any qualifications, within ten years the estimated additional expenditure would have been $25,974,000, and had we accepted the proposal to bring the age down to fifty, the estimated additional expenditure would have been $46,058,000. That is one of the reasons why it was not considered advisable to jump at once into a very large additional expenditure. Besides, the war veterans' assistance commission, if it is to accomplish anything-and I hope it will-will endeavour to find means of employment for the 30,000 to 40,000 exsoldiers who are not now in receipt of a pension or in receipt of war veterans' allowance, but are entitled to some consideration on the part of the people of Canada.
Mr. BENNETT; That was mentioned in the Hyndman report.


Charles Gavan Power: My right hon. friend has
mentioned the Hyndman report. As he knows, the Hyndman commission's report attracted a great deal of attention and a great deal of support throughout the country. The commission reported as follows:
To enact that a man who is out of work at the age of 50 or 55 is permanently unemployable would be to depart from the intention of the act and would virtually convert any benefits under that act into general service pensions. A large majority of those who are under 60 years of age and who are out of work, are so situated because of economic and not physical conditions, and it is felt by your committee that the recommendations contained in this report will, in large measure, provide the temporary assistance requird by those for whom employment cannot readily be found, without branding them as unemployable for the rest of their lives.
We have given very close and earnest consideration to all these requests, and are constrained to the view that it would be unwise to disturb the principle upon which the War Veterans' Allowance Act was based.
In view of the evidence given before this commission which carefully investigated the matter, I believe that anyone who has the real interests of the ex-soldier at heart-had I more time I might go into this more fully- will agree that the committee would be wise to go forward only one step in the direction in which it 'has gone at the present time. Possibly at some future date, should nothing else be done for the unemployed ex-soldier, the parliament of Canada may decide to depart from the principle which it has followed heretofore and to take on its shoulders the charge of all ex-service men in Canada who are not pensioners and who have no service disability. That will be the responsibility of government and of parliament when the time comes to frame such a policy. At the present time I do not feel that we have sufficient information before us and that public opinion has been sufficiently educated to take a step so far in a direction which I think will inevitably not be of benefit to the ex-service man.
Mr. BENNETT; Has the minister concluded that the word "domiciled" in the last line of section 3 is the word that adequately expresses what he has in mind? In law the word "domicile" means a combination of two factors, residence and intention. A man must have residence without any animus revertendi. I am not endeavouring to lecture the committee, but the use of this word is always
War Veterans' Allowance Act

dangerous because it involves great difficulty of proof. It has arisen so frequently in the courts that I wondered whether it was being used synonymously with "residence," or whether or not the minister had in mind the use of the complex term "domicile."


Charles Gavan Power: After a rather long and fairly checkered career in a sphere not so nonpartisan as that in which we are now in connection with the elections act, I did learn a great deal about the word "domicile." I quite agree with my right hon. friend that that word does not mean residence, far from it, but I am informed that it was in the original act as it was passed in 1930 and is being interpreted by the committee as meaning ordinary residence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is very dangerous in case it gets into a court of law.


Charles Gavan Power: I quite agree.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
express very briefly my concurrence in the views advanced by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). I join with him and other members of the committee in expressing appreciation of the sympathetic attitude shown by the minister to these problems throughout the entire proceedings of the pension committee. I do not wish to appear to be unduly critical of the section under discussion at the moment as I recognize its value in that it confers benefits upon a certain category of ex-service men. It is an important step towards the solution of an urgent problem. Nevertheless I urged throughout the proceedings of the committee -and I do so again

that this section in its present form does not adequately meet the situation as now defined.
I agree with the minister when he says that the underlying principle of this legislation should not be departed from at this time. I would hesitate to advocate any change .that would convert the War Veterans' Allowance Act into an unemployment relief measure. This act was intended to meet the needs of ex-service men who have suffered a premature breakdown due to the hazard, strain and exposure undergone while on active service. While I recognize the value of the existing legislation, the fact is that men who have not attained the age of sixty years and who are in indigent circumstances cannot obtain the benefits of this legislation unless it can be demonstrated on medical evidence that they are permanently unemployable.
I believe the present classification is unduly restrictive. Before entitlement may be established under this section, a man must demonstrate that he is fifty-five, that he served

in a theatre of actual war; that he is now incapable of maintaining himself by reason of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness. In my opinion that seriously restricts the benefits of this section,. I am glad the members of the committee, the minister and the chairman of the war veterans' allowance committee have found this formula. I think in the words "incapable of maintaining himself because of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness" we have a safe formula which may be applied to other age groups without in any sense disturbing the principle of the act. I submit, as I have submitted on previous occasions, that the evidence given before the committee proved very clearly that there are a number of problem cases in the age groups below fifty-five years which should be. provided for. I submit further that it is in the public interest, as well as in the interests .of these men, that their needs should be met promptly. The more promptly they are met, the greater will be the possibility of some measure of rehabilitation. It should be borne in mind that when a man becomes employable the war veterans' allowance committee 'has the power to strike him off the list. I think we have a perfectly safe formula to deal with these oases. However exhaustive may be the inquiries of the war veterans' assistance committee, there are certain clearly defined categories of ex-service men who are uemployable to-day and for whom no provision has been made nor can otherwise be made.
I feel that the minister is unduly alarmed at the possibility of assuming additional responsibility. It has been suggested that the recruiting field for applications may be to some extent larger in the age group of fifty to fifty-five years than it is in the group of fifty-five to sixty years, but it was shown before the committee that the ratio of those who might qualify was considerably lower in the age groups below fifty-five years. I submit that this formula may be safely extended to other age groups below fifty-five years, and in all justice it should be done now. If it is thought reasonable to assume some responsibility with regard to those between fifty-five and sixty years of age, I think there is at least equal justice for our conferring upon the board discretionary power to deal with these cases of breakdown due to disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness in the case of men below fifty-five years of age. I think this discretion can safely be left with the board.
I feel it my duty to say a word in appreciation of the very capable administration that has been given this legislation during the last

War Veterans' Allowance Act
five or six years. I can testify personally as to the remarkable degree of confidence which the war veterans' allowance committee enjoys among ex-service men generally throughout Canada. While the opinion prevails that this amendment is all that should be undertaken at this time, I most earnestly hope that the act will be interpreted in such a way as to implement the recommendations of the committee. The phrase "permanently unemployable" should be interpreted in the broadest possible sense. I also hope that at the earliest possible moment the minister will secure from the veterans' assistance commission a special report dealing with the plight of those veterans who are incapable of maintaining themselves at this time and for whom no provision has been made in the amended bill.


Mr. BETTS:: I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. members for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) and Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). They have expressed my views far better than I could do so myself and I shall not repeat what they have said. On the resolution leading up to this bill I gave it as my opinion that the dead line should be not fifty-five but fifty years. I held that opinion during the proceedings of the committee and towards the close of the committee's sittings I changed it and came to feel that perhaps that dead line should be swept away altogether. That is my present view. However, having regard to the assurance of the minister that the report of the veterans' assistance commission will be studied very carefully; that the work of that commission may provide for those who are not taken care of in the present legislation, and above all that the door is not closed and that this matter may be reconsidered, and having regard further to the expressed desire of a very considerable body of the men concerned, that no difference of opinion appear in the proceedings of the committee, I allowed my own personal views to fall into the background and concurred in the report of the committee. I feel very strongly that there will be men whose cases will not be met by the provisions of this bill, and if it turns out that they are not provided for by the veterans' assistance commission I wish to make it clear that in voting for this bill I am reserving the right to speak in their interests at another session of parliament.


Mr. STEWART:: I think we are all in sympathy with the object of this legislation and with the method adopted to provide for a class of men who are very deserving and
whom perhaps it is difficult to put into any well defined category. It is well recognized that laws should be as certain as possible, and the only objection to this section is the element of uncertainty in it. I sincerely hope, therefore, that the department will be able to make decisions which will clarify the situation and render it easy as a matter of administration for the department and for those who are interested in the returned men to decide whether they fall within the rulings of the department which will afford them relief. The main objection to the section is its uncertainty and the large number of cases which will remain in doubt and which will be subject from time to time to, shall I say, an arbitrary ruling of the department in each particular case.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not intend to prolong the debate; indeed I think it would be presumptuous of me to do so. As a member of the committee, however, and one who questioned clause 3, I should like to state that I heartily agree with what has been said by the members who have spoken in connection therewith. I understood the minister to say a moment ago that those between fifty-five and sixty would probably be about the same as those below fifty-five.


Charles Gavan Power: In number? No. I said
that there were 33,000 potential applications between the ages of fifty-five and sixty, and 88,000 between fifty and sixty.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: With reference to the cost, the minister said that it would cost $300,000-


Charles Gavan Power: At least.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: -and he assumed it would cost as much again if the age limit were extended below fifty-five. That is the point. The cost to the country if those below fifty-five were included would be in the vicinity of $300,000. This does not seem to me an enormous amount, and it also occurs to me that since we are amending the act we should amend it in such a way as not to have any unfairness to any returned man. If there is a man below fifty-five who is incapable of maintaining himself by reason of disability, pre-ageing and general unfitness, that man has just as good a claim against the country as the man between fifty-five and sixty. It is for this reason that I agree with what has been said on this side, and I should have been very glad indeed if the section had been extended so as to include this very deserving class. As a member of the committee, I enjoyed its sittings very much. I got a splendid education in the problems of the
War Veterans' Allowance Act

returned man, in the Pension Act and the War Veterans' Allowance Act, and it was a great pleasure for me, as I know it must have been for other members of the committee, to work in conjunction with the Minister of Pensions.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.
On section 6-Information from the bureau of statistics.
Alan Webster Neill: Would the minister consider changing in the second last line the word "thirty" to "twenty." If we leave it as it stands, thirty years, it means that we are carrying it back nearly forty years. It says "thirty years before the date of the application for such information." We know that a census was taken in 1901 and there was one in 1911, so that by 1940 it will have been thirty-nine years since the census concerning which information will be given. This question arises more often in connection with applications for old age pension, but it arises in this matter as well. You go to some illiterate man or old woman and say that the bureau of statistics will reveal his or her age. But in this case the census must have been taken more than thirty years before the date of the application for information. The first question the bureau will ask is: Where were you when the census was taken. The second question is: What was the name of the registrar or enumerator. An uneducated man who has been travelling around the country for the last forty years has only the vaguest idea where he was in 1901, and very often he will give the wrong place and the wrong name of the enumerator. I have had a good deal of experience in this regard and I know of people who are without pensions to-day because their records cannot be located. No doubt the census was taken but the man cannot remember; he has a failing memory or he suffers from lack of education. I cannot see that any harm or danger would arise by making it twenty years. It may be said that a man may have faked his age for the census returns, having had in view some provision of this sort. But thirty years back would take us to 1901 and twenty years would make it 1911, three years before the war. Surely no one will suggest that any man in 1911, three years before the war, gave his wrong age in order to qualify for a pension thirty years later. This provision is founded, I believe, on some old act of the oureau of statistics which says that no age shall be revealed, even to the owner himself,
[Mr. Brooka-l
so to speak, unless it is thirty years prior. I think it is an absurd condition, and I would press on the minister to consider making that twenty years.


Charles Gavan Power: The only justification I can ascertain for thirty years is that it is the provision in respect of the old age pension.


Alan Webster Neill: A very poor provision, then.


Charles Gavan Power: Apparently it has been working very satisfactorily for ten years. But, rather than delay the passage of this bill, I am quite willing to accede to the request of my hon. friend. If he will move the amendment, I shall accept it.


Alan Webster Neill: I Shall be very happy to move it. It will be a godsend to many members of this house who have to get these facts for the purpose of old age pensions as well as military pensions.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This will not apply to old age pensions.


The CHAIRMAN:: What is the amendment?


Alan Webster Neill: To insert the word "twenty" instead of the word "thirty" in line 37.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Section 7 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 90, respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line from Senneterre to Rouyn, in the province of Quebec.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
On section 1-Power to construct and complete line described in schedule.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I observed from the press that the Canadian Pacific Railway's bill had fallen by the wayside when the legislature of Quebec was dissolved. Might it not be desirable, therefore, to discontinue this measure? It now serves no useful purpose. I wondered if that was what the minister had in mind. I think the information is accurate, to judge from what I saw in the press.

C.N.R.-Branch Line


Charles Gavan Power: There is no doubt but that it is accurate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under these circumstances might it not be just as well if we did not proceed with this measure?


Mr. JACOBS:: Might I point out to the right hon. gentleman that this government has not fallen by the wayside.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, under some circumstances the hon. gentleman, if we had his inmost thoughts, might say it was no fault of his. In view of what the minister said the -other evening, that he did not intend to proceed with the project this year, now that this difficulty has been solved in the manner 1 have indicated, might it not be well to drop the measure?


Mr. POULIOT:: The legislature has dissolved but the province is not dead.


Mr. HOWE:: At the moment there is involved a matter of good faith. We certainly made representations to Quebec that we intended to build this line, and I think we 'Can hardly change our minds because the other bill failed to pass. As a matter of fact this should not be considered as in any way an improper expenditure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say "improper." I thought the minister said) that he did not intend to go on with it this year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: We had not intended to. It had been discussed earlier in the year, and we decided that in view of the financial position of the national railways we would put it off, even though it was recognized as a needed expenditure. But, having committed ourselves to building it, I think it now becomes a matter of good faith. We can hardly put ourselves into the position of having undertaken to prevent the success of another project, and acting the part of a dog in the manger.


Thomas Langton Church: I sat in this house nearly ten years ago when there was a discovery of gold in the Rouyn district. At the time Sir Henry Thornton was president of the Canadian National Railways. I was contending that that railroad should serve the territory, on the principle of public ownership, but the then head of the railway and his executives went to the railways and shipping committee and opposed any proposal along that line. The proposition was to allow the Temiskaming public ownership road to do something. The Canadian National Railways said that they would not do anything about the matter. Now they are ten yearn behind the times in connection with the policy of going into the district. If they had gone in ten years ago they .could have built up the district. But no, they
would rather go all over the prairie provinces and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on branch lines. I read in the house the other night on the second reading of the railway bill a list of those outrageous expenditures, amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars, on branch lines. Yet here is a territory which, had it been served by a public ownership road, would have done something for the mining industry. But the Canadian National did not want to go in there. True, part of it was on the Quebec border and part within Quebec, but the two railways sat tight and did nothing. I was told ten years ago by the then head of the Canadian National that I was proposing something ridiculous; that it would never pay the fixed charges. But they could build hundreds of miles of single and double track over country where certainly there was no prospect of paying fixed charges. Now, when the Rouyn territory is producing something, they want to go in there. No wonder public ownership in this country is a failure. I do not blame the present minister. He had nothing to do with the proposition. The fact remains that the proposal comes just about ten years too late.


Major James William Coldwell: I note the minister said that he would regard not building this railway as something of a breach of faith. And I listened very carefully to the remarks of the last speaker. I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that a number of districts heTe and there became settled owing to promises, direct and indirect, of railway facilities. The territory I have particularly in mind, containing a large settlement, is in the district known as Loon lake, north of St. Walburg. The people there have been expecting that the new government would complete this railway, and I am drawing the matter to the attention of the minister at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.
On section 7-Tenders.
Clarence Decatur Howe: As reported by the committee, an amendment is necessary. Paragraph (b) of subsection 1 provides that tenders shall be called for the sale of the new securities. The functions of the central bank have obviated the desirability of that clause. The practice to-day is that the central bank shall market securities of this kind at current market prices. I will, therefore, ask my colleague to move an amendment to this clause.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I move accordingly.

C.N.R.-Branch Line


Frederick George Sanderson: It is moved by Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) that paragraph (b) of subsection 1 of section 7 be amended by striking out all the words in line 36 thereof and all the words after "not" in line 37 to the word "be" in line 38.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Once more I wish to make a protest against the adoption of these amendments to bills without notice having been given in advance. I sat in the house the other night when a government bill was proceeded with. Section after section was read to which amendments were proposed, some of them very important indeed. I do not believe that if we had the most intellectual membership more than one or two members could follow and understand the meaning of the amendments as they were read out. In the previous parliament these proposed amendments to government bills were published in the votes and proceedings the day before or at least on the day they were to be considered, but it is impossible to follow intelligently these amendments which are proposed in committee after the bill has been introduced.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that this particular amendment was considered by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and was adopted there after discussion. After all, it is rather a simple amendment; it has only the effect of striking out the provision that the securities to be issued by the railway will be sold by public tender. That is the full implication of the amendment. The reason, as I explained a moment ago, is that I believe it was the practice of the previous government, and certainly it is the practice of the present government, that issues of public securities and Canadian National securities should be marketed through the agency of the Bank of Canada, which has proven itself to be a very efficient agency for marketing securities of this kind. If my hon. friend has referred to the amendments to the shipping act, I may say that the bill was reprinted and distributed prior to the discussion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They were not here; I sat in my seat without a copy. I wish to suggest that there is a proper way in which to bring such amendments to the attention of members of the house. Every morning I look in the votes and proceedings to ascertain what amendments are to be proposed by the government to important bills that have been introduced, and if the amendments proposed to the shipping bill were printed beforehand certainly they were not on my file. I sat here with other members about me and we did the best we could to listen to the reading

of those amendments, but even if one had the intelligence of an angel of the skies it would have been impossible to follow those amendments as the chairman or the proposer read them. All I suggest is that we should follow a procedure which is according to the customs of the house. I am not opposing this amendment, but certainly it is important, and the very fact that it was adopted by a committee of the house indicates that there was ample opportunity to give notice of it in the votes and proceedings. After all, the decision of a special or standing committee of the house is not the decision of the house itself. Those who were not members of the committee should have ample opportunity to study these proposed amendments. I think I went through every section of the shipping act as it was introduced and tried to understand all the amendments proposed, but it was impossible to follow intelligently the amendments that were moved by the Minister of National Defence, who was assisting the Minister of Marine that day. We shall obviate a great deal of trouble in the courts if we follow the usual procedure.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I must apologize to my hon. friend. I appreciate the help he has been to me, particularly in regard to the draftsmanship of these bills, but the matter to which he refers is a mistake to which I can hardly plead guilty. This amendment was made by a committee of which I am not a member, and in reporting the bill the committee should have reported the amendment. The bill was reported with an amendment, but the amendment was not printed in the votes and proceedings. In connection with the shipping bill, however, all the amendments were printed in ample time and I had assumed that they would be distributed. I thought hon. gentlemen opposite had them when the bill was under discussion, and I am very sorry if that was not the case.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty was that
the distribution was delayed.


Frederick George Sanderson: Shall the amendment
carry?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is one point I
desire to draw to the attention of the minister with respect to paragraph (d) of section 6. I understood the minister to say that these securities would be marketed through the Bank of Canada, but section 6 still provides:
With respect to such securities, the governor in council may, subject to the provisions of this act, from time to time approve or decide,-
(d) the terms and conditions of any sale, pledge or other disposition of the securities-

__________Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
From that provision it would appear that the sale and distribution of these securities would be still under the control of the governor in council. Is that correct?


Clarence Decatur Howe: That is correct. Of course,
as far as terms and conditions of any sale are concerned, I think that necessarily must be in the hands of the governor in council. Such matters as the coupon rate and so on, and even the conditions of the sale by the Bank of Canada, I should think must be subject to approval by the governor in council. Usually the government and the bank officials consult together and decide on a rate; I know an order in council is always passed governing that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All the steps antecedent to the sale of the securities are taken by the governor in council.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
On the schedule.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the estimated
cost of this road is very high, $60,000 per mile. In view of the stage of the session I shall not argue the point, but I think in itself that is an invitation to costly construction. According to my observation $60,000 is a tremendous cost per mile.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think that point is well
taken but I may say that the framing of these bills rather invites an excessive estimate, in that after the final plans and estimates are made, if they exceed the cost set out in the estimate the line cannot be built. I think that perhaps $45,000 per mile would be a better estimate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I had in
mind.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.	.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and
passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, June 15, consideration in committee of Bill No. 100, to amend the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936-Mr. Rogers-Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
12739-244J
On section 1-Agreements with provinces.
Richard Bedford Bennett: When the house rose
the other evening I was speaking to a matter that had been brought to the attention of the committee by an hon. member. I only desire to say that in view of the present date, if hon. members are interested in the matter I would refer them to the list of exhibits produced before the banking and commerce committee. At page 12 they will find that the various lettens to which, reference has been made were produced by the different witnesses. I attended before the committee and made a statement, which was not under oath, although I offered Colonel Ralston, if he so desired, to make the statement under .oath. These documents which were produced came from the files I then had with me. Whether or not the printed documents were printed from the papers taken from the file, I am not sure. It was in the Prime Minister's office. I did not myself superintend the removal of my papers, but I am told that since there has been' the office of the Prime Minister, the papers taken when I removed from office, were the same as taken by my predecessor. The present Prime Minister has said that that is so, so far as the removal of his own papers is concerned..
In so far as this matter is concerned, if any hon. member is interested and will look at page 12 he will find an index of all the letters to which reference is made, and they are printed in the report of the committee on banking and commerce. I have no control over the letters which were in the possession of the addressees. Presumably they are still an the possession of the addressees. But copies were produced so far as those letters are concerned. The suggestion that papers had been destroyed, hidden or taken away is negatived by the evidence to which I have made reference.
The hon. member to whom I have referred was permitted1 to make certain statements. Therefore I have found it necessary at least to direct attention to them, and if necessary I shall read the letters, to show that they are upon record, including the original orders in council. I explained at length in the testimony that was given that the pieces of paper which were used in the preparation of the final documents were not kept, and in accordance with the usual course of business men, in confirming figures the telephone was used.
There is only one further point to which I wish to refer, and that is the suggestion that anything wrong has been done. H it
[DOT][DOT]<836	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
is the desire of any hon. member to lay a charge, I shall meet it. I1 shall always meet gladly any charge of any kind, touching my integrity, my probity or my sense of decency in connection with the documents with which I have to deal. If the minister has t'he same good fortune with respect to all the guarantees he gives as the late government had with respect to this guarantee I shall indeed be happy, for the $60,000,000 guaranteed to be paid within five years has been paid in full in three years, and the suggestion that the payment had anything to do with the observations made in this chamber is as wildly extravagant, untruthful and unwarranted as it is possible for any statement to be. For the underwriting in connection with the retirement of the final balance of the $60,000,000, as every hon. member who knows anything about the business must know, was arranged long before the matter was ever mentioned in this chamber.
In fairness to everyone connected with the late government and everyone who had to do with this transaction which was initiated under the circumstances disclosed in the evidence of the president of the Bank of Montreal, Sir Edward Beatty and myself, and closely examined by very eminent counsel, and having regard especially to the language used, I pointed out that there seemed to be a habit or a desire, to make it appear that something was not as it should be on the part of many people. And so I said: "If .anything further is desired to be said by any member of this committee, say it now, and do not say it after I am gone." I fully understood that was a very unusual course indeed for a Prime Minister to take, but I took it because of the circumstances to which I have alluded.
I make this statement because I think it is very important that there should be no misunderstanding with respect to the matter. The words will be found at page 209:
Now gentlemen, do not be the least hesitant in asking me any questions, because I do not want you to go away and say that I have endeavoured to escape answering, so don t be hesitant, please.
And there being no further questions, I retired.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall read the questions
and answers I received from this government. I shall not insist on what was said the other day; I shall go on with what is left, and it will'be very short. There was a sitting of the council on May 31, 1933, the date the 'etter was signed by the then Prime Minister, although no order in council was passed on that date. A sitting of the council also took

place on August 31, 1933, the date when the then acting Prime Minister, the hon. member for Argenteuil, corresponded with the Bank of Montreal and sent them a draft of an order in council, but no order in council was passed. This is on record in sessional paper 171P. Therefore, when the then Prime Minister and when the then acting Prime Minister corresponded with the banks there were sittings of the council, and they did not proceed with orders in council. This is one point.
Then in connection with the same day, August 31, 1933, this question was asked:
1.	On August 31, 1933, was the then acting Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Sir George H. Perley, also acting Minister of Finance and Railways and Canals?
2.	If not. who were the minister or ministers for those departments on that date
In reply it is stated that Sir George Perley was acting Minister of Finance, and the Hon. R. J. Manion, Minister of Railways and Canals.
Then I had this very curious answer as it appeared in Hansard at page 3130. The question was:
When was the "draft of the proposed order in council regarding a loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company," refered to in a letter dated August 31, 1933, of the acting Prime Minister to the general manager of the Bank of Montreal (a) recommended to council; (b) prepared; (c) submitted to the council?
The answer was that it was recommended to council on November 28, 1933, prepared on November 28, 1933, and submitted to council on November 28, 1933. It was prepared and submitted to council six months after it was sent by the then acting Prime Minister to the bank.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely erroneous. The hon. member may be so ignorant of procedure in council that he may unwittingly make a mistake of that kind, but the order in council could not have been sent at the time he stated. Drafts of orders in council are prepared from time to time, and occasionally drafts of orders in council are submitted to the consideration of the third parties concerned where large financial interests are involved. But the inference which the hon. member draws is quite erroneous.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall tell the White
Russian of the late soviet government that the words I used were those of the right hon. acting Prime Minister in his own letter, and if there was ignorance it is not mine. That is my only answer.
Sessional paper 171-A. Motion:
For a copy of first recommendation to council for order in council regarding a loan

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, referred to in a letter dated August 31, 1933, of the acting Prime Minister to the general manager of the Bank of Montreal.
Answer by the Department of Finance:
Nothing on record in the Department of Finance within the scope of the above-mentioned order of the house.
Answer by the Prime Minister's office:
No information on files of Prime Minister's office.
Answer by the privy council office:
No information.
Session paper 171-K:
1.	Was the letter dated August 31, 1933, and addressed to W. A. Bog, Esquire, general manager of the Bank of Montreal, about a "proposed order in council regarding a loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company,"-a copy of which has been tabled in sessional paper No. 150-E of 1934-signed by the Right Hon. Sir George H. Perley in his capacity as acting Prime Minister ?
2.	If so, was that letter a public and official document?
3.	If so, was the "draft of the proposed order in council regarding a loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company" therein mentioned and attached to it, also a public and official document ?
4.	If so, were there original copies (a) of said letter; (b) of said draft of the proposed order in council always kept on file in the Prime Minister's office?
5.	If not, why?
Answer from the office of the Prime Minister:
No information on the files of this office.
Sessional paper 171-N, June 12:
1.	According to the record, was the "draft of the proposed order in council regarding a loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and forwarded by the acting Prime Minister to the general manager of the Bank of Montreal on August 31. 1933," submitted to the privy council before being sent outside of Ottawa ?
Answer from the privy council, Finance, and the Prime Minister's office:
No information.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: How could there be any
information? The proceedings of the privy council are confidential, and each member takes an oath not to disclose what takes place in council. Recommendations that may be made to council are often amended and changed. I have made recommendations in my official capacity to council which might be considered by council and amendments suggested, and then if they affect other outside parties, material parts would be submitted to them because orders in council are in many cases contracts of vast importance, and sometimes there are more than two parties to these contracts. But there is no order in
council until it is passed by council and approved by His Excellency the Governor General, and before that is done I have repeatedly seen cases where, through a period of weeks, suggested drafts or suggested recommendations on which the order in council, as finally passed, would be based, have been made and changed. These are not matters of public record, whether records of the present government or of preceding governments.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I shall answer the hon. gentleman in one word. If it was not a draft of an order in council, and by draft I mean a foetus of an order in council, let us say then that the acting Prime Minister has sent a blank cheque to the Bank of Montreal.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I think all this discussion is entirely out of order, but when the hon. gentleman makes an attack on me in this way, all I can say is that this arrangement with the Bank of Montreal was made in good faith during the year 1933. The order in council was a difficult thing to draw in order to make sure that the public interests were conserved in every way possible. I think a draft recommendation to council, prepared and submitted for discussion with the banks who were interested in it, was revised and rewritten many times before it came before council to be passed as an order in council. The hon. member surely knows that very often it takes weeks preparing recommendations to council, and often many revisions and changes are made in order to get it in proper shape. But for him to suggest that there is anything improper in a draft recommendation-


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not use the word "improper."


George Halsey Perley: Well then, if that is the case, what is this all about? For the hon. member to suggest that all the draft recommendations to council are available for people to get as public documents, well, he does not understand the way in which the business of government is conducted. An order in council speaks for itself, and the question of how long it took, how many changes were made in it, how many revisions were necessary in order to put it into proper shape, is a matter which is not on record at all. It has been the custom of governments always, so far as my knowledge goes, that all these papers and drafts, changes and erasures, and so on, are not kept on public files; many of them are not kept on any files at all afterwards. So that when the bon. gentleman is
3838	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
suggesting that there was anything unusual or anything strange about this proceeding he is entirely mistaken. I would ask him to make inquiries from the clerk of the privy council and find out how these things are managed, and then he will not get up in the house or in the committee when another bill is under consideration-it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this question is not in order anyway-and make the suggestion that anything improper was done in regard to this transaction.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is most amusing, Mr. Chairman, to see the former ministers rising one after the other to give explanations. Both of them were out of order because they spoke without asking my consent. I am going to make my speech; I want to get through in a short time, and I am not to be interrupted by anyone. If we are to come to an easy understanding with regard to the word "draft," let us say as a matter of compromise that it was the kind of draft that occasioned the former ministers a cold in the head. Now I continue:
Sessional paper 171-F:
1.	On what date did the general manager of the Bank of Montreal notify the Prime Minister's office that the banks had advanced S35.000.000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on the guarantee of the letter signed by the Right Hon. It. B. Bennett, then Prime Minister, and dated May 31, 1933?
2.	On what date was an order in council passed to rectify said guarantee given by the said Right Hon. R. B. Bennett?
3.	When and where was it made public for the first time?
Answer from the privy council, and the Prime Minister's office:
No information.
Hansard, page 3349, reports this question and answer:
Mr. Pouliot:
From what department or departments, and when, did the Department of the Secretary of State receive the correspondence contained in sessional paper No. 150-E, tabled on March 19, 1934. in accordance with an order of the House of Commons, dated February 12, 1934, for a copy of all correspondence interchanged between the government of Canada, or one of any of its members, and one or any of the Canadian banks, in connection with the guarantee given by the government for the loan of $60,000,000 to the Canadian Pacific Railway?
Mr. Rinfret:
The documents contained in the return tabled in the House of Commons on the 19th March, 1934, were not received in the Department of the Secretary of State. The return was tabled by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, then Prime Minister.
Return 171H:
Did the statement made by the Secretary of State on June 3, 1936-
[Sir George Perley.l
That is the answer I have just read:
- (Hansard page 3349), that sessional paper No. 150-E, "a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Canadian government and any of the Canadian banks regarding the guarantee given for the loan of $60,000,000 for the Canadian Pacific Railway," was tabled on March 19, 1934, by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, then Prime Minister, and not by the then Secretary of State, indicate prima facie that no other department than the Prime Minister's had exchanged correspondence in that connection with any of the Canadian banks ?
Answer by the Department of the Secretary of State:
Other than the copy of the correspondence tabled 9th June, 1936, by the Honourable the Minister of Finance, being a return to an order of the house of the 3rd June, 1936, and other than copies contained in sessional paper No. 150-E, tabled 19th March, 1934, by the then Prime Minister, the Department of the Secretary of State has no knowledge of any correspondence exchanged with any of the Canadian banks on the subject mentioned.
150-D reads:
Copy (a) of the document furnished W. H. Curie, Esquire, IC.C., general counsel of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company (law department) to the then Prime Minister, and which was acknowledged by the letter on November 3, 1933, according to sessional paper No. 150-D of 1934, and (b) of the letter or memorandum from the said Mr. Curie to the said then Prime Minister and to which was attached said document.
According to return 171-R of June 10, the Prime Minister's office stated that there was no information regarding this matter on the files of .that office. Return 171-J dealt with the following question:
1.	Referring to sessional paper No. 150-D of
March 19, 1934, "copy of all correspondence between government of Canada and Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to guarantee given by the government for a loan of $60,000,000 to Canadian Pacific Railway," which contained (a) one letter from the then Prime Minister to W. H. Curie, Esquire, K.C., general counsel of the Canadian Pacific Railway, dated November 3, 1933, and (b) a "list of payments made in discharge of maturing obligations since May 31, 1933, as mentioned in letter of 28th November, 1933, from Jackson Dodds, Esquire, general manager of the Bank of Montreal, to the Right Honourable R. B. Bennett, P.C.,	K.C., Prime Minister of
Canada, from May 31, 1933, to October 23, 1935, was there any other correspondence exchanged between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company with regard to the said guarantee?
2.	If so, from whom to whom and on what dates?
3.	Was that correspondence of public or confidential nature?	_
4.	Why were the letter and list above mentioned in paragraph 1 also tabled on the same day, March 19, 1934, in another return, sessional paper No. 150-E of 1934, "a copy of all correspondence exchanged between Canadian government and any of the Canadian

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
banks regarding the guarantee given for the $60,000,000 loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway" ?
5.	Was the above mentioned list sent by Mr. Dodds to the Right Honourable R. B. Bennett apparently on November 28, 1933, to the same effect as the document acknowledged by the Right Honourable R. B. Bennett to Mr. Curie on November 3, 1933, and did it replace it in sessional paper No. 150-D of 1934?
6.	Was the said return 150-D of 1934 tabled by the then Prime Minister or the then Secretary of State?
In answer to No. 6 the Secretary of State says that this was tabled by the then Prime Minister, but the office of the Prime Minister replies, "no information in the files of this office." Now I direct your attention to this most important question:
1.	Referring to sessional paper No. 150-E of 1934. are the original letters, sent to the Prime Minister or the acting Prime Minister by the following gentlemen:
1.	Mr. W. A. Bog, general manager of the Bank of Montreal. June 7, 1933; August 17, 1933; September 25, 1933;
2.	Mr. Jackson Dodds, general manager of the Bank of Montreal, September 2, 1933; November 28. 1933; December 5, 1933;
3.	Sir Charles B. Gordon, president of the Bank of Montreal, December 1, 1933,
on file in the Prime Minister's office and have they always been on file in that office since they have been received by that office?
2.	Were these letters of an official or public nature?
The office of the Prime Minister replied, "no information on the files of this office."
All these original letters received by the then Prime Minister or the then acting Prime Minister are the property of the state and no one should take them away from the department concerned. The right hon. gentleman answers that it is the tradition for the Prime Minister to take his files with him. All right, I agree with him, provided that the Prime Minister minds his own business and does not interfere with other departments. If these letters had been written by the Minister of Finance they would still be there, like other letters written by the Hon. Mr. Rhodes, which I shall mention in a minute. The Prime Minister interfered with the business of other departments and these letters were taken away, either to his office or elsewhere, when they belonged to the state. No one can deny that.


Mr. CAMERON (Cape Breton):: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The bill under discussion has to do with an amendment to the Unemployment Relief and Assistance Act, 1936, and I respectfully submit that the conduct of the Prime Minister in 1934 has nothing whatever to do with either the principle or the letter of the bill under discussion. I could go a little further and say for myself that I entirely disapprove tactics of this kind.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, may I speak on the point of order?


Frederick George Sanderson: Not until I am through. A point of order has been raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Cameron). I would remind hon. members of the committee that when this bill was before the committee, I think two days ago, the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) made some remarks. During the course of his remarks I called him to order as I thought he was out of order. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) replied to the hon. member but he had not finished. He had the right to the floor when this bill again came before the committee to-night. Section 1 of this bill reads in part:
The governor in council may also enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships, or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment.
There was no point of order raised when the bill was before the committee the other evening.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there was.


Frederick George Sanderson: The right hon. gentleman said that he did not think the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata had any bearing on this matter. I disagreed with him and read this paragraph. I am still of the opinion that this discussion, unfortunate as it may be, would come under the terms of this section. I say to the hon. member for Temiscouata that if in my judgment any of his remarks are out of order, I shall immediately call him to order. I say to him that I hope in the remainder of his remarks he will keep quite within the rules of this house.


Herbert Earl Wilton: I should like to ask your ruling as to whether the hon. member was not out of order a few moments ago when he insultingly referred to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) as a White Russian? I have never heard a more insulting remark in this house.


Mr. SPENCE:: Why did not the Chairman hear that?


Herbert Earl Wilton: I should like to have your ruling as to whether or not he was out of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Wilton) should have raised his point of order at that time if he thought the speaker was out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the duty of the chair to do that.


James Houston Spence: It was your duty to stop him.	'
3840	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. As I heard the remarks of the hon. member for Temiscouata, he did not apply them to any hon. member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, he did, he named the member.


Frederick George Sanderson: Not according to the way I heard it. Had he applied his remarks to any hon. member I would have immediately called him to order.


Herbert Earl Wilton: May I explain-


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order.


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member for Hamilton West has the floor if he is rising to another point of order.


Herbert Earl Wilton: On another point of order. What I want to point out is that at the time the remark was made it was made in reply to a remark of the hon. member for St. Lawrenee-St. George. After that hon. member had spoken, the 'hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) directed his remark to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is not a point of order.
Mr. POULIOT; I suggest to the hon. member for Hamilton West that he read the rules of the house, first learning to read.


James Houston Spence: The hon. member should try to get some manners.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the limit in this house?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have regard for the
rules of the house, but whenever I say anything it hurts and we hear others-


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. Will the hon. member take his seat.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir.


Frederick George Sanderson: I quote standing order 41, concerning decorum in debate:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the royal family; nor of the governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof. No member may reflect upon any vote of the house, except for the purpose of moving that such vote be rescinded.
I direct the hon. member's attention particularly to these words:
-nor use offensive words against either house, or against any member thereof.
I would ask him to withdraw the last remark he made just prior to my reading this rule.
[Mr. Spence.1


Jean-François Pouliot: Surely, I shall withdraw anything that is not in accordance with the rules of the house, and may I say it is not my remarks that may hurt some members; it is the truth.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: On a point of privilege. The hon. member, as nearly as I could understand him, replied that what he said was true even though objection was taken to it. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the attitude and the conduct of the hon. gentleman, proceeding from day to day, are such that hon. members, in order to vindicate their personal integrity, will have to exercise their rights by force outside the chamber. If the hon. gentleman is to continue to make his insinuations against the moral character and the integrity of members of the farmer administration, I certainly say here and now that I would rather leave this chamber forever than submit to the personal taunts and the inaccurate statements of the hon. member for Temiscouata. It has come to the stage that, if he is to proceed in this manner, members can no longer tolerate it, and members will not tolerate it even if they have to resort to physical force.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I fear only God, and the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George has been dreaming. I say that he has had a nightmare.
171-S. Copy of all correspondence exchanged between the then Prime Minister or the then acting Prime Minister, on one hand, and any bank, banker, railway company or railway officer or official, from December 5, 1933, to October 23, 1935, inclusive, with regard to the dominion guarantee of the C.P.R. loan.
The answer from the Prime Minister's office is, "no information regarding this matter on the files of this office." The list mentioned by the leader of the opposition was published in the report of 1934. What happened to the correspondence which was exchanged between the previous government and the banks and the Canadian Pacific Railway from the time of the sittings of that committee to the time the hon. gentleman left office? Nothing is on record. It is hard to find a list of that correspondence in the book printed a year and a half before the hon. gentleman left office. And now I come to another point; I shall be brief-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: -and to the point. This is return 171-Q. It is a direct answer to what the leader of the opposition has just said, that the matter was decided on a long time ago and that the Canadian Pacific Railway

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
was to refund that money. Possibly it may have been a long time ago, the same as the negotiations with the United States. But when I asked the leader of the opposition whether there had been any draft treaty with the United States under his administration his reply was, nothing of the sort, and nothing of the sort with regard to the complete refunding of the Canadian Pacific Railway loan by the bank and the guarantee by the dominion. This return, 171-Q, June 12, 1936, is as follows:
1.	On June 20, 1934, was the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, then Prime Minister, also acting Minister of Finance and acting Minister of Labour?
The answer is no.
2.	If not, who were the minister or the ministers for those departments on that date?
The answer is, the Hon. Mr. Rhodes, Minister of Finance, and the Hon. Mr. Gordon, Minister of Labour.
3.	On the same date, did the said Right Hon. R. B. Bennett submit a memorandum to His Excellency the Governor General in Council to recommend that consent be given on behalf of the dominion government to the surrender to the C.P.R. by the banks of one-fifth in the amount of the perpetual consolidated debenture stock of the railway company so held as security by such bank?
The answer is yes.
4.	If so, by whom was it signed and on behalf of whom ?
The answer is: "Signed by R.B,B. as Prime Minister, and for the Minister of Labour and Minister of Finance." The leader of the opposition was not signing that memorandum in his own capacity; he was signing it also for his colleagues, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Labour.
5.	In the latter case, did the person who signed it have any authority to sign it on behalf of others?
6.	If so, what was such authority?
The answer was: "Among the special prerogatives of the Prime Minister is that of making recommendations in any department of the government." That is true; but on the other hand, how is it that the Prime Minister is often appointed acting minister of other departments? The right hon. gentleman, now leader of the opposition, has been at the same time acting Minister of Labour and acting Minister of Finance.


George Halsey Perley: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was in the first special session and he was representing Senator Robertson, who was in the senate; he was at the same time Minister of Finance for more than a year; and I told him in this house that it was the first time the same man was
representing capital and labour. He must remember that now, though he said no. His memory is not good; he means well but here his memory is all wrong.
7.	Are ministers of the crown allowed to give powers of attorney to any one of their colleagues to act on their behalf in their official capacity as ministers of the crown?
The answer is no.
8.	If so, what is the form of such powers of attorney and before whom are they passed?
The same answer, no.
9.	Were there any powers of attorney attached to said memorandum?
The answer is no.
10.	If so, from whom, to whom, and before whom were they passed?
The same answer, no.
11.	Are there any initials on the first page of the said memorandum?
The answer is, yes.
12.	If so, what are they and what do they
mean ?
I asked the hon. gentleman if his letter of May 31, 1933, was initialled by his colleagues. This memorandum bears a signature which is just as good as Stalin's or Mussolini's or other dictators. It is "R.BB." on the first page of the memorandum.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that parliamentary,
Mr. Chairman?


Frederick George Sanderson: No; it is not parliamentary and I ask the hon. member to withdraw it. It is offensive.


Jean-François Pouliot: Anything offensive I
withdraw.


Mr. BAKER:: Why keep on doing it?


Frederick George Sanderson: The hon. member
must withdraw the words which I have ruled are offensive in reference to the leader of the opposition.


Jean-François Pouliot: Sir, I abide by your ruling; I cannot do any better. I have forgotten what I said; I cannot repeat the words. I spoke very fast. But I abide by your ruling entirely.


Frederick George Sanderson: That is not sufficient;
I say to the hon. member that he must withdraw his words.


Jean-François Pouliot: If your honour will be
kind enough to tell me what I must withdraw I shall withdraw it at once.


Frederick George Sanderson: The comparison to
dictators. My hon. friend from Temisoouata
3842	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
knows very well what he said, and he can facilitate the work of the committee if he will keep within the rules and withdraw the remark unqualifiedly.


Jean-François Pouliot: I accept your ruling and
I withdraw anything not in accordance with the rules of the house.
13.	Does it appear on the face of the said memorandum that it has been approved?
The answer is yes.
14.	If so, by whom?
The answer given by the government is, "By the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett." This is the answer given by the government.
15.	Was there in the form of agreement between the crown and the banks contained in P.C. 2490 of November 28, 1933, any provision to the same effect as the recommendation to council above mentioned in paragraph 3?
_ That is, with regard to the refunding. This is clear. The right hon. gentleman has said that it has been there for many years. The answer from the government is "no," and the fact is no. Nothing with regard to the refunding. Imagine those business men; they were giving a guarantee on behalf of Canada for a very large amount of money, and according to the answer given by the government, there was no provision for the refunding of it.
16.	Did the House of Commons sit on June 20, 1934?
The answer is, "yes." We heard nothing of that, although we were sitting in the House of Commons on that date.
17- On what exact date did the then Prime Minister notify the railway company and the banks that such recommendation bad been thus approved ?
The answer is, "No information."
18.	When was an order in council passed to ratify such recommendation?
Answer, "20th June, 1934." The order in council was passed the same day, but the House of Commons was not notified.
19.	When and where was first public notice given of such order in council?
The reply was, "No information." And then a motion:
C9 Py of all correspondence between the Minister of Railways and Canals, from May 31, 1933. to October 23, 1935, and one or any of the Canadian banks or any railway company, in connection with the guarantee given by the government for the $60,000,000 loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
No. 171-D, answer of the Department of Railways and Canals: "No record in this department of any such correspondence."
[The Chairman.]
Now we take the Department of Finance, 171-C:
Copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Finance, from May 31, 1933, to October 23, 1935, and one or any of the Canadian banks or any railway company, in connection with the guarantee given by the government for the $60,000,000 loan to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
1/1-C. The only letters now on file in the Department of Finance with regard to this $60,000,000 loan until the last government left office are: First, letter from Sir Charles Gordon to Mr. Rhodes, December 9, 1933, sending eight agreements executed in duplicate by the eight banks; second, from Mr. Rhodes to Sir Charles Gordon, December 11, 1933, returning one copy each of the eight agreements which he had executed in duplicate; third, from the same to the same, December 12, 1933; fourth, acknowledgment by Sir Charles Gordon, December 13, 1935.
I tell the right hon. leader of the opposition that, if he had acted in the same fashion as the hon. Minister of Finance did, the letters that were written prior to that would be still on file in the Department of Finance.
Mark you, sir;
In the minutes and records of the privy council, did the signatures of the Honourable E. N. Rhodes, then Minister of Finance, and of the Honourable W. A. Gordon, then Minister of Labour, appear for the first time in matters pertaining to the dominion guarantee of the $60,000,000 C.P.R. loan in memorandum of November 28, 1933, to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, for P.C. 2490?
The answer of the privy council is, in return 171-0 of June 12: "Yea." It was the first time that the signature of the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Labour appeared with regard to that transaction.
Now, sir, there is only one matter left. It is with regard to the refunding of the whole thing. The right hon. leader of the opposition has spoken of "wildly extravagant statements" which were not warranted when I said that it was three days after the Canadian Pacific Railway loan was mentioned in the House of Commons by the member for Temiscouata that the whole amount, which was not then due, was paid by the Canadian Pacific Railway. I hope the right hon. leader of the opposition will open his ear and listen to this. It is on Hansard, June 10:
1. Did order in council P.C. 2490 of November 29, 1933, provide for any date of maturity for the repayment of the whole or any part of the $60,000,000 Canadian Pacific Railway loan which was guaranteed by the dominion government?
Answer: "Yes."

Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
2.	If so, what payment was to be made at each date of maturity?
Answer: "$35,000,000 due June 22, 1938, and $25,000,000 due December 1, 1938."
3.	Was another arrangement in that connection made on June 20, 1934?
Answer: "Payment was made prior to the maturity dates referred to."
4.	If so, what was it?
Answer: "Answered by 3."
5.	What payments were made by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the banks (a) on the capital, and (b) on the interest; (1) in 1934, and (2) in 1935?
Answer:	"(a)	1934-$12,000,000;	1935-
none." It is surprising, because the right hon. gentleman was saying that all the time they mentioned the refunding of that loan, and while $12,000,000, one-fifth of the amount, was paid in 1934, there was nothing, according to the record, paid in 1935, the last year he was Prime Minister. The second question was answered:	"No record."
6.	Did the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company advise the Minister of Finance this year that arrangements had been made to pay off the balance of $36,000,000 on May 1, 1936?
Answer:	"Yes." According to what the
right hon. gentleman has said, the answer should have been "No."
7.	If so, on what date?
Answer: "April 27, 1936." Exactly what I have said. It means that the date the Canadian Pacific Railway loan was mentioned in this house was the very same day the president of that company notified the government that the amount which was due, and even that part which had not yet matured, were to be paid three days later, on May 1. The last question was:
8.	Was the Minister of Finance advised by the chartered banks that the principal amount of the loan together with interest thereon, had been paid on May 1st?
Answer: "Yes."
I shall say no more than that. The case is just as complete as it can be. The first time that the signatures of the hon. Minister of Finance and the hon. Minister of Labour appear is on November 28, 1933, on the memorandum, in spite of the fact that the letter of guarantee was given six months before, on May 31, 1933. Not only that. There are three or four letters in the Department of Finance which were written afterwards by the then Minister of Finance; there is no correspondence in the meantime except
from the then acting Prime Minister and the Prime Minister himself.
I suffered so much some years ago, when I was called twice to order because I had said to the then Minister of Marine that public letters should not be changed into confidential letters, that I am very much surprised that the hon. member for Calgary West, who made so much fuss about the matter at the time, assumed on his own responsibility to take away with him letters that belonged to the state with regard to a guarantee of S60,000,000. That is all, sir.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, we of this side of the house and all those who form the official opposition have always accepted your rulings, I think, with very great respect indeed. Bill No. 100, which we are now discussing, does in one clause refer to agreements with corporations, but I call your attention to the fact that it says:
The governor in council may also enter into agreements with corporations, partnerships, or individuals engaged in industry respecting the expansion of industrial employment.
We all know that the guarantee given to the Canadian Pacific Railway had nothing to do with a guarantee respecting the expansion of industrial employment. With that before my eyes, I nevertheless accepted your ruling and did not attempt to appeal therefrom. But I do say this-and I call your attention to it as the chairman of committees and the deputy speaker of this house-that recently certain questionable interjections in this house have become intolerable.
With respect to these questions that have been asked repeatedly with regard to the Canadian Pacific guarantee, every member of this house and every member of the present government who has knowledge of the facts knows that the guarantee was made in good faith; that it was absolutely above suspicion and that the liability has been repaid so that the treasury has not lost a single dollar on that account. I do not know exactly, but it may be and I believe was the case that there was confidential correspondence for a certain period relating to the proposed arrangements to be made with the banks, several of whom were concerned with this guarantee in favour of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Confidential correspondence was carried on for a time with regard to these matters. But when official action was to be taken, a representation would be made by way of recommendation to His Excellency the Governor in Council, and on that recommendation an order in council would be framed and passed. The
3844	COMMONS
Unemployment-Relief Expenditures
order in council which was so framed and passed is the official document completing the transaction, and the hon. member has no right to call for the confidential communications from day to day in which the final basis of the agreement was developed. I venture to say to the Minister of Finance that even since he came into office this time, and certainly when he was in office before, he had necessarily to have confidential correspondence with many persons interested in public affairs before he finally made his recommendations to council dealing with those matters which were definitely embodied in orders of His Excellency the Governor in Council.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, if the Prime Minister were here to-night I am sure he would concede that under an order in council which is passed at the inception of each successive administration the Prime Minister, by order of his colleagues, is given certain exceptional prerogative rights.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Attached to his commission.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is so.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: And for sixty years or more that order in council has been regarded as confidential. That order in council has never been brought down in this house, but it is an order in council passed by each government on assuming office, giving more or less in detail a statement of the rights and prerogative privileges which the Prime Minister's colleagues confer upon him. More than that, on one occasion I traced back each successive order in council, I think away back to the time of Sir John A. Macdonald, in order to ascertain certain facts which were important with respect to government action at that time. Each administration, with the exception of a slight difference in wording from time to time as new conditions arose, has followed exactly the same form in respect of that order in council. The Prime Minister, or whoever replied to the hon. gentleman, indicated to him that there was an order in council outstanding, the order in council constituting the Bennett administration, if I may so call it, which authorized the right hon. leader of the government of that day to act on behalf and in the name of his colleagues. It is impossible to carry on government unless some person has such authority in case of the temporary absence of some member of the government. That practice has continued to this day, and I suggest that it is quite improper to take from it any undue inference such as has been drawn by the hon. member for Temiseouata to-night.

Further, Mr. Chairman, I do say that I wish you, as chairman, would again consider and review these proceedings of to-night. I accepted your ruling. I did not appeal from it; I thought it better that we should have this tempest now than at another time. But such proceedings render the position of members of this house utterly intolerable, because they surpass the ordinary decencies of debate. When one becomes a member of this house we assume that he will conform to the ordinary dictates of decency and that he will act in a gentlemanly way, and it is with that in mind-


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege. I strongly object to the language of the -hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George. He is abusing his privileges as a member; he is abusing me, and therefore as a member of this house I strongly protest. The hon. gentleman is also imputing to me motives I never had and language I never used.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have only a few more words to add. We rely upon each other, that each will conduct himself as a gentleman in this house. That rule, when observed, ensures pleasant and amicable relations between members not only in the house but outside it. If any member is permitted to abuse our privileges, as I suggest the privileges of members have been abused by the hon. member for Temiseouata to-night, the result will be that members will reluctantly refuse to take part in debates in this house when the hon. member for Temiseouata is present, in order to protect themselves against vehement accusations of the nature which the hon. gentleman brings against other members. Or else we, as individual members, upon leaving this house, will have to resort to physical force in order to compel the hon. gentleman, when he is in the presence of other hon. gentlemen, to respect himself and to respect others with whom he comes into contact.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have an amendment to section 1, Mr. Chairman, which I move now in order that it may be printed for the next sitting of the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: I strongly protest against the imputations and insinuations of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George, as much a gentleman as he is.


Frederick George Sanderson: Order. The amendment moved by the Minister of National Defence is that section 1 be amended by adding after the word "act" in line 20 the following:
as well as the amount for which the province may be obligated by way of loan in eon-

Business of the House
3S15
nection with the cost of any undertaking for which commitments were made under the Relief Act, 1935, and which may be continued under agreements entered into under authority of this act.


Thomas Langton Church: I do not want to delay the committee for more than two or three minutes, but I should like to speak to something that is relevant to the issue, in regard to agreements between the provinces and the corporations. I am not here to defend what was done by the previous government-


Charles Avery Dunning: I wonder if the hon. member would permit me to interrupt for a moment. It is desired to move the committee up in order that a formal motion may be made before eleven o'clock, if my hon. friend would permit that to be done.


Thomas Langton Church: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended stands.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1937, was presented by the Hon. Charles A. Dunning (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, some days
ago I gave an undertaking that on or not later than Thursday I would move that the house go into committee of supply in order that we might, take up an item which has been reserved in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, namely the item relating to Geneva, so that we might have a discussion on foreign affairs. I think it would perhaps serve a useful purpose if, at the outset, the discussion took place in a formal way, and if the debate were to be carried for a time at least with His Honour the Speaker in the chair. Subsequently we could go into committee for any detailed information hon. members may wish to have. If hon. members are agreeable to proceeding in 'that way I would ask for unanimous consent to move that the provision of standing order 28, respecting committee of supply, be suspended for Thursday, June 18 instant, the reason being that on Thursdays Mr. Speaker leaves the chair without question being put. If the motion is
carried I would propose to-morrow, before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair, to make a statement of the government's position on matters of external affairs in which I believe hon. members are immediately interested, and we might proceed then with the debate in a formal manner. When the debate has continued for such time as hon. members may deem sufficient, the house could then go into committee and proceed to further discussion by question and answer. I think that procedure would probably prove to be in the interest of all, but my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition may have a different view about it. If so, I should be glad before putting the motion to hear what he has to say.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the
Opposition): I am bound to say that I do entertain a different view. A motion to go into supply is not made to-morrow, and to suspend that rule for one particular purpose would be wholly improper, in my judgment, and certainly could be done only with the unanimous consent of the house. No notice being given of any such intention, inasmuch as it is an estimate for Geneva that is under consideration, the proper place for its consideration is in committee of supply when the chairman of committees is in the chair. I am sorry I do not see it as the right hon. gentleman has mentioned, but I conceive the proper manner to deal with it is the manner I have indicated, and not in the manner he has suggested.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course that settles the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a difference of opinion; that is all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It requires unanimous consent. I had thought that by following the course I have suggested our discussion, having regard to the importance of the matters likely to be discussed, might be carried on in a more dignified and befitting manner than would otherwise be possible. However, I shall carry out the undertaking given, namely that to-morrow we would proceed in committee of supply with the consideration of the item concerning Geneva, at which time matters relating to external affairs may be discussed.
The government will be prepared to consider morning sittings any time hon. members may feel they would care to have them begin. But in this I do not wish to suggest a course which would not be wholly acceptable to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition or to any other hon. members of the house.
Business of the House

Therefore I shall leave it to the whips to indicate to the government what appear to be the wishes of hon. members in the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whatever the Prime
Minister may consider most advisable in the public interest, I am quite prepared to meet, in that regard.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 18, 1936