[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current) moved that the fourth and final report of the special committee on the elections and franchise acts, presented on June 11, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (Battle-ford North): Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of Ihe Minister of Labour (Mr. Rogers) in connection with Canada's youngest mining centre, Goldfields, on the eastern shore of Athabasca lake, which is in the North Battleford federal riding. The information received is to the effect that there is an influx of men into this young mining area, and the unemployment situation is serious. The report I have goes on to say that new arrivals are coming in daily, by boat and aeroplane, and already many are dependent on the charity of residents of the town and are eating and sleeping wherever they can. May I ask the Minister of Labour whether the government have been made aware of the unemployment situation there, either, indirectly through the medium of the province of Saskatchewan, or directly from the mining area of Goldfields; and if so, what action if any is contemplated.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Barber,
Hon. NORMAN McL. ROGERS (Minister of Labour): Until I received this afternoon an intimation that this question was to be asked I had not been made aware of the situation referred to by my hon. friend. I am not certain what measures could be taken to arrest the movement into Goldfields, if the prospects are as attractive as suggested by my hon. friend, but I assure him that I shall look into the matter and take whatever measures may be possible.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) whether the government propose to take any steps in the near future to secure amendments to the British North America Act, or some method by which the the British North America Act may be amended?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I am afraid this matter will have to stand until another session.



COPYRIGHT CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa East):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) whether the convention on copyright scheduled to meet in Brussels this fall will meet, and if not, when it will meet and where.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I am glad the hon. gentleman has put that question, because it gives me an opportunity to make a public statement on the matter for the information of the house and the country. We have received an official notice that the proposed international copyright conference, which was to be held on September 7 in Brussels, will not take place this year. The communication states that it will take place another year, but does not give further particulars.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the Bank of Canada Act.
Mr. H. J. BARBER (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, this is such an important piece of legislation, perhaps one of the most important that has come before any parliament, that on this, the third reading, those of us who did not speak on it previously should I think take advantage of this last opportunity to express our views. I say it is important because, as has already been pointed out, it was an issue in the last election, and the people have looked to this piece of legislation, the new set-up of this bank, the change that was promised with some hope of relief from present economic conditions. During the election Liberal speakers throughout the ridings of this country told the people that if the Liberal party was returned to power the Bank of Canada would be nationalized, taken over by the government and operated in the interests of the people. I think one member, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie), went so far as to say in a speech in Vancouver, that, in addition, the Liberal party if returned to power would proceed to issue new money, and he mentioned an amount something like $50,000,000. The provinces, the municipalities and the cities naturally looked upon this proposed change as affording relief from the financial conditions from which they were suffering. They expected that money would circulate more freely. I think that impression was general throughout the country, and that is the reason, Mr. Speaker, I consider this one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come before the house. My reply to these gentlemen who advocated government ownership was this: that to do so was very simple, that the Bank of Canada was set up following the recommendations of a royal commission, and that if any government found that it did not work in the best interests of the people, the set-up of the bank could easily be changed. If that change was to be nationalization of the bank by the government taking it over, that could be accomplished very simply by taking over the stock of the private shareholders.
I think we all agree that what we need is not new money in this country but a greater velocity in the circulation of money. But so far the policy of this government, which has been in office now for six months, has been to adopt measures which tend to block rather than to stimulate the circulation of money. For instance, the Minister of Finance the other day announced that a large loan had been floated, and we all know that a very fine return was offered to investors to come forward and invest in that loan, an interest rate of 3J per cent.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Barber


Mr. DUNNING:: No.


Harry James Barber: I believe it was close to
that; at all events it was a greater return than could be received from investments in industry to-day. That was one action that was taken by the government that tended to slow up industry. Then we have the eight per cent sales tax, the highest sales tax known in any country, and all you have to do to learn its effects, is to inquire in business circles, where you will find that it has tended to slow up the circulation of the dollar.
I wish to refer now to one particular section of the bill, section 15. I approach this with a full knowledge that it is a subject upon which harsh words have been spoken and one which has caused bitter feeling in different parts of this country, but I believe this is the place to discuss it, not in the little red sehoolhouse or on the back lines. I shall say what I have to say with the greatest moderation because I do not think anyone can accuse me of being intolerant in such matters.
I have the greatest respect and the greatest regard for our friends the French speaking Canadians of this country. I do not think anyone has a greater respect for them. I have made many friends amongst them since being here, and I hope they will take the remarks I make to-day in the spirit in which they are made, with the greatest of moderation. I was pleased to hear an hon. member from a town in the province of Quebec tell us the other evening how splendidly the French
speaking and English speaking people of his town get along together; how for a long time they elected alternately a French speaking and then an English speaking mayor. That is a wonderful spirit; it is the spirit we must have between the two great races in Canada if we are to make this country what it should be. But I could not figure out just what that had to do with the question of bilingual currency in the year 1936. I say to the members of this house, and I say it in all earnestness, knowing this country pretty well, that I see great danger in this particular section at this time, a time when our people are suffering perhaps as they have never suffered before from economic conditions. I believe that this section is the sowing of seed that is bound to grow into an issue in this country which will be perhaps more serious than anything that has happened since confederation, something that will not be in the interests of harmony between the two great races and that will not be in the best interests of the minority in this country.
Just look at the picture, for instance, of western Canada. In the province from which I come, British Columbia, the French speaking population is less than three per cent; in Alberta the French speaking population is less than six per cent; in Saskatchewan it is less than six per cent, and in Manitoba it is less than seven per cent. I think I will put this table of figures on Hansard. It is based on the 1931 census and comes from the bureau of statistics:
Province	Total population French population Per cent
Manitoba	
700,139	47,039	6	7Saskatchewan	
921,785	50,700	5	5A'berta .	
731,605	38.377	5.2-British Columbia	
694,263	15,028	2	1
Total population of the four western provinces, 3,047,792; French-speaking population of the four western provinces, 151,144; French-speaking population of the four western provinces 4.9 per cent of the total.
That shows quite a different picture from the one given the other evening by an hon. member from one of the ridings in the province of Quebec, and I think it is something that should be taken into consideration very seriously by this house.
I want to make this one statement. I do not believe that in this whole world there is a more tolerant people than the English speaking people of Canada. They have tolerated, in the past-I am going to put it that way- bilingual postage stamps, issued without any authority of parliament. They have tolerated the forms that were referred to by the Minister of Finance the other night, issued with-
[Mr. Barber.l
out the authority of parliament. As some hon. gentlemen know, they have in many sections protested strenuously against French announcements over the radio, with the result that they have been moderated. No English speaking member has stood on his feet in this house and said that as this is not according to the constitution, it should be removed. No; it was tolerated. Now with the authority of parliament we are going to provide that this is a bilingual country, that we are to have bilingual currency in circulation throughout the country. I warn the government and hon. members of this house that that will not create the harmony and cooperation that we

Bank of Canada-Mr. Barber
want to see between the two great races in Canada. I hope and trust it will never be- ' come a political issue, although it may be forced as an issue by the people.
I should like to quote from Hansard of 1905 in order to give a clear picture of how the Liberal party stood on this question. I refer to page 6026 of Hansard of May 21, 1905. The following questions were asked of Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance
1.	Do any grave reasons of state exist that might prevent the Minister of Finance from having the dominion one dollar and two dollar notes or all other bank notes printed simultaneously in English and French?
2.	Are they unaware in the finance department that the two languages are official in Canada?
3.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to rectify in the future this state of things by ordering that those bank notes be printed in both languages, English and French?
Mr. Fielding answered as follows:
There is nothing in the British North America Act or in any act of the parliament of Canada, which requires or contemplates the printing of dominion notes in two languages.
The finance department has not contemplated the advisability of any departure from the practice which has existed under all governments from the beginning of confederation down to the present time.
That was the official statement of the Liberal party in 1905. When the present act was framed consideration was given by parliament to our French speaking Canadians for the first time in the history of this country. This act provides that notes of the Bank of Canada be printed in the French language as well as English. A large number of French speaking people live in the constituency which I have had the honour to represent for a number of years and I have never heard any objection on their part to receiving money printed in their own language. I do not think there has been any protest from the great masses of French speaking Canadians against money being printed in the French language. The provision in the present act has been working only about a year and it has not -been given a chance.
The main argument of the minister is that it cost about $29,000 to print these bills in the French language. I have not heard any protest from any English speaking member of this house against the cost. Further, there has never been a protest from any English speaking member or from anyone else in Canada that I have heard of against the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in printing the proceedings of this house and the publications of the different departments in the French language. That was provided for and there has been no complaint. There has been no objection to that from the English speaking people. Is this action going to return to us the $29,000? No, it means that we are going to spend at least another $29,000 to print the new money. I think even some hon. members to my left will agree that that money could be spent to greater advantage these days.
The people of the two great races are not demanding a new dollar; they are demanding that they be given the opportunity to earn a dollar. They are not particular whether that dollar is new; they are prepared to accept the dollars that have been provided. What they want is an opportunity to earn a dollar. The great army of the unemployed want work in order that they may earn a dollar. Merchants, business men, farmers and citizens generally throughout this country are in dire need of purchasing power through the circulation of more dollars. I say to hon. members of this house: Instead of bringing up an issue like this at the present time, the spending of money which the Minister of Finance has complained about, let us, as the representatives of the people of Canada unite in an effort to try to improve conditions by assisting Canadians from one end of this great country to the other. I say to the house that the bringing up of an issue of this kind and the forcing of bilingual currency upon the great majority of English speaking people is not in the best interests of Canada as a whole.
I want to make one last appeal to the individual members of the house because it is the individual members who should decide these matters. I hope it will never -become a party question, but this is a question that is put up to every individual member. It is not a question of the rights of the minority or the rights of the majority; it is a matter which should be considered in the light of present day conditions. It has been stated that the printing of the French bills cost $29,000. therefore it stands to reason that we shall have to spend at least $29,000 more. Is that wise? That money might better be spent in some other way. There has been no protest from the great masses of French speaking Canadians against the issue of bills printed in French. This has come from a group or organization of which we have heard during the last five years. A determined effort has been made, irrespective of the wishes of Canadians as a whole, to force bilingualism on this country. The thin end of the wedge has been driven in. As I have stated already, we have the bilingual postage stamp, which has been tolerated, but I fear the great masses of English speaking people will not
3750	COMMONS
Bank of Canada

Mr. Mackenzie King
tolerate this. When people are in distress throughout the country we should direct our efforts to the improving of general conditions. I do not consider it too late to remedy this condition, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley):
That the said bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it by deleting therefrom section 15 thereof.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: This matter was debated
so full}' on the second reading of the bill and the Liberal point of view was so ably presented by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) that I hesitate to attempt to add anything to what has already been said. But the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Barber) have b'een such as, it seems to me, to require some further word in reply.
May I say at once that I take very strong exception to the view that because there is an English speaking majority in this country, that English majority lacks a sense of fair play towards the French minority, and that the English speaking majority-


Harry James Barber: I said they always had.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My honourable friend may say they have always had, but he assumes that because there is an English speaking majority in this country the greater part of that majority wishes to have the bank notes of the country printed in English only and not in French.


Harry James Barber: I said they should receive
consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say to my
hon. friend that there is as much justification for saying that the English speaking majority in Canada wish to have all the bank notes in this country printed in English only as there is for saying that the French minority wish to have all the bank notes printed in French only.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is just
as much justification for the one view as for the other. My own view as a citizen of Canada is that there is no more chivalrous element of the population than the French Canadian, and as one of British descent I hesitate for my part to be less chivalrous towards that section of the population simply because it happens to be in the minority and I am one of the majority. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), speaking the other day, said that the majority of the .people of

this country wished to have money printed in the one language only.


Mr. BENNETT:: No, he did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I think
he did. At any rate my right hon. friend said that the will of the majority was to have bank notes-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
finished the sentence yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that at
all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon.
friend says he did not say what I am about to say before I have completed the statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman made enough of the statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend said that the will of the majority of the people of this country was not to have bilingual bank notes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He did say
that the will of the majority was-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -to have Bank of Canada notes printed in English to a certain extent and to a certain extent in French, and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say that;
Hansard will speak for itself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At any rate
the impression I received and, I believe, the impression that every member of the house, and the country received-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -was that my right hon. friend meant that the will of the majority in Canada was the will of the English speaking portion of the population,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did say quite the
opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -and that the will of the English speaking majority was that there should not be bilingual notes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said no suc'h thing,
Mr. Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend made his denial both before and after I spoke; I think that ought to be sufficient.

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I am to be quoted,
the language of Hansard governs with respect to what I said. If the Prime Minister will be good enough to refer to what I said there will be no difficulty, but to have him place his interpretation on my words, that I cannot tolerate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That assumed appeal to Hansard, as my right hon. friend knows, is a device in debate. He knows I do not happen to have before me at the moment the actual page of the debate. However, possibly some hon. member may be able to locate the reference before the debate is over. I do repeat that any assertion that the will of the majority of the people in this country is to be interpreted by my right hon. friend and those who sit behind him rather than by those who sit on this side of the house requires no refutation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I distinctly said that I
spoke for myself and not for those associated with me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In speaking for himself, my right hon. friend referred to the will of the majority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He used those
words.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was speaking about
something else entirely, and he did not say that he was speaking for the majority.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall find his words before the discussion is over. At any rate, the point I wish to make is this. If this matter is to be decided by the will of the majority, then the government of the day has the right to express that will and is so expressing it in the legislation before the house. More than that, I will say that the will of the English speaking majority as expressed in this House of Commons, constituted as it is to-day, fresh from the people of Canada, will support bilingual notes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me tell
my hon. friends that we will settle the matter by having a division on this motion, and we shall see whether the English speaking majority in this house favour bilingual notes or not. I think I may leave the matter at that.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go to the people
and see vs'hat they will do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the leader of the opposition, in speaking the other
day, was right in laying a certain stress on freedom of choice. He mentioned two circumstances which should govern in the matter of a decision. One was that there should be freedom of choice with respect to the question whether a citizen wished to accept a document or bill in English or in French, and he said that the course which should be adopted was the one which would further, to the greatest extent, harmony and good will among the different elements in the country. He referred to the documents on the table of the House of Commons and said, "They are here, some in French and some in English. Hon. members may come and take whichever they please." Certainly they have real freedom of choice in that regard and can take which they please. But what freedom of choice has a citizen who is being paid a debt or wishes to settle an account or is receiving payment of an account-what freedom of choice has he as regards the acceptance of money that may be offered him if it happens to be in French or English as the case may be and he prefers the other denomination? The only freedom of choice is to see, whether he be English speaking or French speaking, that he be given a bill which is acceptable to him because of its clearness in reference to the denomination and other essential details. If the intention were to obliterate from the face of a bill the descriptive wording where in English or, on the other hand, to obliterate the descriptive wording where in French, there might be objection to a course of that kind. But where those of the English speaking part of the population are given the opportunity to obtain a bill with all essential details printed entirely in English, I cannot see what possible objection there can be to permitting on that same bill similar information in French for those who happen to be of French origin.
As to harmony and good will, surely an attitude of the kind which recognizes natural desires and needs is likely to promote a better feeling than an attitude of intolerance which will not permit anything of the sort. And here may I take very strong exception to what the hon. member for Fraser Valley has said with respect to toleration and his interpretation of it. My hon. friend said that the English speaking population of Canada had "tolerated" the issue of bilingual postage stamps and the use of postal notes in both languages. Why did he not go on and say that the English speaking members of the House of Commons "tolerate" their French speaking colleagues in this house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.
3752	. 5]	COMMONS
Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the same thing.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are trying to make it up.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, work it up.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friends should see where their argument leads.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Every member of parliament of French descent has the same rights in this House of Commons as a member of parliament of English descent.


An hon. MEMBER:: Whoever said he had not?


An hon. MEMBER:: Who has disputed that?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say he has. If he has, then he has the same rights with respect to everything over which this parliament has control in the matter of legislation. It is not a question of tolerating the presence of French Canadian members in the parliament of a country which has an English speaking majority, nor of tolerating bilingual stamps in a country which has an English speaking majority, nor of tolerating bilingual postal notes in a country which has an English speaking majority; it is a matter of fair play and justice by all who believe in justice and fair play. I believe the attitude of the people of Canada is one of tolerance, and not one of intolerance and bigotry, which is the attitude being exemplified by members on the other side.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The house has heard what the leader of the opposition has said as to the wrongful interpretation put upon his words. May I quote the following from a speech made by him in this house on June 11. It is to be found at page 3624 of Hansard:
I point out, however, to my fellow countrymen who are of French origin and speak the French language that those who will take the evidence of history for what it may be worth -and it is fairly important-will find that wherever the granting of a privilege or a concession by a majority has by the minority been crystallized into a right, resulting in a pushing of the demand beyond those moderate and reasonable boundaries that have marked the maintenance of harmonious relations between majorities and minorities, the consequence has been harmful to the minority.
That is the first paragraph I desire to quote. I do so for the reason that it speaks about the granting of a privilege or a concession by a majority to a minority. I wish to

say that any right which the French speaking portion of our country enjoy with respect to bilingual postal notes or to bilingual postage or anything else of the kind has not been in the nature of a concession or of a privilege conferred by parliament. It has been in the nature of a recognition of the full rights of Canadian citizenship.
My right hon. friend goes on to say:
Why not let the demand for a change come about by that gradual process which would ensure that those who are most affected, namely, the majority, who are of British descent and speak the English language, will feel, as they do not now feel, the desire to do something further in a spirit of amity and good will ?	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend by what right he claims to assert what is the will of the majority of the people of this country? I say my right hon. friend is mistaken in believing that he at any time represented in -this matter the will of the majority-the English speaking majority-of the people of this country.
Going a step further, my right hon. friend says:
Now, to say that the will of the minority shall prevail over the will of the majority of the people of Canada is to create as dangerous a condition as it is possible to create.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that not exactly what I said when my right hon. friend interrupted me-?


Richard Bedford Bennett: As far from it as possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -both before and after my endeavour not to quote but to give the substance of his remarks and of his argument?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Entirely different.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me repeat:
To say that the will of the minority shall prevail over the will of the majority of the people of Canada is to create as dangerous a condition as it is possible to create.
As to what is the will of the majority-the English speaking majority-I venture to say to the house that if every member of parliament who is of French descent should refrain from voting on this particular question, and the vote should be left entirely to those of British descent, the majority of those of British descent would favour the printing of bilingual notes rather than the adoption of the policy which hon. gentlemen opposite wish to have adopted. The vote when it is taken will show whether what I am now saying is true or not.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Perley
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by affirming that in this matter the government is following the true tradition, so far as government in Canada is concerned, of fair play and the furtherance of good will and harmony among all races in this country, and in addition is furthering the Liberal tradition of due regard for the rights of minorities and tolerance in all matters pertaining to the state.


Mr. E. E. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: In speaking to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), which I second, I trust that I shall be considered moderate in my arguments; and I shall appeal to the house, not from the standpoint of partyism or of race or creed, but in a broadminded way, as any true Canadian citizen should.
When in 1935 the Bank of Canada came into being, certain definite functions were assigned to it. It is not necessary for me to review these at the present time; the matter was well debated on the resolution and when the bill was in committee. Suffice it to say that I think the act as constituted should have had a fair and reasonable trial, to ascertain whether the bank could perform the functions that were delegated to it. One of its powers was that of issuing separate notes, that is, notes in English and notes in French. I believe that last Friday the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and to-day the hon. member for Fraser Valley, have made appeals for this system of issuing the currency as constituted under the act, and that it should have a fair chance to be tried out, to see what value it has, as it was no doubt a gesture of good will to the French speaking people. I think that suggestion was worthy of consideration. All hon. members who sat in the last parliament well remember the debate that took place when the bill was introduced last session. We recall the definite statement that was made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), then the leader of the opposition. We also all remember the discussions that took place during the campaign in September and October last, when the Liberal party, and in particular its leader, made definite promises to the people of Canada that if they were returned to power they would make certain changes in the act. These are the amendments that they now propose. Hon. members on the government side must surely have expected criticism of those amendments from this side, and especially from the extreme left hand corner. Some of them also may well have expected criticism from among their own members;
and recently they have listened to very stinging criticism and condemnation from one of their own supporters, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer). I do not think any better language could have been used than was employed by him to describe the betrayal by the government of the people of Canada. I state what is known to all members of this house, that during the last campaign bilingual notes was not an issue; the matter was never discussed, even last session when the bill was before the house. In my opinion the government, by this amendment, is betraying the people of Canada just as much as it did by not going the full limit in some other respects as stated by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard.
It was stated when the bill was in committee that nothing should be done to raise the racial question, and that statement has been made to-day also. I do not believe any member of this house really wants to say anything that will raise any racial question at this time; far from it, but I think the interpretation the people of Canada will place on the speech delivered by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) last week and the speech delivered to-day by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) will be that those two addresses will go a long way towards raising that racial question. We are all proud of this great confederation. Each province has made its contribution; both the English speaking and the French speaking Canadians have done their share, and the special consideration that was shown the French speaking people in having bills printed in English and French certainly was a gesture of good will designed to further consolidate our confederation. In his speech the Minister of Justice quoted from an address delivered by the great Conservative Prime Minister, the late Sir John A. Macdonald, in 1890 with regard to the use of the two languages. If I cared to take time to read that quotation I think hon. members would see that it had no reference at all to bilingual currency or for that matter currency of any kind. My reply to the Minister of Justice would be to quote from a speech delivered by one who, I think the Liberals will agree, was the greatest Liberal prime minister Canada has- ever had, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I refer to a speech made seventeen years after the addTess by Sir John A. Macdonald to which reference has been made. In replying to an appeal made by Mr. Lavergne, Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, according to Hansard for February 25, 1907, at page 3655:
But to affirm, as he does-
That is, Mr. Lavergne.



Bank oj Canada-Mr. Parley
-that the French language should be used upon every occasion, and that every public document should be printed on one side in French and the other side in English, is, I think, going a little too far. For instance, I understand that my hon. friend wants bank notes to be printed either in French or in English. For my part I never yet saw an occasion when a bank note printed in English was not properly understood by the French people; and I am quite sure that a bank note printed in French would be understood by the English people to be exactly what it means.
That is exactly the condition we have at present under this act.


Ernest Lapointe: Would my hon. friend continue the quotation?


Ernest Edward Perley: I am sorry I have not the volume of Hansard here. I could also quote from a speech delivered by the hon. gentleman himself a little later.


Ernest Lapointe: Will my hon. friend allow me one minute to insert what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said?


Ernest Edward Perley: The hon.
gentleman will have an opportunity after I have finished. I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that this statement by Sir Wilfrid Laurier opposed the printing of notes in English and notes in French, and surely my hon. friend should follow the advice of his leader of that time. I have before me several quotations from Hansard from the speeches of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and other great leaders, including Sir Edward Blake, Sir Robert Borden and others, indicating that there never was any need for a bilingual bank note. But my hon. friend the Minister of Justice made a speech on May 10, 1916, appearing in Hansard for that year at page 3681. At that time he was supporting his leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and he established the fact that the use of the French language in Canada was not official anywhere prior to 1841. So I would suggest to my hon. friend that he look up some of the speeches he delivered in support of his great chieftain, in which he established that Canada was not bilingual and that there was nothing in our constitution establishing that situation.


Ernest Lapointe: I wish
my hon. friend would read some of those speeches.


Ernest Edward Perley: I	have
referred to one. Then t'he Minister of Justice referred to the situation in Switzerland and other foreign countries in reference to their use of bilingual currency. The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) made
[Mr. E. E. Perley.l
an appeal for fair play irrespective of race and creed, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) referred to the fact that postal money orders were printed in both the official languages. I should like to use one argument to reply briefly to those three statements. I should like to direct the attention of the house to the situation we have in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber) has already referred to the percentage of French speaking people in the western provinces, but I should like to speak more particularly with regard to the situation in Saskatchewan.
In our province we have a foreign-born population naturalized Canadian citizens, foreign born and the children of foreign born parents. Our total population is about 992,000, of whom approximately 600.000 are included in the class of foreign born and the children of foreign born parents. These figures are taken from the last census returns, and can be found also in the Canada Year Book. I would remind the house also that in the provinces of Manitoba and Alberita we have large numbers of people of this class, which would bring the total in the three prairie provinces to the neighbourhood of one million people, or about one-tenth the total population of this dominion. These people are fine types of Canadian citizens, and right here I should like to pay my respects to them. I should say ninety-nine per cent of them are endeavouring to be fine, loyal Canadians. In my constituency there are some twelve languages spoken; there are towns in Qu'Appelle where the majority of the people are foreign born or in the class to which I am referring. I could take you to one town where most of the people are of German descent. There I could gather five hundred people of this class who can sing O Canada or God Save the King as well as any similar number that could be gathered in any part of Canada.


Charles Avery Dunning: Why not?


Ernest Edward Perley: Of course;
that is just what we expect.


Charles Avery Dunning: They were all bom here.


Ernest Edward Perley: Nearly half of them were foreign born.


Ernest Lapointe: They
are permitted to sing the national anthem.


Ernest Edward Perley: These people naturally cannot understand the special considerations or gestures, call them what you will, that we are extending to the French speaking people from time to time, when our

Bank of Canada-Mr. Church
constitution does not provide for Canada to be a bilingual country. It was with difficulty last year that we explained the special privilege or gesture of good will that we extended by having the notes printed in English and French. There is no doubt that if this amendment passes we may before many years have a protest from this class of people, and a demand that they have some consideration for their native tongue. The debate that took place in the last parliament on the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) will be within the memory of many hon. members. Also we can well remember the debates that took place in 1935. Hon. members who were members of the banking and commerce committee that considered the bill in 1935 will remember the discussion that took place in that committee. It was purely as a gesture of good will that it was provided that the bank notes should be available in one or other of the two languages where required. This surely places French and English on an equality, as the Minister of Justice appealed for. There never has been a question in respect to equality. I am sure no hon. member can point to any debate that ever took place in this house and I cannot think of any since I have been in it that raised the question of equality. We have always been proud of the contribution made by the French speaking people to confederation. The wording of this bill however will do much to raise the racial question, of which we are all fearful. It presents more evidence of the possibility of raising the racial question than any other measure that has ever passed in this house.
In conclusion I plead with the Minister of Finance to endeavour to persuade the government not to press this amendment providing for bilingual notes. I hope I have dealt with the question in a spirit of fair play and in the manner of a true Canadian citizen. Certainly I am not one who wants to raise any racial question in Canada at the present time. I therefore second the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of striking out section 15.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I do not intend to give a silent vote on the third reading of this bill. When the order was called I had intended to oppose the Bank of Canada bill on general grounds, and if after this amendment is voted down anyone moves a six months' hoist of the whole bill I shall vote for that.
12739-239J
I was very much surprised to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the name of the Liberal party make the speech he did after the address he made in this house on the same legislation on June 22, 1934. In connection with the rights of minorities and majorities in this country we have reached this state of affairs, that a militant minority can coerce the majority. That is what we have come to under confederation to-day. The Prime Minister said in the House Commons a week ago last Thursday in connection with another bill:
The principle I am laying down is that there is no minority which is superior to the majority, and that majority is the people of the country as a whole; and the people of the country as a whole have sent this present House of Commons to legislate.
Well, may I say in answer to the right hon. gentleman that this House of Commons was not sent by the people of this country to vote for this Bank of Canada bill, or for section 15 of it. The government had no mandate from Ontario for this bill. We are now in the sixty-ninth year of confederation. During that time successive governments, Liberal and Conservative, have presided over the affairs of Canada; various parliaments have been elected; there have been various prime ministers and ministers of finance, yet we in all that long time had to wait until 1936 for the first minister of finance to rise in this house and say that the bank bills of the dominion, namely dominion notes of one and two dollar's, are to be printed in English and French and that French is to be placed on an equality with English throughout the dominion-something that the fathers of confederation never intended; a thing against the spirit and letter of confederation; something on which the people of this country have never had a chance to express an opinion.
As I have said, the history of the world is the history of minorities. The history of this country is the history of compromises. Confederation was a compromise. One compromise was regarding bilingualism, the use of French and English. These rights are set out in section 133 of the British North America Act, as follows:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act. and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
3756	COMMONS
Bank of Canada-Mr. Church
That was a compromise and was to be a finality without any extensions. It was intended at that time that there should be no extension of the rights and privileges granted under section 133. Whether or not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) or the Prime Minister thinks this is a political question, there is no doubt it is a political question, and whether they like it or not it is going to be a political question until it is settled right. No question is settled in this country until it is settled according to justice and according to the terms of confederation, and this thing is going to be open until it is settled, and the door is not closed yet by any means.
It is no-t my purpose to speak at length at this time, but I wish to register my protest. I do not speak for the Conservative party; I speak as a private member of parliament sent here to do his duty. Representing the constituency I do, I deem it my duty to oppose the third reading of this bill. I should not be doing my duty if I failed to oppose this two-faced Doctor Jekyll and Mr. Hyde bill. This bill is not public ownership at all, it is something in the election which the Prime Minister and other members of the Liberal party promised the country if elected. There can be no control without ownership. The pledge given by the government for a publicly owned bank has not been fulfilled. It is a political bill much more than a banking or economic bill. It is called a bill to amend the Bank of Canada Act, but it might better be called a Barnurn and Bailey bill; it is neither public ownership nor public control, for there is no control without total ownership. It does not amend the Bank of Canada act, but it makes a scrap of paper out of the Bank of Canada Act of 1934, and violates the principle of section 133 of the British North America Act, which I quoted.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier never wrould have sanctioned this bill. He always acted on this question with great prudence and diplomacy, but where is there evidence of prudence or diplomacy here? Was it ever discussed in the election campaign? No, not one word. My friends cannot show any such discussion from February 25, 1907, when the former member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) proposed a motion in this house for equality of treatment of the two Languages, on which occasion Sir Wilfrid Laurier did express certain opinions. Sir Wilfrid Laurier stood here as Prime Minister. Mr. Fielding took the same stand for many years. Neither would ever propose such a bill as this or support it, or ever bring it up on the decennial revision of the Bank Act.
This bill offers no help in solving the social and economic problems of this country. There is no proposal in it to have a limited amount

of controlled inflation up to fifty or a hundred million dollars to take care of the unemployed, to take care of a reconstruction, housing and slum clearance program, and dear knows it was badly needed this spring in the large cities so as to get people off the dole and back to work. There is nothing in this bill about that. It will make no improvement over the past in our economic conditions. A partly privately owned and partly publicly owned institution will get Canada nowhere if there is no control.
Regarding the inspection clause, we had a case the other day of a government official taking the interest on deposits and putting it in his pockets in spite of all the inspection.
This bank is a political bank; that is all it is and all it will become in time; nothing but a glorified Home bank. Wait till you see what happens. Wait till you see it next year. If it does not end up by being that, it will be no fault of the framers of the bill. The bill is a victory, no doubt, for the bankers' association and for St. James street and for the chartered banks. I can see the fine hand of these great interests in this bill, whether others can see it or not. I have studied this question and I can see it. These people have at last been successful in their efforts to cripple any effective central bank and to undo the good work already done.
Section 15 enables the letter and spirit of confederation to be made a scrap of paper; that is all it is. If the government want to give the minority these rights under confederation, let them do it in the proper legal way. Let them come in at the front door, not at the side door. Let them open and amend section 133 of the' British North America Act, regarding the use of the French language instead of sliding this thing through in a minor bank act. Let them come in by the front door of the House of Commons and bring in a bill to amend the British North America Act, section 133, to extend the rights and privileges and prerogatives of the French language in this country.
The Minister of Justice says that the bilingual notes are necessary because they will be deposited in the courts of Quebec, and that these bank notes are legal tender. But, Mr. Speaker, the practice of the courts with reference to deposits is changing to marked cheques and certificates from trust companies; certified cheques are being used, and there are many other ways of depositing legal tender in the various official judicial offices of this country. For the Minister of Justice to use that as a leading argument, therefore, is only begging the question.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Church
Section 15 is a victory for a militant minority, coercing a passive majority that is too proud to fight, too proud to stand up for its rights either in this house or out of it. We have a press, pulpit and legislature that is too proud to fight along the line of defending the rights and prerogatives of majorities. The recent investigation at Washington showed how the banks and big interests have been coercing the press of that country. Why do you see so little in the press, in the English speaking papers of this country, about section 15? Twenty-five years ago what a rebellion *there would have been if a minority was going to saddle a majority along the lines that this bill does? The evidence at Washington that was given in the press showed how the banks and big interests and departmental stores in the United States had trammelled a free press, and had warned them that they would cut out their advertisements. We heard something about that even in Canada happening in the first days of this parliament. But for an able press, things would have been ten times worse than they are in this country, and I am here to endeavour to support and protect a free press from such attacks. It is all right to drive a coach and four through the British North America Act, as section 15 of this bill does, to please some people, but we cannot get a section of the British North America Act amended for the purpose of getting progress in this country, and getting the working _ class out of the strait-jacket which the British North America Act has put around them, and which the courts help to keep them in at times.
It is said that those who oppose section 15 are bringing this thing into politics. Did you ever hear anything like that in your life? Of course it is bound to be in politics and to stay in politics until it is repealed, and those who brought it into polities are hon. gentlemen opposite. They are the first ones in sixty-nine years who have proposed that these dominion notes-for that is all they are, these ones and twos and so forth under the old legislation-shall be printed in the two languages.
There was a provision made by section 24, subsection 4, of chapter 43 of the statutes of 1934, the Bank of Canada Act:
The form and material of the notes shall be subject to approval by the minister: Provided that notes in either the English or the French language shall be available as required.
That worked out all right in practice. I was not a member of the house in 1934 when the Bank of Canada Act was passed, but at the same time it worked out all right in practice, and those who wanted notes in
English or in French could get them at the different branches, but if I had been in the house at the time as a member I would have opposed even this concession.
As to what the Minister of Justice says about the notes being legal tender in the law courts, I was making inquiries of a number of people connected with the law courts and I find that there are many other ways of making deposits than by depositing actual five-dollar bills in the courts. The trust companies and banks and law societies have made a change.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, is unworthy of Liberalism. This is not a bilingual country. Sir Wilfrid Laurier admitted it was not, and there have been decisions of the courts to the same effect. It is a country in which by section 133 of the British North America Act two languages are official. I want to congratulate the right hon. leader of the opposition upon rising in his place and speaking in the face of great opposition as he did the other day, as a statesman. I believe the words he spoke will prove in the years to come to have been proven prophecy. What he said will come true, and application made will be, session after session, to repeal section 15.
In my opinion we should never have had any provincial legislatures at all. They were the creation of the fathers of confederation for political and not economic purposes, and have been at the root of all the race and religious jealousies in Canada. They do not have them in Great Britain; their powers are limited in the United States, and the result is that in these countries they are one people without the racial and religious jealousies which this country has had. The leader of the opposition has been consistent. I have read his speech of June 22, 1934. The leader of this government sat in parliament as Prime Minister for nine years, from 1921 to 1930, and did he ever propose a section like this? No. It is only when he has a majority behind him of about 170 that he is ready to go over the heads of the electors. Did he tell them anything about this in the election? If he had said it in the election he would not have had five seats in the province of Ontario, because majorities, while they are sleepy and slow to assert their rights and privileges, once they are aroused are going to have something to say. Canada is not and never was a bilingual country. It is a country where the two languages are official languages, but the law courts have set out the length and depth and breadth of the two languages as defined in section 133 of the British North America Act. It is all very well to say that those
3758	COMMONS
Bank of Canada-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
who oppose this bill are doing so for political purposes. I say it is no use for the representatives of the majority to sit here and enact the part of a scarecrow, and allow a false face to be put on them by this bill. A false face is being put upon the majority of the people of this country with an inscription in one language on one side of our bills and an inscription in another language on the other side. It will be just like a patent medicine advertisement which is printed in both languages, or a racing tip or other things of this sort. Those who vote for this bill vote for bilingualism for posterity, to-day and forever.
This particular legislation will be here forever. Those who vote for this bill are voting that this country is to be a bilingual country by order of a militant minority. The people of Ontario are opposed to this, and I am opposed to it. Hon. members should act like men. They should stand by their principles and acquit themselves like men and be strong, say to certain of those hon. members who come from Ontario that they would not be here to-day if in the last election they had proposed a bill like this. Some hon. gentlemen come from western Ontario, some from northern Ontario and others from central Ontario, and I ask them to acquit themselves like men, to be free citizens and free members of parliament, to assert their rights and privileges as private members instead of sitting in their seats and allowing a coach and four to be driven through the principles of confederation by a militant minority for the first time in sixty-nine years.
May I say to hon. gentlemen that I would rather be defeated because of my principles, as I was in 1930 than to sit in this house and force bilingualism on the people of the province of Ontario over their heads and without their knowledge or consent. That is my answer to hon. gentlemen who are opposing what I have to say. There is no such thing as compromise in connection with a great principle; this thing permits of no compromise. The question cannot be settled until it is settled in the right way.
I see the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) in his seat. On many occasions his utterances are filled with common sense, and I refer hon. members to his remarks about the British North America Act, made the other night in connection with another bill. At that time he said he would go to another place and use his influence, and I hope he will go to another place immediately and use a little extra influence in connection with this matter. This bill is a credit to Ottawa, the headquarters of pacifism and pussyfooting.

Ottawa never knows what the rest of the country is thinking. The only things militant I can see about Ottawa are the mosquitoes which infest this building.
I do not care whether I am here for a long time or a short time; I am ready always to stand by my principles. As long as I am here I intend to speak what I believe to be the truth, honestly, fairly and moderately. I am opposed to this legislation. I have always been opposed to the extension of this principle in this country. While I wear the party uniform-I will never be able to wear its plush-I will do my duty in the ranks, but it will be as a volunteer and not as a conscript. In conclusion, I want to congratulate that very able statesman, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) for the manner in which he opposed this bill the other night and for the words of wisdom which he uttered on that occasion. I believe that in the future those words will prove to be a force in this country and become proven prophecy.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise for the
purpose of presenting new arguments in favour of this bill, nor do I intend to reply to the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I take this opportunity of congratulating the electors of that constituency upon the name of their constituency., and I sincerely hope that that name will have a future effect upon my hon. friend. In justice to my late revered leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I should like to finish the quotation started by (the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley). It is quite possible that the hon. member's eyes did not go further along in the book in which the speech of Sir Wilfrid is reported. I should like anyone who reads the speech of my hon. friend to insert the following words, which follow immediately after those which he quoted:
But I see no reason why a bank note should not be printed in French. Since we have been in office we have not had occasion to issue a new form of bank notes, we have taken the old form as we found it, we have continued the form of the old bank notes. I do not see any reason why. if we were to issue a new form, we should issue it in one language rather than another. But I would say to my hon. friend that it is far better that we should be conservative in these matters and not to change our forms every now and then. We should keep the old form when it contributes towards security and public convenience, and when it is well understood. I do not think there has been any change in the form of the English bank note for over a hundred years.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friends say, "hear, hear," but they seem to

Bank of Canada-Mr. Heaps
forget that new circumstances have arisen. We are going to issue a new form of bank note. A new sovereign is now upon the throne and a new form of bank note will be issued by the Bank of Canada and not by the private banks, as formerly, when some were issued in English and some in French and English. The hon. member for Broadview also quoted Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and I should like to give the amendment moved at that time by Sir Wilfrid, which amendment embodies the policy of the Liberal party in 1907 and in 1936. This amendment reads:
That all the words after ''that" be struck out and the following be substituted in place thereof: "the French language is, in fact, as well as by the constitution, on a footing of equality with the English language."
I have said that I do not want to repeat the arguments I presented the other day, but there is one thing I forgot to mention. The bank notes of Canada go to other countries-to the United States, to France and to continental countries. Do you think that a bank note all in French, as it is at the present time, circulated in France or Belgium or elsewhere, gives to the people of those countries a true picture of Canada? They would believe that Canada was altogether a French country. On the other hand if the bank note were all in English they would believe that it came from an entirely English country.
I have only this to say in conclusion. We have the privilege of speaking the two greatest languages in the world. When you go to Geneva you find in the League of Nations these two official languages spoken, and the Canadian delegates are proud to be there representing the only country in the world where the two official languages of that body, representing all the nations on the globe, are spoken. We are proud of our country. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, when these bank notes circulate throughout the world they will represent what Canada is, a country that was founded by French pioneers and later ceded to the British, a country where the descendants of these two great races succeeded1 in burying their differences and their difficulties and in uniting for the purpose of building a truly great nation. The people of this country are not afraid to let the world know that these two languages are spoken in Canada, languages of which anyone might well be proud; they are not afraid to let it be known that this condition exists in this dominion. As far as I am concerned, I cannot believe that any member of parliament or anybody in Canada could feel humiliated or would resent the fact that there were some French words on a Bank of Canada note.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: After listening to the discussion this afternoon and to the very eloquent address made in this chamber the other evening by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) I cannot help rising in my place to say a few words on this very important question. I do believe, however, that on this occasion the issues have been exaggerated beyond their true proportions. As a Canadian I should like to see every citizen able to speak both official languages. It is one of my own regrets that I am not able to speak French, but I trust that the generation that will follow me will not suffer from that deficiency. Anyone who listened to the speech delivered by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon and listened particularly to the eloquent address of the Minister of Justice the other evening must have been moved by the fervent plea made for racial unity in Canada. With that sentiment of the Minister of Justice and those associated with him, I wish to join one hundred1 per cent. This country is made up of a great many racial minorities, and in my opinion if we treat those minorities even in a generous spirit, Canada as a whole will be more than amply repaid for making that gesture towards those who may be of foreign origin in the dominion. I think it would be a gross mistake if the house were to accept the suggestion which the amendment puts forward and delete from-the bill the clause it now contains. For my part I intend to vote against the amendment.
May I say a word in another direction. Perhaps it is not necessary for me to remind the house that I belong to a very ancient race, a race whose history has been through the centuries a most painful one and who even at the present time are suffering intense persecution in different parts of the world. Those who belong to the same race as myself appreciate more than they can express in words the measure of justice and tolerance they have received under British rule. In regard to the matter now before us I do wish to express a sentiment that is rather different. There is at this time, unfortunately, particularly in the province of Quebec, a sentiment that is being expressed openly, both by word and in the newspapers, that has not merely the semblance of intolerance but also the idea of inflaming one race against the other, and I do feel, in view of the discussion that has taken place on the floor of the house this afternoon, and the eloquent plea made by the Minister of Justice the other evening on behalf of -his French speaking compatriots, that perhaps that wave of anti-Semitism which to-day seems to be showing itself in certain quarters of Quebec will diminish if not entirely

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Blackmore
subside. An effort should be made to carry out the very ideas and principles enunciated here this afternoon by the Prime Minister and so feelingly discussed the other evening by the Minister of Justice. I do not think a condition of this kind ought to be tolerated in Canada. I feel somehow that if the leaders of public thought, both in the province of Quebec and in the dominion at large, would raise their voices in and out of parliament, as the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister have done, there might be established in Canada a . better and more harmonious feeling among the component parts of the population.
These are about the only remarks I wish to make at the present time. I simply wish to make a plea for racial unity in Canada, so that all sections of the population may go forward and try to make Canada a country worthy not only of the present but also of future generations.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: I believe the French Canadian people of Canada have by the British North America Act the right to use the French language. That right was recognized when the notes were printed, some in French and some in English, and each race was then free to use its own language. If the bank note is in both English and French then it may with some appearance of justice be argued that French is being forced upon the English. This might not be found in the best interests of Canada, and therefore, while I have all sympathy with my French Canadian fellows, I personally propose to vote for the amendment.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I
listened with very great interest the other day not only to the remarks of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) but also to those of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). In my judgment the remarks of the leader of the opposition were much more moderate than those of the Minister of Justice, who began his speech with this sentence:
I shall try to make my few remarks in answer to the speech of my right hon. friend this afternoon as moderate as I can.


An hon. MEMBER:: They were.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot see any reason why the Minister of Justice had so to qualify his remarks. In a discussion of this kind there is no other word that should be used than "moderation." All our remarks have been made in a spirit of moderation; such observations as I have to make will be, I hope, in the same spirit.
I have as high a regard for Canadians who speak another language than English as I have for those who speak English only. As a

Canadian I am proud that people from all nations of the earth come to this country and make good. Some of the second generation are able to carry off prizes for excellence in English over those whose ancestry is altogether British. I remember attending a few years ago a meeting held in Massey Hall, Toronto, where there attended those who had won their laurels in various provinces of Canada for making good speeches. The winner of the contest in Massey Hall was a child whose parents were Russian and could speak very little English. I congratulate all those of other races who are able to speak both English and their own tongue. I myself read French fairly well, and I can make a brief speech in French, although I have never tried to do so in the House of Commons.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go to it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I give our French Canadian members credit for being able to stand on the floor of the house and speak in both languages.
When the Minister of Justice was speaking the other day he used rather provocative language. I cannot understand how some of the words he used can be regarded as words of moderation, He charged the right hon. leader of the opposition with the expression of "desperate" and "dangerous" sentiments. I will read his words:
I shall even say that I believe my right hon. friend to be sincere, but lie is desperately and dangerously wrong in the sentiments he has expressed.
Neither of these words is moderate. Then, proceeding with his argument, he used other words that I cannot term moderate, when he characterized anyone who might express sentiments opposed to section 15 of this bill as "absurd," "stupid," and "narrow." The words "dangerous" and "desperate" as applied to the right hon. leader of the opposition, and the words "stupid" or "absurd" or "narrow" if applied to myself or anyone else, are not moderate words.


Ernest Lapointe: They were not used in that sense.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The Minister of Justice, in my humble opinion, did not make-


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend knows I did not use the words in that sense. I said it was an absurd way of issuing the bank notes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will quote the Minister of Justice again:
I repeat that I cannot find any ground for the objections which are being set forth against this proposal. They are absurd.

Bank oj Canada-Mr. MacNicol


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is very strong
language with which to qualify an honest statement of any other member. I am not at the moment defending or attacking the clause as printed; I am criticizing the speech of the Minister of Justice. A little further down he says:
Why should we have this stupid thing?
Further on he says:
I cannot believe that there are people in my country who are so narrow.
Again I say that the words "dangerous," "desperate," "absurd," "stupid," and "narrow," are not the right kind of words to describe the opinions of another hon. member.


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin):: Not with moderation.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If these are moderate words, then if the Minister of Justice had really cut loose, the air in this chamber would have been blue.
I am not going to enter into a discussion of what was said by Sir John A. Macdonald or Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but I will go one step further than the Minister of Justice: I recommend that all1 bon. members read what both those gentlemen said. Both were great Canadians, and I believe also they were extremely moderate in their language and had the highest respect for Canadians of all other nationalities. I hope I may qualify in that same category.
I was interested in what the minister said about his people having been here for some nine generations. According to the history of my family, I have been told, two of my ancestors were here about eight generations ago and laid down their lives at Ticonderoga, defended by that very brilliant and gallant French commander, the Marquis of Montcalm; and the following year three of them were with Highland regiments at Quebec; Ticonderoga in 1758; Quebec in 1759-so that as a Canadian of long lineage I feel I can afford to be proud of my Canadianism.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear,
hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In advancing his argument the Minister of Justice referred to three other countries in which there is bilingual money. Of course I always feel that other countries can do as they please. In developing his argument the minister said, as I understood him, that the conditions in those countries were approximately or largely the same as they are in Canada. I propose to
give some particulars about each one of those countries, namely, Belgium, Switzerland, and South Africa. There are something over eight million people in Belgium, and they are all packed into a little over eleven thousand square miles. Rather more than three million speak German and somewhat less than three million speak French. A million speak both languages. Belgium could be packed into the small portion of Ontario extending from Toronto to Brockville, east and west, and from Toronto to the Severn river, north and south. The area is small, and the conditions in Belgium are not really comparable, as I shall endeavour to show a little later, with those of Canada.
Switzerland has an area of less than sixteen thousand square miles. Twenty-one per cent of its population is French, seventy-one per cent German, and seven per cent Italian. The government of their cantons is entirely different from our conditions in Canada; they are loosely held together, although they have been confederated a long time, and, as the minister said, they do print their bills in three languages. But the country is less than two hundred and fifty miles long and less than one hundred and thirty-five miles wide. In South Africa there are seven million coloured people, natives of Africa, and 1,400,000 whites, of whom, that is the whites, fifty-one per cent speak both languages-that is the Afrikander and the English. Twenty-five per cent are British who speak English only, and twenty-four per cent

plus the fraction in each case-speak only the Afrikander language. Conditions in these countries do not at all compare, along the lines to which I have alluded, with those that obtain in Canada, where we have a country 3,500 miles from east to west and 1,500 miles from north to south, part of it, of course, very sparsely settled; where people who speak English almost exclusively, reside in the main in eight of the provinces, and those who speak the French language are very largely in one province. Therefore conditions here are not the same as in the countries to which the minister has referred. For my part, I can read the bills whether they are printed in French or in both languages. I appreciate, too, some of the arguments that have been advanced by the Minister of Justice in this regard, but on the other hand I believe it would have been better to leave this matter where it was until it had received a fair trial.


Mr. THORSON:: May I ask the hon. member whether he favours the present system of printing some of the bills in French and others in English?

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mitchell


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, that was passed by the government that brought in the bill; it became the law of the land, and 1 am in accord with the law of the land. If I were to recommend a change in that system I might go back to the method recommended by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, but always having been actuated by the spirit of fair play I cannot answer that question in any other way. I repeat, however, that it would have been much better to leave the matter where it was. The previous government had to face this issue just as the present government are attempting to face it, and that issue having been settled it should not have been brought up again, at least not so soon. I doubt very much whether the government have had resolutions asking a change from the chambers of commerce or boards of trade of Vancouver, Halifax, Edmonton, Regina, Winnipeg, Fort William, Windsor, London, Sarnia-where the distinguished whip comes from-Hamilton, Toronto, Belleville, Brockville, Kingston, Saint John, Charlottetown and such cities. If the government have had resolutions from these chambers of commerce or boards of trade asking that the act be amended, that might account for this action having been taken, but I do not believe that is the reason for it. I am convinced that the Minister of Justice is very largely, if not altogether, responsible for persuading, in his pleasant way, the other members of the cabinet to agree to this amendment, because it was the Minister of Justice who in 1934 moved an amendment to the Bank of Canada Act in terms similar to those now contained in this amending bill. So I believe the minister must take all the credit, or whatever else may be due, for any heat that may develop as a result of this amendment.
The other evening the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard) said something about Japan and China having bilingual bills. The hon. member knows full well that the bills printed in two languages in China apply to Shanghai and Hongkong, that the bill circulated in the provinces of China, away from the coast, are printed entirely in Chinese. I cannot picture bills circulating in the city of Chengtu in the province of Szechwan, 2,800 miles up the Yangtze-Kiang river being in two languages, when there is only one race of people. Furthermore, according to my understanding on the Japanese bill there is just the word "yen." That is not an English word; it is an international word, and it appears on Japanese bills for the convenience of people of all nations. The word could be claimed as French, German or Czechoslovakian as easily as it could be claimed to be English. 
They do not have bilingual bills in the United States, where they have more Germans than anywhere else in the world outside of Germany. They do not have bilingual bills in France, where there are more Italians than anywhere else in the world except the United States and Italy. There are no bilingual bills in Great Britain, where there are many hundreds of thousands of people of many races. So I do not see just how that can be used as an argument.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I come back to where I began: In my opinion it would have been much better if the government had let this matter rest for a while and left the act as it was passed by the late government. In my humble opinion the previous government met the problem in a satisfactory way. Certainly if bills are to be printed in both languages for circulation in the other eight provinces the government will have to take the responsibility. I cannot say what will be the result, or whether there will be any result, but with others who have spoken I feel that, with the distress which prevails in the country and the difficulties that all of us are up against, as Canadians, it would have been much better to leave the provision as it was, and for that reason I shall vote against section 15 of the bill.


Mr. A. H. MITCHELL (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, before the vote is taken I should like to say that there seems to be a great deal of excitement in the house this afternoon in regard to the language that is to appear on the currency of the Bank of Canada. It is very plain to me that on the face of the bill appears the words "The Bank of Canada will pay to the bearer on demand One Dollar." It does not matter to me whether that is written in French or in English, as long as the Bank of Canada is able to pay that one dollar. The concern, then, that I have about the matter is this: Has anyone attempted to receive payment of one dollar from the Bank of Canada and, if so, what does he get, whether the language on the bill says the dollar will be paid in English or in French? What does he get for bis dollar?
I do not wish to add to what was said when the bill was in the committee stage, but I do think it is a sad commentary on the House of Commons that half a day has been spent on an argument as to what language is to appear on the money of the country, when the real point we should be considering is what this money really means, where it comes from, whether or not the Dominion of Canada is

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Coldwell
able to deliver goods and services to the value of one dollar, and matters of that kind. This appears to me very much like the blowing up of a political tempest, and I am not very much concerned about it. I can see the utility, however, of having both languages on our bills, therefore I will vote against the amendment.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise this afternoon to speak on this question. We have been sitting here for some five months, and during that period we have debated a number of very important issues. With the exception of one or two other occasions, however, not until to-day have I felt such a tense atmosphere as exists in the house this afternoon, and in my opinion that is a reflection upon the parliament of Canada.
I come from the province of Saskatchewan. My mind goes back to 1930 and a few years prior to that. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), when he introduced' this measure into the house, referred feelingly to the campaign of 1930. I have every sympathy with him in such feelings. I took no part in the particular controversy at that time. But I want to point out that we in western Canada, fortunately, have emerged from the division upon racial and religious lines which existed then, a division fostered and kept alive, I believe, for political purposes. I regret exceedingly that this matter should have been injected into this new parliament at a time when what we need in Canada is unity of all our people, regardless of race or religion. Today once again we are in danger of having the same kind of thing said and done throughout Canada as was said and done in the years to which I have referred. It is so easy to divert public attention from issues that are real and fundamental by dividing it upon lines that are unreal and not fundamental. The people of Canada are now facing tremendous problems. In this bill we have discussed only one phase of one important problem, namely the national ownership of the Bank of Canada. This house does not yet know, nor has it decided upon the policy to be followed by that bank in relation to currency and credit; but this afternoon, on the motion for third reading of this bill, instead of discussing that important matter we are spending our time in dividing the people on an issue which in my opinion is unreal. I would suggest this, that people in Canada who speak French are entitled1 to have a bank note which they understand, printed in their own language, and the people of the rest of Canada are entitled to demand a bill printed in their common tongue, the English language. If we are going to extend this
principle indefinitely then I point out that in the province from which I come, as was stated by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley), we have many nationalities. We have a very large percentage of Germans, some Poles, many Ukrainians, and in that province those people may possibly ask for the same privilege that is now being proposed in relation to another language. I know, of course, there is a difference.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: They knew the position as to language when they came.


Major James William Coldwell: The difference is that, written into our constitution, and quite properly so, there is a provision that the use of the two languages in certain documents and in certain matters and places is established in this country. But I point out that in this present matter we are simply placing in the hands of people who will not scruple to use it, a document that will be shown on many ai public platform in Saskatchewan, and possibly in Manitoba and Alberta, with the probable result of very much the same sort of campaign as was conducted in western Canada in 1930. From my place in this house I say to the government and to the opposition that divisions along these lines are not only regrettable but reprehensible. I make this suggestion to the government; if we cannot agree, why not drop the language from the bill altogether? Why not print on the face of these bills the word "Canada" which is the name of our country in both languages, and with that word simply the numerals 1, 2, 5, or 10 and so on, and distinguish the bills by variation in colour and design? Then we end this controversy, a controversy which in my opinion is kept alive purely for political purposes. I am not accusing any member of the government or of the opposition of doing that at this time, but at least there is a strong suspicion among some hon. members in this comer of the house that there may be motives of that sort. Whether there be such motives or not, this division will be carried throughout the length and breadth of Canada. I am urging the house to face the real problems of the country, problems that are stupendous, problems of youth, problems of the aged, problems of western agriculture. Instead of spending our time in permitting the stirring up of race prejudice we should get down to a thorough consideration of the real problems that confront us.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Lawson


Hon. J. E. LAWSON (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the subject of discussion lends itself very readily to acrimony in debate. Even the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) ordinarily so genial, in his speech upon this subject on Thursday last in this chamber, contributed as much heat as light to the consideration of the problem. I doubt very much whether it would have been possible for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), in the length of time which he occupied in this cnamber this afternoon, to choose words tending more to arouse emotion or more provocative of political and party division. The Prime Minister intimated, if I correctly interpreted his observations, that those who would oppose a bilingual bank bill were lacking in a sense of fair play. I cannot agree with that. In my youth I played games occasionally. I have always considered that one who played a game according to the rules was not lacking in a sense of fair play. But when someone proposes that the rules of the game should be amended I cannot appreciate the view that anyone who does not agree with such a proposal, and so opposes it, is lacking in a sense of fair play. I ask of him only that when the rule is amended he observe the rule,


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: We shall see what the hon. member will do after this.


James Earl Lawson: I may say to my hon.
friend that I could answer him if I so desired, but I am going to ignore such interruptions because I am very anxious to express my thoughts on this matter without heat and without emotion. I think when the Prime Minister suggested that because some one used the word "toleration" or the expression "tolerating certain things which existed," that one might as well make it applicable to the French speaking members of the House of Commons, he indulged in the most specious sophistry. Any man in this country, no matter what his language or his native tongue may be, has a right, a constitutional right by law, to be a member of this House of Commons provided !he is a British subject and complies with the other requirements of the law, and on that basis we all here accept all our fellow-members, not in toleration, but in welcome, even when they may disagree with us in our opinions.
I am anxious to place on record my thoughts on this subject, and I shall be sorry if, having done so, I should find myself classified in that category which the right hon. the Prime Minister described as

those having an attitude of intolerance and bigotry. With much of what the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps) said to-day I agree. I am one of those who, coming from a part of Ontario in which we rarely if ever hear the French language spoken, have gone to considerable trouble and effort to acquire some knowledge of that language. I, too, like the hon. member for Rosthem (Mr. Tucker) could write out and read in this chamber a speech in French, but by doing so, Mr. Speaker, I should lend neither wisdom to my thoughts nor eloquence to my tongue. Therefore I am going to endeavour to express my thoughts in my native tongue as dispassionately as I may.
The Minister of Justice took occasion to extend the quotation from Sir Wilfrid Laurier which had been quoted by some other member of the house. I possibly could also extend both by prefix and affix a quotation which was given by the Minister of Justice of the words of the great, revered leader of the Conservative party. The subject matter under discussion in 1890 was the question whether or not a provision which had been made allowing the use of the French language in the Northwest Territories should be repealed, and Mr. McCarthy of that day had moved for its repeal. Then Mr. Laurier made a strong political attack upon the government of the day, alleging in effect -I am not quoting him but I am giving the substance-that the Tories had always been opposed to the French people and the interests of the French people in this country, and it was on that occasion and replying to that speech that Sir John A. Macdonald said:
I go a great way with my hon. friend in his remarks concerning the principle of this bill.
That is the bill which was before the house.
I sympathize with his very natural feelings of indignation at much of the language that has been used in support of this measure now before the house.
Then he used the words quoted by my hon. friend1 the Minister of Justice, and after using them said:
But while I say so much, Mr. Speaker, I must regret that my hon. friend, perhaps yielding to the necessity of his position as a party leader, should have commenced his speech with some party attacks against the Tories.
Sir John A. Macdonald then went on to outline that there should be given to the people of the Northwest Territories the right of free choice, and ultimately there was proposed by Sir John Thompson, and voted on and supported and carried by the government of that day the following resolution in amendment of

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Lawson
the proposal of Mr. McCarthy which I previously outlined:
That, on the contrary, this house declares its adherence to the said covenants, and its determination to resist any attempt to impair the same. That, at the same time, this house deems it expedient and proper, and not inconsistent with those covenants, that the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories should receive from the parliament of Canada power to regulate-
Note this, Mr. Speaker:
-after the next general elections of the assembly the proceedings of the assembly and the manner of recording and publishing such proceedings.
To that principle of free choice if that is inherently a principle of the Conservative party as it was enunciated by its great leader, I subscribe.
In the course of this debate the statement was made that we have in this country two official languages but that Canada was not a bilingual country, and to that statement the Minister of Justice, and I think one other hon. member, took exception. I submit to you. sir, and this house, that the statement is absolutely accurate. When Canada was ceded to England in 1763 by the Treaty of Paris, Canada became a crown colony of England, and by virtue thereof English inherently for all purposes was an official language in this country. I shall not stop to outline the changes which came about by the Constitutional Act of 1791 and the Act of Union of 1840, but shall content myself with pointing out that by the constitution of this country, the British North America Act, by section 133 French was made an official language, an official language for all purposes prescribed by section 133 of that act, and with the limitations therein set out. Therefore, sir, I say to you that because the French language is limited and prescribed by section 133 of the British North America Act, Canada is not a bilingual country in the sense that both languages are official on exactly the same basis, and therefore there should be no room for objection to the statement which was made.
Another word was used, I think quite properly, to which apparently great exception was taken, namely the word "concession." When for any reason this parliament should see fit, either by its own substantive legislation or by request for amendment of the British North America Act, to extend the official use of the French language in this country, then I say that is a concession. Anything which confers a new right or an extended right upon the use of the French language in this country is a concession, and
I submit that the word is a perfectly proper one to use and is not in the least offensive.
The minister, referring to this section 15, said that the matter was a very simple one, and he went on to outline the reason why. To me, in a way, the matter is a very simple one, and yet fortunately or unfortunately we seem to approach it from a quite different viewpoint, and our convictions in some respects seem to be diametrically opposed. The Minister of Justice proceeded to argue that prior to the enactment of the Bank of Canada Act the commercial banks had the right to issue notes or bills in the French language, the English language, or in French and English, and because by a process under the provisions of the Bank of Canada Act, the issuing authority becomes in time solely the Bank of Canada, therefore a right was being taken away from the French people.
I should like to point out that for many years the Dominion of Canada issued bills which were legal tender. The Minister of Justice gave an instance of a French-speaking man desiring to make legal tender, or to place money in court, and he could not obtain a bill in French which was legal tender with which to make that deposit. May I point out to my hon. friend that from confederation down to the date of the passing of the Bank of Canada Act in 1934, Canada printed one and two dollar bills, five hundred dollar bills and one thousand dollar bills, and one or two other denominations, which were the only legal tender in this country. Those bills were printed solely and only in the English language.
Speaking in regard to the same matter, my hon. friend said: We-and I assume he meant by that the French people of this country-are not conceded the right to live or to breathe the air of this country. I realize that that sentence was a metaphorical one, but it implied that this parliament or the Englishspeaking people of this country were attempting to take away from their French-speaking fellow-citizens some right which they now have. I want to point out that no attempt is being made to take away any right to the use of the French language as guaranteed by the British North America Act or any other act upon our statute books. We who resist merely say to you who are represented by the words of the minister, that the minority in this country shall not prescribe by law the kind of air which the majority are to breathe. I do not claim any right or privilege to speak for the majority of people in this countrj', but I do claim the right or privilege to speak for hundreds of thousands of people who have a viewpoint which I am going to endeavour to outline.
Bank of Canada-Mr. Lawson
COMMONS [DOT]
May I come back again for a moment to the word "concessions"? In 1934 when the central bank was formed there was-I hope this word will not be offensive but I use it for want of a better one-an agitation for bilingual currency. The arguments advanced at that time were that the French people in this dominion had been able to get notes in their own language from the commercial banks and, therefore, the bills of the new central bank should be printed in French. The same argument is advanced to-day by the Minister of Justice. The government of that day, in a spirit of compromise and out of consideration for our French-speaking fellow-Canadians, enacted that the central bank bills should be printed both in French and in English so that the citizens of this country could have a choice. To-day the very fact that that concession was granted is used as one of the strongest arguments why this parliament should provide for bilingual bills.
Nothing more clearly illustrates or justifies the viewpoint of so many English-speaking people in this country than the illustration I have just given, that the French speaking people are constantly on the aggressive to force on the English-speaking people the French language.	,


Mr. DUPUIS:: I do not think the hon. gentleman should make that statement; he is too broad-minded.


James Earl Lawson: I think it is fair enough. If my hon. friend will read my statement in Hansard I think he will find it is a very moderate and mild one. I am endeavouring to express the viewpoint of some of the English-speaking people in this country.


Vincent Dupuis: All the prejudices, and they are sponsored by you.


James Earl Lawson: I am not impressed by the economy argument advanced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). If economy in connection with this matter is a logical argument then it cuts both ways. If the Minister of Finance wants to effect some economies, I ask him to turn his eyes upon the Post Office Department. There he will find forms printed in both languages, just what it is proposed to do in connection with our bills. He will find bilingual forms and he will find identically the same forms printed exclusively in the French language. I am extremely doubtful if he will find the identical forms printed solely in the English language. I once tried to secure such a form. I am merely relating what I found out. If economy is a factor, why not effect economy in matters already existing?


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend not know that under an international convention postal notes are printed in both languages? The same situation exists in the United States and other countries.


James Earl Lawson: May I say to the Minister of Justice that I was not referring to a post office order or a postal note. I cannot remember the number of the form at the moment, but I could give it to my hon, friend. This matter came to my attention because a returned soldier-I am not sure whether he lived in my constituency or in an adjoining one -had written to the Post Office Department at Ottawa for a particular form for some purpose, which at the moment will not come to my mind. He received a form printed exclusively in French and when he sent this back to the Post Office Department, he received a form printed in English and French. He complained about this and perhaps hon. members will say that he was bigoted or narrow-minded.


Ernest Lapointe: That
happens every day in the province of Quebec.


James Earl Lawson: I do not doubt it. At the moment I am not objecting to it; I am merely directing the attention of the Minister of Finance to a matter where he might apply his economy argument. In this house to-day, speaking on this very subject matter, some hon. member asked this question: By what right or law or sanction of this parliament are any of these forms bilingual? When that question is raised some may claim that one is asking for a Shylock's pound of flesh because one asks adherence to the terms of the British North America Act. But may I point out that I am not asking that there be taken away from the French people any right of language guaranteed. them by our constitution. I stand here asking on behalf of my race that our rights under the constitution be not taken from us until such time as the French people of this country have, not forced by legislation, but persuaded, the English-speaking people of Canada that further changes should be made in connection with the right of user of the French language in this country.
In matters affecting race or creed I try to see the viewpoint of the other fellow. I fully realize the desire of all the French people in Canada to cling tenaciously to their language, and at the same time I know it is the aspiration of some of them to extend the use of their language throughout this dominion. I want the French people to realize that there are in Canada thousands of English-

Bank of Canada-Mr. Spence
speaking people who resent the attempt to extend the use of the French language into their territory and to have it forced upon them by law-


Vincent Dupuis: How many in the hon. member's constituency?


James Earl Lawson: Judging by the last election, I should say about twelve thousand and some hundred of the total number of voters. Between these two extremes which I have outlined I believe there is in this country a large body of public opinion, the viewpoint of which I am trying to express to-day when I advocate adherence to the rights conferred upon majorities as well as minorities, as defined by the British North America Act, until such time as my fellow French-Canadian citizens have persuaded the English majority that further use of the French language would be beneficial. I am confident that only by such a course will ultimate harmony, good will and unity be promoted among all our people in Canada.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: I wish to say just a few words. I shall not take up much of the time of the house because it is getting near the end of the session and I have never yet been guilty of taking up more time than necessary. I wish to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Lawson) upon his well reasoned argument against bilingual money. His speech was moderate and he handled the subject very capably. I endorse his views and am behind them. I am sorry I did not hear the address of my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) the other night, which I am told was a very good one, nor did I hear the speech, in supposedly moderate tones, of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) on that occasion. I was not in the house at the time. I did, however, note his tone this afternoon, and it was not as moderate as I should have expected from a man of his type. He talks about racial unity but what he preaches in this regard he does not practise very much, especially at election time in the province of Quebec. I do not believe that hon. gentlemen from Quebec are expressing the views of the innocent, good-thinking people of that province, any more than the Progressives in this house, when there were sixty-five of them, expressed the views of the people when they talked secession and advocated getting out of confederation. They were not at that time expressing the views of the west any more than the French-speaking members in this house express the views of the good French
people of the province of Quebec. The trouble is that a few of the more educated people of Quebec, like the Minister of Justice and others, poison the minds of the innocent people of that province against our party, and there is always a war somewhere to create trouble and friction.
No one appreciates more than I do the hospitality of the French people; I have been among them and have been entertained by them in Montreal. Anything that I say now is rather more in their interests than in those of my own race in Ontario. I hate an argument of this kind, and while I do not know very much English and still less French I do know, from my experience in the business world and in this house, that a debate of this sort will create friction and result in lack of harmony in the country. I remember that on one occasion an hon. gentleman from the province of Quebec moved a resolution which I knew at the time would cause friction, and I appealed to him to withdraw it. I believe it was the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) who offered a resolution to the effect that no one but a bilinguist should hold a position in the civil service. What would that mean? It would mean that only someone who could speak French as well as English could get a job in the civil service. As far as I am concerned, there are two classes of people I shall not grant concessions to; the French are one, unless they make some concessions to us, because we want to be fair to them.
I do not want to take up the time of the house but I am utterly opposed to the change proposed in this bill. I do not see any reason why this government should attempt to change everything that a sane and sensible government put through in the last five years. They have attempted to change the British North America Act, the railway trustees, and now they are changing the Bank of Canada Act, making a mess of the whole thing. I am speaking not from a political point of view but from long training in the business world, and along that line I know as much as the ministers do. I honestly believe that it would be well to withdraw the proposal contained in this bill and, as my hon. friend, the member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who sits behind me has suggested, to take it out of the house and forget it. It is simply creating friction and bad racial feeling in the country, and that will be the result of the whole matter. Let me say further that if this goes on much longer I can warn the people in Quebec that they will probably suffer more than the other provinces, because I assume they do not want to be isolated, and that is
3768	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Taylor (Nanaimo)
just what they are talking themselves into.
I would not have said a word but for the stream of abuse of those on this side which flowed from the Prime Minister. While I respect him as Prime Minister, I do not like the attempt he made this afternoon to play politics. He is trying to control the country by the French vote, but I say to him: You will not control the French vote very much longer because we will attempt to educate the French people to your tactics.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


David Spence: Never mind your laughing. The time will come when you will not be able to pull the wool over the eyes of the French people of Quebec with a lot of politics as you have been doing in the last few years. See what has happened to your friend Taschereau; you will all get into the same difficulty. You have been doing this sort of thing too long. See what they did to the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, talking about blood dripping from his hands, and all that sort of stuff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


David Spence: There is no "oh" about it; it was done every year I was in the house. Every time there was an election in the province of Quebec there was talk of a war somewhere, and men of a higher type and education polluted the minds of the French people to make them believe that the Conservative party was a warring party and that if they wanted their sons to go to war they should vote for the Conservative party. Do hon. members mean to tell me that is fair tactics; that it will create harmony and unity? I say no. We are having difficulties in Ontario and my hon. friends will create more difficulty between Ontario and Quebec. I say to them: If I were you I would change my tactics and play the game fairly so as to have unity in this country instead of disruption.
Let the hon. member over here who is laughing say just what he thinks. I do not believe I am saying anything out of the way. Everything I have stated is true, and I believe it absolutely. What the government is doing to-day is creating a lack of harmony which will never be suppressed, although the hon. minister put his case to the house in a very clever way. I am sorry I am not able to equal his performance. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) has also this afternoon delivered his address in a quiet and commendable way, entirely without bad feeling. He appealed for harmony, and I believe that is what we want. The same attitude was taken by

the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). I have no ill feeling whatever against the French language; all I wish to say is: Please do not continue to ask concession after concession and never be satisfied.


Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: I want
for a few minutes to strike a new note-


Mr. EULER:: A new bank note?


James Samuel Taylor: -and it will not be a bilingual note. I inveighed against the government when the Bank of Canada Act was first brought up. I did so, not on the question of bilingualism but because of the action of the government as to taking control of the shares of the bank, involving an expenditure of $5,100,000 to secure 51 per cent of the shares, when the same amount of money should have controlled the whole of the shares. The days that have passed have made me none the easier in my mind about the activity of the government in this respect. I find that practically all the provinces in their companies' acts permit the shareholder, when an enlargement of the capital is brought about, to have the first opportunity of obtaining pro rata of their share holdings in the new capital. The Dominion Bank Act, section 32 reads thus:
The capital stock of the bank may be increased from time to time, by such percentage, or by such amount, as is determined upon by by-law passed by the shareholders at the annual general meeting, or at any special general meeting called for the purpose.
Section 33 contains the following:
Any of the original unsubscribed capital stock, or of the increased stock of the bank, shall, at such time as the directors determine, be allotted to the then shareholders of the bank pro rata, at such price, not less than par, and on such terms as are fixed by the directors.
The Dominion Companies Act states:
The directors of the company may, at any time after fifty per centum of the authorized capital stock of the company has been subscribed and ten per centum of such subscribed stock has been paid in, make a by-law for increasing the capital stock of the company to any amount which they consider requisite for the due carrying out of the objects of the company.	.
No by-law for increasing the capital stock of the company, or for subdividing the shares, shall have any force or effect whatsoever, until it is sanctioned by at least two-thirds of the votes cast at a special general meeting of the shareholders of the company duly called for considering the same, and afterwards confirmed by supplementary letters patent.
So that, throughout the whole of the procedure of the government in these matters as it allows companies and individuals to express themselves, it has been conceded that

Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett
existing shareholders have a right to take their pro rata holdings in any increase of capital. And again I inveigh against the government for their attitude in this regard. There is neither excuse nor reason for what they have done, and for that reason I was entirely prepared to vote against the bill.
But, Mr. Speaker, a much larger issue has been raised, and I find myself thrown high and dry, having been tossed about by the progress of this debate. I have tried to see this matter reasonably and broadly, and I have come to the conclusion that the only view to take is not necessarily the broad view but the long view. We are a country in progress. AVe are a country with two languages. We have two sets of ideas. We have two hopes; we are attempting to merge them. I can quite understand the desire of the French people to begin this merger by infusing themselves into the general purpose of our progress. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) spoke of the progress in South Africa, where, he said, approximately 51 per cent of the people spoke the two languages. He is talking of to-day, but he is not talking of the period after the Boer war. The situation has been entirely reversed, although in certain sections of the country I have heard the youth talking together very freely and using words, from both languages, so intermixed that one was puzzled to know whether the individuals talking were Dutchmen or Englishmen. The same thing will obtain in Canada if we can permit the proper fusion of the two races. But as long as we are kept apart by racial distinctions and racial ideas, and by little differences developed and engendered, we shall never produce in this dominion a true homogeneous nation.
For that reason I am in direct sympathy with this bill and, taking the two questions together, the one on which I feel very strongly the government has done wrong, and the other one on which I feel very strongly the government is unconsciously moving in the right direction, I feel compelled to say that I shall vote with the government on the question of this bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had hoped to be spared further participation in this debate, but in view of the observations this afternoon of the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the use of the word "bigotry" and other words equally offensive, I am compelled to make a few remarks. I indicated a few days ago that I speak only my own opinion and my own mind. I have not suggested to those associated with me that they should 12739-240
follow my course, but, holding certain convictions and believing as I do that the course taken by the previous administration is the one best calculated to advance the cause of amity and good will in Canada, knowing something as I do of the history of this country with respect to these matters, I urged as strongly, as dispassionately and as moderately as I could that the government give a longer period of time within which to ascertain whether the measures which were adopted in 1934, and which did not become effective for some months thereafter, were not those which in practice would be found satisfactory. I agree with what has been said by many members who have spoken in this house that we have a common purpose, a desire to create a homogeneous country, a desire out of diverse elements to produce a common nationality, a desire to make the name Canadian on this northern half of the north American continent representative of a personality, a nationality, a people. That can be done only by the union in spirit and in deed, in act and in purpose, of men and women of all nationalities.
When a few days ago the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) referred to the words of the late Sir John A. Macdonald, dealing with a matter to which I shall have to refer before I take my seat, the hon. gentleman quoted Sir John as saying that in this country there was no conquered people. Why, certainly that is true, Mr. Speaker. We have had generations come and go since 1759 and it would indeed be strange if in 1890, when Sir John was speaking, there should be any people that would refer to any other people in this country as a conquered people. Sir John said that since 1867 we had been British people, living under the protecting aegis of the British flag, as one dominion, and in that sense and1 in that regard what he said then is true to-day.
But, sir, there is something that we cannot forget, and it is that the facts of history endure. Not heaven itself can change the past. What has been, has been. There was a Treaty of Paris in 1763. There was a union of upper and lower Canada in 1840. There was an act of confederation in 1867. These are facts of history. They are not the notions of individuals; they are not things that can disappear because we wish to forget them. For good or ill they are the facts of history, just as other matters are facts of history. And as from all events in history there follow results, which we sometimes speak of as the implications of the events but which in the end are perhaps the controlling influences and factors in national life, so from these events to which I have referred there have flowed



Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett
results which are embodied not only in the statutes of our country but in the very life of Canada itself.
Shortly after I accepted, at the hands of my party, its leadership, I went to Quebec. I travelled over large sections of that province. I addressed meetings in many parts of it, and no more kindly reception was ever given me than I received from my fellow-Canadian citizens in that province. And I told them, as frankly and as clearly as I could speak, that I realized the appeals which had been made to them. I realized, as the Minister of Justice so aptly said the other evening, that in that province there was a class who believed that there had been some sacrifice of their rights and that within the confederation they could not work out the destiny they had contemplated for themselves and their people. I told them then, as I say here and now from my place as a member of this house, that their constitutional rights, the laws, customs and practices of the constitution, would be respected by me at whatever cost it might involve to me personally. I called upon them and appealed to them to respect the constitution as a document which was arrived at after much consideration, much toil and much travail by the great public men of that time, and as indicative of what might constitute a fair relationship between the two great races.
I never hesitated, sir, to make that as clear as, by language, I could convey it to those who heard me, and when the results of the election were known we had in that province at least a fair su/pport. But no one could say that he had been elected by appeals made either to racial prejudices or to ancient animosities, to race or to religion, or upon other than the broad basis of those constitutional rights which are vouched for by a constitutional document and by that document guaranteed as the rights alike of minorities and majorities. And I have always regarded it as a matter of supreme satisfaction, Mr. Speaker, that the party to which I belong received from the electors of Quebec the measure of confidence which it did receive. I am not ignorant-because I do read the press of Quebec-of appeals that have been made looking toward, shall I say, the creation of another state, as the Minister of Justice said the other evening. I am not unmindful of that, but I agree with the hon. gentleman that it would be in the worst possible interests of those who would be affected that that should come about. And however much we may have cause to complain of the results of appeals that were made I have never complained, neither shall I to-day nor at any other time complain, of the result of

the appeal to the electors in the province of Quebec in 1935. It was a significant circumstance that it should happen as it did. I have overlooked, as part of the incident of party warfare, the appeals that were made about the war in Egypt in 1930, or the war in Turkey. I do not think that represents the genius or thought of great leaders, but it does represent the action which may be taken, in the heat of an election, by those to whom victory is their chief duty and supreme concern, to appeal to those passions and prejudices which are found at times beneath the skin of any man and every man, whether he be Anglo-Saxon or French.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. RAILWAYS AND CANALS


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Mr. Speaker I
would ask for leave of the house to revert to the presentation of reports of standing committees.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the house
we shall revert to the order for motions.


Eugène Fiset: In the absence of
the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Vien), chairman of the committee, I beg to present the second report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 104, for the relief of Harry Candlish Coughtry.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 105, for the relief of Jean Malkinson Goldenberg.-Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 106, for the relief of Edith Lillian Astroff Nevitt.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 107, for the relief of Lillian Gladys Cheney Perry.-Mr. Plaxton.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. Mr. Dunning for the third reading of Bill No. 82, to amend the Bank of Canada Act, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Barber.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, whatever
complaints may have been made with respect to the course which I followed in other parts of Canada with respect to other Canadians,

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Bennett
this at least will have to be admitted, that the position I took in the province of Quebec I took in every other province of confederation. At the outset of my leadership I made it clear that we would deal with all such problems on a national basis, because I realized that on more than one occasion the country had been tom asunder by what seemed to be small issues but which had most, shall I say, disastrous effects upon the efforts being made to build here a united Canada.
I wonder if bon. members of this chamber are aware of the fact that we have drawn our population in the western provinces from all quarters of the world. For instance, out of a total population, according to the last census, of 921,785 for the province of Saskatchewan, only 437,856 are of British origin. That in itself is reason why we should exercise the utmost care in dealing with problems of this kind. Aware of that fact, I fancy, as well as any other man in this country, and fully understanding the difficulty we were experiencing in welding into a harmonious whole the country west of the great lakes, to say nothing of the difficulties which obtained by reason of geographical conditions, I took the view that the constitution would be our guide. It has been the guide of the Conservative party since that date, and it was our guide during the days of Macdonald.
For instance, the other evening when the Minister of Justice was reading from the speech of Sir John A. Macdonald he might have gone further and read from that speech references Sir John made not only to conditions which then existed but to difficulties which he 'had experienced in his lifetime in dealing with this problem. Sir John had pointed out that he had met with opposition, and that to mould this country into a harmonious whole 'had been a most difficult task. After using the language to which the Minister of Justice referred the other evening, Sir John A. Macdonald used these words:
But while I say so much, Mr. Speaker, I must regret that my hon. friend, perhaps yielding to the necessity of his position as a party leader, should have commenced his speech with some party attacks against the Tories. My hon. friend felt constrained, I suppose, to make those allusions, which, in the circumstances of the case, I think were not altogether generous or altogether politic. The hon. gentleman spoke of the spirit of this bill being that of Toryism, utter Toryism, oppressive Toryism. Why, sir, if he looks at the history of England in modern days, I think he will find that most of the Liberal measures passed there have been passed, if not by Tories, by Conservatives. I think also, if he will look at the history of Canada, he will find at all events, that liberality towards the French-Canadian race was pretty much con-12734-240 i
fined to the Conservative party. The hon. gentleman had to admit that while this bill was, as he affirmed, an evidence of utter Toryism, the exclusion of the Franch language, the injury done to the French people, the insult offered to them, came from a radical, the Earl of Durham. To he sure, my hon. friend said that Lord Durham was a radical who did not understand all about liberty That is quite evident; and so great a radical was he that in order to get rid of him the English government sent him to this country to show us his Liberalism by attempting to deprive half the people of their right to use their own language. Ay, Mr. Speaker, and he succeeded in carrying out that effort; he succeeded in excluding the French language, and the measure was carried by a Liberal government in England. That was in 1840. The first government formed in Canada under that measure in 1841 was a confused government, where Liberals, and Tories, and officials were	mixed up	together.	But,	sir, in 1844when	there was	a stand-up	fight	between Conservatives and Liberals, when the Conservatives ralied around Lord Metcalfe, and carried a majority; when the parliament met in Montreal	in that	year, with a	Conservativemajority, the whole of the French-Canadian race,	with the	exception,	I think, of four,
were in opposition to the government. I was then elected for the first time, and I sat in that parliament as a Tory, a supporter of Lord Metcalfe. In that parliament the Freneh-Canadians were powerless; and yet, Mr. Speaker, what did that house do? Let me read to you a resolution that was passed, not by a Liberal or radical government, not by a parliament having sympathy with the French-Canadians exactly, but by a Conservative parliament elected, as was then alleged, in opposition to the interests of the province of Lower Canada; and yet passed, from a mere sense of justice, and without one single dissenting voice. Yes, from a mere sense of justice, the resolution was passed and the address was passed without one dissenting voice. I as a member of the young Tory party, was proud then to have the opportunity of pronouncing on that question. The yeas and nays were not taken because we were unanimous, but I was proud of having had a part, as a member of a great party, in the resolve to relieve our French-Canadian friends from the oppressive action of the Liberal government in England, at the instigation of the radical Earl Durham.
Then he quoted the address. From that day to this those who are familiar with the political history of Canada will have to admit that the position taken by the Conservative party has been consistent with the policy then outlined by Sir John A. Macdonald. It will be remembered that when confederation became an accomplished fact it followed two sets of resolutions, the London resolutions agreed to in, 1866 and the Quebec resolutions agreed to in 1864. It is pertinent to keep in mind what those resolutions were, for when discussion took place as to what should be done with respect to language it will be remembered that that question was dealt with, and it will be with-

Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett
in the memory of every hon. member familiar with the subject that in the resolution finally arrived at in 1864 these words appear as the forty-sixth of the Quebec resolutions agreed to on October 10, 1864:
Both the English and French languages may be employed in the general parliament and in its proceedings, and in the local legislature of lower Canada, and also in the federal courts and in the courts of lower Canada.
When the London conference was held, resolution No. 45 was passed reading as follows:
Both the English and French languages may be employed in the general parliament and in its proceedings, and in the local legislature of lower Canada, and also in the federal courts and in the courts of lower Canada.
When the British North America Act was drafted, after these resolutions had been laid before the colonial secretary of the day, the first set of resolutions having been signed by
E.	P. Tache, and the London resolutions having been signed by Sir George Cartier, it will be recalled that section 133 crystallized into legislative form the purport of these resolutions, and that is important to keep in mind because it has a direct bearing on everything that thereafter happened. Section 133 reads:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act, and m or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
In order to understand the full significance of that, it is important to recall what the situation was in 1840. I have referred to the Treaty of Paris of 1763, and after that the provision made by the parliament at Westminster for the government of Quebec need not be dwelt upon except to say that there were two provinces, upper and lower Canada, and in lower Canada you had one set of considerations, in upper Canada another.
But in 1840 we find that an enactment was passed which prohibited the further use of the French language in the united provinces, and I shall, in order that the record may be complete, point out and read what that provision was;
And be it enacted that from and after the said reunion of the said two provinces, all writs, proclamations, instruments for summoning and calling together the legislative council and legislative assembly of the province of Canada and for proroguing and dissolving the

same, and all writs of summons and election, and all writs and public instruments whatsoever relating to the said legislative council and legislative assembly or either of them, and all returns to such writs and instruments, and all journals, entries, and written or printed proceedings of what nature soever of the said legislative council and legislative assembly and each of them respectively, and all written or printed proceedings and reports of committees of the said legislative council and legislative assembly respectively, shall be in the English language only:	Provided always, that this
enactment shall not be construed to prevent translated copies of any such documents being made, but no such copy shall be kept among the records of the legislative council or legislative assembly, or be deemed in any ease to have the force of an original record.
That was the statute passed by the parliament at Westminster in 1840, and the incident to which Sir John A. Macdonald referred was the passing of the resolution that brought about the end of that condition. That was not, however, until 1848, so that from 1840 to 1848 the united provinces of upper and lower Canada were prohibited by law from using any language other than English, and translated copies of the records of proceedings in that legislature were not allowed to be kept as part of the official records. But in 1848 there was passed the Union Act Amendment Act, which provided:
Whereas by an act passed in the session of parliament held in the third and fourth years of Her Present Majesty, intituled "An act to reunite the provinces of upper and lower Canada, and for the government of Canada," it is amongst other things enacted that from and after the said reunion of the said two provinces, all writs, proclamations, instruments for summoning and calling together the legislative council and legislative assembly of the province of Canada, and for proroguing and dissolving the same, and all writs of summons and elections, and all writs and public instruments whatsoever relating to the said legislative council and legislative assembly, or either of them, and all returns to such writs and instruments, and all journals, entries, and written or printed proceedings, of what nature soever, of the said legislative council and legislative assembly, and of each of them respectively, and all written or printed proceedings and reports of committees of the said legislative council and legislative assembly respectively, shall be in the English language only: Provided always that the said enactment shall not be construed to prevent translated copies of any such documents being made, but no such copy should be kept among the records of the legislative council or legislative assembly, or be deemed in any case to have the force of an original record:
And whereas it is expedient to alter the law in this respect, in order that the legislature of the province of Canada, or the said legislative council and legislative assembly respectively, may have power to make such regulations herein as to them may seem advisable:
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present parliament

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Bennett
assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act so much of the said recited act as is hereinbefore recited shall be repealed.
That was in 1848.


Vincent Dupuis: Who was the mover?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was an- act of the
imperial parliament. I have not the name of the member of that house who had the matter in hand, but it could easily be obtained from the library if the hon. gentleman wishes.
In 1848, which, as will be seen, was nineteen years before confederation, there was a repeal of the statute which provided that the English language only should be the language to be used in the legislature of upper and lower Canada. Then followed the conferences to bring about the union of Canada, the union of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, upper and lower Canada, and when they met together at Quebec in 1864 they passed the resolution to which I have referred embodying the views of the minority of that time as adequate for the defence of their rights. That was No. 46 of the Quebec resolutions passed in 1864. Then, when they went to London a few months later for the purpose of having .the statute enacted or passed by the imperial parliament, the resolution which I have just read, No. 45, was arrived at, and that was regarded in the minds of Sir George Cartier and other great French-Canadians of that day as being adequate for the protection of their rights, their liberties, their language and other matters to which I shall presently refer.
Then we come to confederation, and the British North America Act, with section 133 embodying the provisions of resolution No. 45 of the London conference and resolution No. 46 of the Quebec conference, and any students of history who are interested and will look at the personnel of that distinguished gathering which met at Quebec and enacted these resolutions will have no difficulty in realizing that our French-Cana-dian. citizens were ably represented there by men who reflected in every respect the genius of their race.
Then came the question of the consideration of this matter when Sir John A. Macdonald and those associated with him came back to Canada and asked the legislature to adopt confederation. At that time one of the very first questions suggested was one connected with language, and what do we find? We find that that question was raised by a distinguished Frenchman of his day who realized its importance and made no apology for having raised the issue. When section 133
was being referred to, the Hon. Mr. Evanturel -you will find this at page 943 of the Debates of Confederation-said:
I wish to put a question to the government. I acknowledge that if I confined myself to consulting my own ideas, I should not put this question; but I do so in order to meet the wishes of several of my friends, both within this house and beyond its precincts. Those friends have expressed alarm in relation to one of the causes of the resolutions, and have requested me to ask an explanation from the hon. attorney general for Upper Canada, as to the interpretation of that clause. I had therefore to ask him whether article 46 of the resolutions, which states that "both the English and French languages may be employed in the general parliament and in its proceedings, and in the local legislature of Lower Canada," is to be interpreted as placing the use of the two languages on an equal footing in the federal parliament? In stating the apprehensions entertained by certain persons on this subject -and I consider that it is a mark of patriotism on their part, and that their apprehensions may be legitimate-I hope the government will not impute to me any hostile intention, and will perceive that the course I adopt is in their interests, as it will give them an opportunity of dissipating the apprehensions in question.
That was approved by the house, for the words "hear, hear" appear after that statement. Sir John A. Macdonald then rose and said:
I have very great pleasure in answering the question put to me by my hon. friend from the county of Quebec. I may state that the meaning of one of the resolutions adopted by the conference is this, that the rights of the French Canadian members as to the status of their language in the federal legislature shall be precisely the same as they now are in the present legislature of Canada in every possible respect. I have still further pleasure in stating that the moment this was mentioned in conference, the members of the deputation from the lower provinces unanimously stated that it was right and just, and without one dissentient voice gave their adhesion to the reasonableness of the proposition that the status of the French language, as regards the procedure in parliament, the printing of measures, and everything of that kind, should be precisely the same as it is in this legislature.
After some further observation Mr. Dorion, later Sir Antoine, rose and said:
So that if, to-morrow, this legislature choose to vote that no other but the English language should be used in our proceedings, it might do so, and thereby forbid the use of the French language. There is, therefore, no guarantee for the continuance of the use of the language of the majority of the people of Lower Canada, but the will and the forbearance of the majority. And as the number of French members in the general legislature, under the proposed confederation null be proportionately much smaller than it is in the present legislature, this ought to make hon. members consider w-hat little chance there is for the continued use of their language in the federal legislature. This is the only observation I have to make on this subject, and it was suggested to me by the answer of the Hon. Attorney General West.
Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett

The attorney general, Sir John A. Macdonald, then rose and said:
I desire to say that I agree with my_ hon. friend that as it stands just now the majority governs; but in order to cure this, it was agreed at the conference to embody the provision in the Imperial Act. (Hear, hear.) This was proposed by the Canadian government, for fear an accident might arise subsequently, and it was assented to by the deputation from each province that the use of the French language should form one of the principles upon which the confederation should be established, and that its use, as at present, should be guaranteed by the Imperial Act. (Hear, hear.)
Thereupon, near the close of the debate, Sir George Cartier rose and said:
I will add to what has been stated by the hon. Attorney General for Upper Canada, in reply to the hon. member for the county of Quebec and the hon. member for Hochelaga, that it was also necessary to protect the English minorities in Lower Canada with respect to the use of their language, because in the local parliament of Lower Canada the majority will be composed of French Canadians. The members of the conference were desirous that it should not be in the power of that majority to decree the abolition of the use of the English language in the local legislature of Lower Canada, any more than it will be in the power of the federal legislature to do so with respect to the French language. I will also add that the use of both languages will be secured in the Imperial Act to be based on these resolutions. (Hear, hear.)
I said a moment ago that this discussion took place during the debates on confederation; I should have said that it took place after the resolutions had been submitted to the legislature and before the statute had in fact been passed. I think I have made clear what the conditions were that led up to the enactment of the British North America Act. I trust I have made clear to every hon. member of this house the circumstances under which section 133 became part of the constitution of Canada. It was enacted by the imperial parliament in furtherance of the resolutions arrived at both at Quebec and at London. The meaning to be attributed to that section is the meaning which was agreed upon in the legislature when the debates took place, as indicated, by Sir John A. Macdonald, the Hon. Mr. Evanturel, the late Sir Antoine Dorion and lastly by Sir George Cartier. These are the circumstances which led up to the enactment of this provision.
We inquire logically: How has that been interpreted by successive governments in Canada? It must be recalled that during the early days of this confederation Sir John A. Macdonald was Prime Minister until 1873; he and his government had control of the destinies of Canada until that year. From

1873 to 1878 we had Mr. Mackenzie and from 1878 to 1891 we had Sir John A. Macdonald, with successive Conservative administrations until 1896. From 1896 to 1911 we had a Liberal administration under the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It therefore becomes pertinent, nay, essential, that we should inquire as to the construction which parliament has placed upon that provision. If we can, by reference to the records or to the statements of public men of representative administrations, arrive at conclusions, they will be a help and a guide to assist us in discharging difficult and similar obligations and duties.
First of all, we find that we were admitting new provinces to the confederation. Only three years had elapsed until the Manitoba Act was passed. This is a very important act as it provided the conditions that would obtain in Manitoba with respect to the use of language. It will be remembered that in the statute creating that province special provision was made for the use of the French language. Some of my hon. friends seem to be unaware of that fact. They do not seem to realize that the Manitoba Act as passed in 1870 contained this provision, which will be found in the constitutional documents of Canada at page 69, and which reads:
Either the English or the French language [DOT] may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the legislature, and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process, in or issuing from any court of Canada established under the British North America Act. 1867. or in or from all or any of the courts of the province. The acts of the legislature shall be printed and published in both those languages.
This was the constitutional legislation under which the Conservative government of that day brought the province of Manitoba into being. Bear in mind that that was in 1870, only three years after confederation became an actuality. This act was continued until circumstances to which I shall presently allude came into being.
The province of British Columbia was admitted into confederation in 1871, but no provision of a similar kind was included in its constitution. On the contrary, the address merely provided that the provisions of the British North America Act should prevail. That is all that may be said with respect to that. But an agitation grew up.in western Canada. Why? I shall not answer that question. In 1890 the legislature of Manitoba, under Liberal leadership, enacted a statute which reads as follows:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the legislative assembly of the province of Manitoba, enacts as follows:

1.	Any statute or law to the contrary notwithstanding, the English language only shall be used in the records and journals of the house of assembly for the province of Manitoba, and in any pleadings or process in or issuing from any court in the province of Manitoba. The acts of the legislature of the province of Manitoba need only be printed and published in the English language.
2.	This act shall only apply so far as this legislature has jurisdiction so to enact, and shall come into force on the day it is assented to.
What followed?


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Have there not always been very grave doubts as to the validity of that statute?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not discussing that phase of the matter. I am merely giving the historical view of the exact facts. I desire to remove my observations as far as possible from political considerations and to recite the facts just as they are, leaving them to speak for themselves. That was in 1890. There grew up at once an agitation on behalf of the minority, who felt that they had been deprived of privileges and rights that had been taken from them, an agitation that this legislation should be disallowed. There were presented1 to the government of the day petitions signed by leading citizens and members of parliament, by the Archbishop of St. Boniface and others, but the Jaws were left to their operation, and that statute, for whatever it may be worth, is part of the law of Manitoba to-day. It is not my duty or my business to express any opinion as to its validity; I must content myself with merely saying that there it is as part of the statute law of that province. As I say, that was in 1890. I did not go west until 1897, but I still recall that even seven years after the passing of that statute there were agitations in various parts of the west with respect to that law. But it survived and it is still, for whatever it may be worth, a part of the statute law of the province of Manitoba.
I have already dealt with British Columbia. When the two new provinces came into being, with respect to the question of language it was merely provided that the provisions of the British North America Act should apply, and there it rested. But in the meantime it was, of course, to be expected that in this parliament there would be many questions raised and many debates promoted for the purpose of discussing the situation, and in 1890 a debate took place upon the introduction of a bill by the late Dalton McCarthy in which he provided that the grant of powers given the Northwest Territories in 1877, which
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Bennett
made provision for the use of both languages, should be maintained. Mr. McCarthy moved the first reading of a bill for the purpose of terminating those rights and privileges as defined in the act of 1877. It was at that time that there took place the debate to which the Minister of Justice referred the other evening, the debate in 1890. It was then that Sir John A. Macdonald made the observations to which the hon. gentleman referred, and those observations are as true and pertinent to-day as when Sir John Macdonald uttered them. There was no conquered race in 1890; there is none to-day. Successive generations have taken the place of the first generation that lived and had its being in the province of Quebec in 1763. But here we had, precipitated into the chamber in the old building, at the instance of Mr. McCarthy, a discussion with respect to language in the Northwest Territories. Finally, on the motion of Sir John Thompson, seconded by Sir Adolphe Chapleau, then Secretary of State, the matter was left to the choice of the people, the choice of the legislature, the choice of those who should take the place of the representatives of the people after the general election, freedom of choice, the right of self-determination. That was left, at the instance of Sir John Thompson, in his amendment, seconded by Sir Adolphe Chapleau, to the motion of Mr. McCarthy, as the proper determination of that issue; and those of us familiar with the history of Sir Adolphe Chap-Leau will not for a moment say that he had not a burning zeal for his countrymen and as great a desire to promote their fortunes and their interest as any man within the sound of my voice, no matter where he may come from. I repeat, that was in 1890.
We are all familiar with the difficulties that arose out of the so-called Manitoba school question; we all remember the passing by a Liberal administration of the school laws of Manitoba; we all recall the judgment of the privy council, and none of us can fail to remember that that court decided that the rights of minorities had been prejudicially affected. Nor will any deny that the Conservative party of that day staked its existence and lost upon fidelity to the constitution. What is more, so fair were the Canadian people in their attitude to that question that when the votes were counted it was found that ouside the province of Quebec the Conservative government had been maintained in its position. The majority of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, for a reason which need not now be discussed and which has never been explained, was a majority that depended upon the votes he

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Bennett
succeeded in obtaining at that time in the province of Quebec. That was the position in 1896.
Now let us see what interpretation was placed upon the provisions of this law by others after that. We have, for instance, what was referred to this afternoon, and which seems to me to be fairly important. We have a question asked by Mr. Paquet on May 31, 1905, of the government of the day, presided over by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the Minister of Finance of which was William Stevens Fielding, one of his most trusted lieutenants. I direct the attention of this chamber carefully to the words of the questions and answers given. Remember, I am giving a chronological record, and this was in 1905. The questions put to the government were these:
1.	Do any grave reasons of state exist that might prevent the Minister of Finance from having the dominion one and two dollar notes or all other bank notes printed simultaneously in English and French?
2.	Are they unaware in the Finance department that the two languages are official in Canada
3.	Is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to rectify in the future this state of things by ordering that those bank notes be printed in the both languages, English and French?
To that the Hon. W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance, replied:
There is nothing in the British North America Act or in any act of the parliament of Canada which requires or contemplates the printing of dominion notes in two languages. The Finance department has not contemplated the advisability of any departure from the practice which has existed under all governments from the beginning of confederation down to the present time.
Those questions and those answers will be found at page 6826 of Hansard of May 31, 1905. May I pause for a moment to direct the attention of my fellow-members of this chamber to the significance of that language. It was not necessary for Mr. Fielding to use, speaking a9 he was for the administration, the exact words he did; he could have answered the question very simply. But instead of that he said:
There is nothing in the British North America Act or in any act of the parliament of Canada which requires or contemplates the printing of dominion notes in two languages.
That is a complete answer by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government to the position which has been taken in this chamber and elsewhere with respect to this matter. There is nothing under the constitution; there is nothing in any act of parliament that either contemplates or provides for the printing of bank notes in the two languages.


Ernest Lapointe: Is there anything that prevents it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer to that is simple; in the absence of a provision for its authorization it is not authorized.


Ernest Lapointe: That is very generous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the answer made by Mr. Fielding. Mark you, Mr. Speaker, I am not for a moment putting my interpretation on- anything; I am merely reading the record as it is chronologically. I am merely placing on Hansard my answer to the charge of bigotry hurled at me this afternoon by the Prime Minister of Canada. There are the questions and there are the answers. There is the interpretation of the constitution given directly in- answer to questions which, as I say, need not have been answered in these terms but which were answered in the terms I have indicated.
But the matter did not end there. Obviously it would not. Those of us who knew the late Armand LaVergne and know Mr. Bourassa realized that in 1905 and years following, when they were members of this parliament, such a question would ultimately be raised. So a few years later the question was raised in this parliament. It was in 1905 that Mr. Fielding dealt with it as I have indicated. In 1907 the matter was again brought to the attention of parliament, and members of this house have referred to the matter on more than one occasion. In Hansard of that session, volume 2, there is a record of the discussion. The then hon. member for Nicolet, Mr. Devlin, had formerly been a member of the imperial House of Commons. Many of us in this chamber remember him; he was here when I came to the house in 1911. He referred to the fact that outside the British House of Commons speeches were not infrequently made in Welsh. He did not say so, but the fact is that speeches north of the Tweed are sometimes made in Gaelic.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Why not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, why not? And Mr. Devlin was referring to that fact.


Mr. McINTOSH:: A sign of universal
culture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He then said, speaking of Canada-and I quote his words because he was a very precise gentleman:
Here the French language is official and recognized by all; consequently there is no occasion to fight in order to ensure its recognition.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett
That is on page 3653 of Hansard of 1907. It became essential, of course, that the leader of the government, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, should speak upon the question. Sir Wilfrid did not deliver a lengthy speech, but he dealt with this very issue, and in language that indicates clearly the interpretation which he placed upon the constitutional powers which had been conferred upon his fellow-citizens and upon the parliament of Canada. On February 25, as reported at page 3655 of Hansard of 1907, he used these words:
But to affirm, as he does, that the French language should be used upon every occasion, and that every public document should be printed on one side in French and the other side in English, is, I think, going a little too far. For instance, I understand that my hon. friend wants bank notes to be printed either in French or in English. For my part I never yet saw an occasion where a bank note printed in English was not properly understood by the French people; and I am quite sure that a bank note printed in French "would be understood by the English people to be exactly what it means. But I see no reason why a bank note should not be printed in French. Since we have been in office we have not had occasion to issue a new form of bank notes, we have taken the old form as we found it, we have continued the form of the old bank notes. I do not see any reason why, if we were to issue a new form, we should issue it in one language rather than another. But I would say to my hon. friend that it is far better that we should be conservative in these matters and not to change our forms every now and then. We should keep the old form when it contributes towards security and public convenience, and when it is well understood. I do not think there has been any change in the form of the English hank note for over a hundred years.
At the close of his speech, when he moved the amendment to which reference was made this afternoon, he used these words:
But to come back to what I have already said, I do not insist for my part that the French language should be written and spoken everywhere. It is "not necessary to use French where every one understands English. But obviously the French should be used when it is more convenient for the people. So far I am disposed to agree with my hon. friend. But I must protest against the idea that because bank notes are not printed in French as well as English, the French language is not on a footing of equality with the English.
That was in 1907, only four years before Sir Wilfrid Laurier went out of office. In the meantime the discussions had assumed a far wider range than was originally intended, and had spread to many parts of the country. I do not think for a moment that as a result of those discussions there was, outside of Quebec, any manifestation of a desire that the bank notes should be printed in French as well as in English. But as far as I can understand the matter, at that time there
was no discussion in parliament at any great length, although the issue was raised incidentally on two or three other occasions.
There was an administrative matter that had to be dealt with, and the other day the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) referred to the election of 1930 and left the impression that he had heard his opponent make the statement that certain changes would take place in connection with the issue of money orders and postal notes. I have not received full details, but I am advised that the hon. gentleman and his opponent were never in a joint meeting during the campaign, and Mr. Turnbull says that no such language was used by him. What is more, he has written the Minister of Finance to that effect.


Charles Avery Dunning: He has. And I have replied to him, too.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think so. I should think the hon. gentleman would be courteous enough to do that.


Charles Avery Dunning: That was one of the major points in the campaign.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, it was not. I shall now deal with the question of administration.


Ernest Lapointe: What about the Regina Star campaign?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Well, if it was raised in Saskatchewan it certainly did not equal the attempt that was made to carry on the war in Quebec.


Ernest Lapointe: Thank you for saying that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly did not. For I recall the dispatch that was sent to the newspaper La Presse; I spent much time and effort to find out who wrote it, from London, and I can tell the hon. gentleman, if he desires to know, who wrote that vicious dispatch.


Ernest Lapointe: The people of Quebec know about it. They will decide on what my right hon. friend says.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad to hear that, because I am to be deterred neither by threats nor by any other effort that may be made to prevent me from doing what I conceive to be my duty, and I am not in any sense influenced by the threats of the Minister of Justice. But I say to him that that dispatch about the "Nile voyageurs" and the efforts that were being made to utilize French-Canadians in an impending war-


Ernest Lapointe: What has that to do with this issue?
Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: -which appeared in the newspaper La Presse from London was something that was disgraceful alike to the author and to those who circulated it.


Ernest Lapointe: What
has that to do with this question?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I 'have mentioned it
because the minister interjected something with respect to the campaign.
I now deal with the administrative side of the post office, for I had occasion carefully to consider it during my term of office. The word "postes" first appeared upon Canadian postal stamps in 1927. It was on the historical and pictorial issues, and dad not at that time have on it the engraving of the king's head. There were various engraved scenes. One was the fathers of confederation; another was the parliament buildings; there was one of Macdonald, one of Laurier, and one with a map of Canada. I took the trouble to satisfy myself as to when that first appeared upon a postage stamp. My information was that it was about the twenty-ninth day of June, 1927. Then came the question of the word appearing upon a postage stamp that carried the king's head. That first appeared on October 17, 1928. It was a green two cent stamp. The remainder were issued at a subsequent date. Then we had the great tercentenary stamps of 1908, which as a matter of courtesy were issued entirely in French. Now we come to the question of postal cards, post-cards so-called. The first bilingual post-cards were issued in January, 1912. It was a general issue. Protests came into the department of the Postmaster General from English provinces, and on December 16, 1917, Mr. Lemaire, who was then superintendent of the postal branch, on the authority of the Postmaster General, then Doctor Coulter, instructed that from December 17, 1917, bilingual cards were to be issued to Quebec and well known French communities elsewhere, and the others were to be in English. Then in the office at Ottawa bilingual post-cards were sold. Certain protests were made in 1919 and as a result we had a change by which, following the general practice, from 1923 on offices were divided into three classes, English, French and bilingual. To the English offices only English supplies were supposed to be sent; to the French offices French supplies were to be sent, and where there was a mixed population of English and French supplies in each language were sent in such proportions as were regarded as necessary to meet the requirements which might arise.

I am bound to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that system worked out satisfactorily, because it is still in effect. My inquiries a few months ago led me to believe-and I take it to be so yet-that as new offices came into being they were classified either as English, French or bilingual, and the supplies were dealt with accordingly. That is hardly true, however, with respect to money orders. Money orders are in international use, which obviates the necessity of having them printed separately in the two languages. Bilingual money orders have been in use and are in use at present; they have been bilingual in Quebec since 1881 and generally since the first day of July, 1882. Postal notes for domestic circulation have been bilingual since 1906, when they were introduced. As far as forms are concerned, they have been dealt with in the manner I have indicated, English for the English, French for the French, bilingual for communities where there were both French and English. Unfortunately, however-and at one time I was not sure that it was not done with purpose-sometimes French forms were circulated in English offices, and there was much trouble. Sometimes English forms were sent to French offices, and there was trouble; sometimes only English or French forms were circulated to offices listed as bilingual. Great difficulties were experienced, which caused much trouble. Letters were written to the newspapers, and matters of that sort. _
That is the sort of thing which creates more disharmony than almost anything else of which I 'have knowledge. That sounds like a very small' thing, yet in my mail to-day I received a letter from Toronto complaining of the fact that the notices enclosed, both in French, had been sent from Montreal to a Toronto merchant with respect to a communication which had been dealt with by the district office. That is a plain blunder, but that is one of the difficulties which make for disharmony. That is one of the things which have brought about a great deal of this unfortunate discussion. Someone has blundered. On more than one occasion while I was in office in this country I took the opportunity to impress upon our friends who were responsible for distribution that they should try to see that no such mistake occurred. I recall vividly a protest from a Scotsman residing in an outlying section who went to his office, one in which there were no French-speaking people, and received a communication in French. He was very much annoyed about it, and he made a great deal of noise about it. That is the sort of thing

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Bennett
which should be prevented. That is that sort of thing which brings about the very difficulties to which I have alluded. Take the question of signs on post offices. They never have been welded together as one sign. There has been one sign "Post Office" and another "Bureau de Poste." The two signs have been used in bilingual offices, the French sign only in French offices and the English sign only in English offices. One of the difficulties that has arisen has been -brought about by some officious person trying to see what could be done, I sometimes think, to make trouble, taking one of the French signs into an English community and putting it up on the post office. That has created difficulty; that has brought about trouble. I say, Mr. Speaker, that at times I almost felt that this was done purposely, but of course I could not say it was because there was no evidence to that effect. Undoubtedly, however, it is these small things that have been conducive to preventing the harmony, shall I say, that otherwise should and would exist. The general effort of the Post Office Department has been to regulate as far as possible the distribution of supplies in order to prevent such occurrences, and I think it behooves every member of this house to use his or her influence to the uttermost to ensure, if -possible, that accidents such as these will not happen. They look small, I repeat; they seem insignificant, but, as has been pointed out in parliament on more than one occasion, such accidents have been the cause of much difficulty.
That was the condition with respect to administration in connection with the post office. There was an effort made to maintain the principle which was the foundation of the whole position, that there should be freedom of choice. That is, in the communities which were entirely French, on the basis of equality with their English-speaking fellow-Canadians they should have in their offices these forms and documents in their own tongue; the English should -have their documents in their tongue, and in communities where there were both French and English they should have bilingual forms or documents. That, at least, has been the aim on the part of the post office authorities. Other branches of the public service were dealt with in the same way.
When Sir Wilfrid Laurier was speaking in 1907 he referred to the fact that we had bills printed in English and in French. He did not think it desirable or necessary that they should be printed in English on one side and in French on the other. I pointed out
previously, as I do again, that the orders of the day, the bills and the proceedings of this house are open to the choice of the members of this chamber. A member can select whatever form he or she desires, an English form, a French form, a bill in the French language, a bill in the English language, the orders of the day in one language or the other. That is freedom of choice, of selection. That is the right that both Prime Ministers in days gone by, Sir John A. Macdonald, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, felt to be the proper way to deal with these problems so far as these conditions were concerned.
In 1934 we introduced into this parliament a bill dealing with a central bank, the Bank of Canada. That bill contemplated the creation of a bank which ultimately would be the only bank of issue. That is, by 1940,
I think it is, the major part of the notes circulating in this country will be notes of the Bank of Canada. There will still be notes of the chartered- banks circulating in Canada, but the bill provided, as the Minister of Justice pointed out, that these Bank of Canada notes should be legal tender, and there were other considerations which induced the then government to apply the principle that had been applied since 1867 and to afford to our fellow-citizens of French-Canadian origin an opportunity to obtain from the Bank of Canada notes printed and engraved in the French language. The statute provided that the Bank of Canada was always to have in stock, on hand, bills in both English and French so that they might be available as required. The vital words were "as required"; they should be there as required. They might not be required west of the lakes; they might be required only in small quantities or in small numbers. They might not be required to any great extent in the maritime provinces. They might be required in large numbers in New Brunswick, and very few might be required in Nova Scotia. They might be required in limited numbers in Prince Edward Island. But every branch of the Bank of Canada was in a position to meet the demands which would be made upon that bank for notes either in English or in French, as might be required. I repeat: The vital words were "as required."
I say that nothing could have been a fairer approximation to even-handed justice, as we proceeded with the interpretation of section 133 and other sections, bearing in mind what was said by Mr. Fielding, -than to accord- and I use the word "accord" out of deference to the statement of my hon. friend-to our fellow-citizens of French origin the right to
37S0

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Bennett
require notes of the Bank of Canada printed or engraved in the French language.
The Minister of Justice did not like my use of the word "concession." I did not use the word in any offensive sense; I used it in the sense in which one says, "I concede that point" or "I concede a point." And the parliament of Canada conceded the request that there should be afforded to fellow-Canadian citizens of French origin the right to obtain notes of the Bank of Canada engraved in the French language. That was conceding a point, and it was not using the word "concession" in any different sense from that of the word "forbearance" was used by Sir Antoine Dorion when he was discussing a question as to what might happen. The word was used not for the purpose of giving offence to the hon. member, but rather for the purpose of indicating that the government of the day was prepared to ask the parliament of Canada to concede the point. The point was the request that our fellow-Canadian citizens of French origin should be able, as required, to obtain notes printed or engraved in the French language.
The government of to-day takes the view that that should be ended. It has had but a short time in which to be tried. It was a distinct advance over the attitude taken by Mr. Fielding and it went even beyond the contemplations of Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Certainly it was the greatest advance, so far as my hon. friends of French-Canadian origin are concerned, that had been made in Canada. For, as required, it gave them the right to receive from the Bank of Canada, or through the banks to receive from the Bank of Canada bills of that bank engraved in the French language.
The government of to-day through its Prime Minister and Minister of Justice says, "We have here a great majority; we represent a majority of the people of Canada; representing a majority of the people of Canada we propose to change all this and make a bilingual bill." I endeavoured to indicate what happened in western Canada in 1890, and in view of what has happened in this parliament the date is significant. I indicated what had happened with relation to the constitutional provision of the Manitoba Act of 1870, and I indicated, without repeating to-night what I said a few days ago, the protests that were made against the postal cards when they were made bilingual, and the action taken to try to placate, if you will, that position, and to bring about improved and harmonious relations between the two great peoples in this dominion. Although Mr. Fielding took the view that we should still cling to our English notes; although the notes of the Dominion 
of Canada were legal tender, and had always been legal tender, and although the ones, twos, hundreds, fifties, and thousand dollar bills were legal tender and the medium of exchange and settlement between bank clearing houses-although all this was so, the government of 1934 took the view that we would meet the requirements of our fellow-Canadian citizens of French origin by providing them, through every branch of the Bank of Canada, with bills engraved and printed in the French language. We took the view that to bring about the change to which I have directed attention we would not arouse the resentment which had arisen, out of the use of bilingual post cards, from the English speaking provinces.
We took the view that we would take every step possible to prevent that, by making it possible for the English-speaking provinces and those of English-speaking origin, and others, to receive English notes or notes engraved or printed in English, on the one hand, as against the requirements of their neighbours who have their notes printed or engraved in French. I wonder whether hon. members realize that that was not an easy step for a government to take? There were those who were opposed to that action. Notwithstanding the answer given by Mr. Fielding, the government of the day believed -that it was desirable, in the interests of national solidarity and harmony between peoples, that we should provide those who were of French origin and extraction, if they so required- and so desired, with notes printed or engraved in their language. It was the language of their childhood, the language they learned at their mothers' knees, and to meet their wishes we took this step.
At this point I must make it clear that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice were not quite fair when they suggested what they did with respect to majorities and minorities. They know perfectly well that what I was dealing with was the question of the majority of the population of this country being of British descent and the minority being of French descent, -and that it is an axiom that where the will of the minority is imposed upon the majority, except by invitation, acquiescence or the assistance of that majority, the result has always been disharmony. There has been no exception to that. The evidence of history, whether we take that of Europe or other parts of the world, has indicated the truth of that statement, and wdien there is the evidence that we have as to the resentment of the majority in the English provinces against bilingual post-cards in the manner

Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett
I have indicated, it gives some true illustration of just why the action I have indicated was taken.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I was takinS exception not to the will of the majority as contrasted with the will of the minority, but to the right hon. gentleman saying that the will of the majority necessarily represented the point of view that he is putting forward.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not for a single minute so foolish as to say that I represent the will of the majority. I never endeavoured to say any such thing, but I endeavoured to indicate what my own convictions were. I have tried to make it clear in this chamber why I hold this view, and if any power of mine could induce my French-Canadian friends to realize the soundness of their present position I would sacrifice almost anything for the purpose of doing so, because I believe the step that is being taken is one which is injurious to them. That is my personal belief. I do not put forward that as a belief which the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Justice must accept, far from it. But this I do say: The government that sits yonder represents less than thirty-five out of every one hundred names on the voters' lists, according to a report issued the other day in one of the political science journals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not thirty-five out of every hundred voting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Less than ithirty-five out
of every hundred whose names are on the voters' lists.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But not thirty-five out of every hundred who voted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not represent
fifty per cent of the total vote. Let there be no confusion. I merely said that in a political science magazine there was a careful review of the situation and it showed that not thirty-five out of every hundred whose names are on the voters' lists of this country voted for the government of the day, but the government did obtain nearly half, not quite half, the votes that were cast. In 1930 the Liberal party polled 46-8 per cent of all the votes that were polled', and in 1935 it polled 46-2 per cent of all the votes that were polled.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
pretty consistent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, consistent, but not
with the results. I do not put the matter forward in that sense, n.or would I have any of my fellow-members in this house for a moment think I ventured to assert that those
who sit to the left of the Speaker represent the majority opinion of this country. I am only pointing out what my own conviction is with regard to this matter, and I do so without the slightest shade of ill will. I say that I yield in a sense of tolerance to no man in this house, but I arrive at conclusions from carefully analyzing the history of my country. When in 1934 we arrived at the conclusion that we should take the step we did, we believed that to impose the will of this parliament upon the majority of those who live west of the lakes would be fraught with the greatest danger to harmony and good will and to peaceful contacts between peoples in the development of Canada. I have tried to make that as clear as I can because it represents my considered personal opinion, but I have not endeavoured' to press my opinion upon others. I have endeavoured in moderate' terms, as contrasted with the words of abuse that were hurled at us to-day, to present the case historically as it is, chronologically as it is, and to ask the members of this house to vote accordingly. It is no good to ask because it is well foreseen what the result of the vote will be. But I place before them the position as it is, and each one in his own conscience must answer whether or not in a community that is overwhelmingly British the circulation of notes of that kind is not fraught with the gravest danger to harmony between races in other parts of Canada. In the very nature of things, as the agitation proceeds, it will grow as it did in 1890,, and I wonder whether anyone would like to see again the conditions that were apparent in western Canada from 1S96 to 1900. And remember, although the Conservative party risked its existence by remaining true to the constitution, it lost, but it has never had any regrets for having done so. I have never had any regrets for supporting the party in 1896 in the views which it took. I was a very young man then, and I supported the party because I believed that the best assurance of peaceful relations between the descendants of the two great races in this country is to be found in each giving to the other Ithe least possible cause for offence. That is what I said. I use the word "offence" in no narrow sense. I could not help thinking, as I reviewed these matters in my own mind, as most other men have too, no doubt, of that great saying. "Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth." If by reason of imposing this bilingual bill upon the majority in the western provinces and in other parts of Canada you bring about the condition which, from
Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett

what I have seen followed in 1890, I am certain must follow, knowing these things, realizing these things, understanding them, I say, sir, that I would be derelict to myself and my own self-respect if I did not say to my fellow-members of this 'house: I cannot do this thing because it will militate against harmony; it will be a factor in destroying the friendly and peaceful relations that Should exist in the development of this great country, and at a time when never before was there such necessity for good will being manifest. I agree with what was said by one hon. member to-day, that the problems which will confront this country for the next two years should not be overshadowed by internecine strife, by divisions based upon racial differences.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say it should not be.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the hon. gentleman
goes home he will find it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
not afraid of British Columbia on this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I say that we should
not have our united strength lessened by internecine strife.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Who is creating it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the other day the Minister of Finance said that if there was any principle in this measure it was the one we adopted last year, he thereby says: We are adopting a principle which the late government embodied in its legislation.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that. Read what I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is what the hon. gentleman said:
Naturally, a number of considerations were in the mind of the government in dealing with this matter and in drafting this particular section. I take the view that the question of principle, in so far as there is a principle, was adopted in the year 1934 by the parliament which preceded this one, but the principle was applied in a manner calculated, as experience has proved, to produce rather than to allay the kind of friction to which reference has been made.
Therefore the minister says that the principle, if there is a principle-


Charles Avery Dunning: Was settled in 1934.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -was the one which the late government put on the statute books in
1934.	But to-day I am being held up in the province of Quebec as the enemy of the French-Canadian. I have already received communications. I know what the propaganda is; I know the political nature of it. Read your journals; read the reports.


Charles Avery Dunning: And read the Regina Star.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those who cheer so
loudly have probably never seen the Regina Star.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Oh, yes, unfortunately.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it says anything good of the Finance minister, that is probably the reason he wishes me to read it, but if it does it would be sadly lacking in discrimination to discern it.
At any rate, let me go further. The minister had one defence, the question of economy. A smaller argument could not be used in a great national issue. It was almost impossible to credit one's ears-


Charles Avery Dunning: It was entirely subsidiary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -when one heard that argument being put forward.


Charles Avery Dunning: It was entirely subsidiary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I find it difficult to understand why the minister does not know how to keep order. Perhaps you will inform him, Mr. Speaker, as to how it should be done. It is not the custom in this parliament for men to mutter under their breaths inaudible sayings when another hon. member has the floor.


Charles Avery Dunning: My right hon. friend does not set a very good example in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be the minister has learned it from him. He says that he leams many things from the schoolmaster.
May I go further and say that that argument is unworthy of being dealt with except merely to say that the plates are there aLready prepared, and I think the magnified sorting of a few bills into $9,000 or $10,000 does not indicate very careful consideration by those who made the report. It is not such a tremendous task as one would be led to believe. However I realize that the Minister of Justice was right this afternoon when he said that in the very nature of things, with a new sovereign, new bills would have to be prepared.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was it not the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lawson) who raised the question of cost?

Bank oj Canada-Mr. Cardin


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; that was raised by the minister; the hon. member was trying to answer him. The minister deals with the matter at some length at page 3632 of Hansard. The hon. member for York South was merely answering the question raised by the minister. I pass it by merely by saying that that argument is wholly unworthy of the importance of the question being considered.
I have nothing further to say except to remark that I greatly deprecate the effort made to create a political issue out of this matter. I deprecate greatly the language that was used in this house with respect to this question. Even though the language used at that time was strong, Sir Wilfrid Laurier took occasion to congratulate the house upon the character and type of the debate that had taken place. I have endeavoured not to consciously give offence to any man by anything I have said. I respect the opinions of others even more than I expect them to respect mine. I am not unmindful of the sentimental claims and arguments that influence so many of my fellow-Canadians, but it is sometimes desirable to consider problems of great importance, small though they may seem at the moment, in the light of what the experience of the past has taught us. Those familiar with the great events that have followed in English history, in French history or in the history of other nations on the continent realize that sometimes the start was very small but the result was devastating. Because I yield to no man in my anxiety to see this country grow and prosper and develop and knowing that I shall be made the target of much abuse, as has happened already, and misrepresentation, despite what has been said as to the principle having been adopted by the government last year, I would be recreant in my duty if I neglected the opportunity that devolves upon me in the position which I occupy to bring to the attention of my fellow-members the reasons that induced me to arrive at the conclusion which I have reached, free, I think, from bias and prejudice, and actuated only by the one earnest desire, the welfare, prosperity, peace and happiness of every citizen of Canada.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that it is to be regretted profoundly that such an agitation has been created in this parliament on such a question. It leads one to believe that in reality we have not been making very much progress towards a better understanding among
the nations of the world when we have such a discussion in the parliament of a nation ol only nine million population. I find it strange that the distinguished gentleman who leads the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has found it necessary to make a second speech on this question. With all due respect to him and with all the profound consideration that I have for his personality, I do not believe he improved what he said the other day and I do not think he has said anything which would justify the position he has taken.
For an hour and a half he has entertained the House of Commons on the lack of authority that this government has to propose such legislation. He gave us a lecture on what was said by the framers of the constitution. He read extracts from the resolutions which preceded confederation. He did all this to establish the fact that we have no right to do what he himself did in 1934. If we are not entitled to French or bilingual notes, I ask my right hon. friend what his justification was for introducing the legislation he introduced in 1934 to provide for two issues of notes, one in French and one in English.
Reference has been made to the last election campaign. During that campaign we were told by supporters of the right hon. gentleman that what he had done for the French-Canadian was much greater than what had been done by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the members of the Liberal government in general. Those who were candidates in the last election or who followed the campaign in the province of Quebec know that my right hon. friend and his ministers proclaimed all over that territory that he had gone to a much greater length than any Liberal government would have gone. We are now informed by the right hon. gentleman that he did less and that it was intended to be less than what was proposed by the Liberals in 1934.
I do not like hearing my right hon. friend say that upon such things as forms issued in French by the Post Office Department depend the harmony of Canada. If the harmony which exists to-day among all the citizens of our country is not strong enough to stand the issuing of French forms by the Post Office Department in place of an English form, then it is not worth while being preserved.
It may be true that under the strict letter of the law we cannot claim this right, but in all British countries and in all British institutions there has always been something besides the strict interpretation of the law. Usages and customs many times change the cold letter of the law. It is the history of British institutions that the dead letter of the law has been modified or been given some life
Hank oj Canada-Mr. Cardin

by usage and practices which have developed in parliaments as well as in other institutions in the British empire. It has been said that a concession has been made to the French people of Canada; the right hon. gentleman has said that he made a concession in 1934 when he authorized the printing of bills in French as well as in English. Even if it was a concession, even if it was a generous concession that he made at that time, are we not entitled to-day, by reason of our contribution to the life of Canada in what we have been trying to do to help to develop this country and to bring harmony, peace and good will among the Canadian people, to some recognition and to see occasionally the concessions granted- us enlarged to some extent with a view to fostering a greater feeling of understanding among Canadian citizens? Even if it was a concession, I say that we were entitled to that concession; and when we speak here of such concessions I would only ask my English-speaking fellow-countrymen to pay a visit some time to the province of Quebec where they will see what the word "concession" means. They will see there how the minority of the province of Quebec has been treated by the French majority. There is no question such as this one being raised in Quebec on any issue; we are ready to cooperate with our English-speaking fellow-citizens of that province, and there is no question of limiting the rights of minorities, no question of trying to promote harmony through the curtailment of rights, no question of trying to promote harmony through the diminution of initiative. We are making concessions in that province and greater concessions than we are asking the parliament of Canada to grant in favour of the French in this country. One has only to read the history of Canada to be convinced of the concessions that we have been making and are still making. Forms printed in French may be sent accidentally to English sections of the country, but forms are printed in both languages. I may say that in Quebec we have had and still have high officers of the federal government who do not speak a word of French but who have to deal with the French population of that province. There is a greater limitation of our rights than is involved in the issue of a form in one language. We have stood for that condition for a number of years and we are still standing for it, not asking for the dismissal of Englishspeaking superior officers in all departments in the province of Quebec, officers who do not speak the French language. We are doing our part to bring about a better under-
standing among all the citizens of Canada, and I cannot believe that a bilingual note of the Bank of Canada is going to disturb the harmony which now exists. If we were to follow the law as it is at present and issue French notes, these notes would be legal tender and would have circulation in Ontario, and they would have to be accepted as legal tender by Ontario and by the provinces of the west. Is it a greater insult to have a bilingual bill presented to creditors in Ontario than to have entirely French bills given them, as might happen if we left the law as it stands now? '
There is no danger of destroying the harmony that has existed among Canadian citizens. I had thought that our country was big enough to enable us to think of something else and to forget the small differences which have caused us so many difficulties in the past. I had thought that those difficulties had been removed and that there had grown up a better understanding of the points of view and the dispositions of the different sections of the country. Can we not in this year of grace 1936 look upon these problems in the British frame of mind instead of carrying into practice the old forgotten colonial spirit that existed long ago? I certainly thought the days of the colonial spirit had gone and we had reached a point where we could regard ourselves as all equal in this country without criticizing certain privileges, if you will, or certain concessions made to minorities. British institutions have been maintained throughout the world and England has kept its authority and power over the world not by restricting the liberties of people coming into the realm of the empire but by extending their liberties. The gospel of England has never been restriction, it has been the opposite, and it is by that bond of generosity and good will and the generous interpretation of statutes and treaties that England is to-day able to maintain its authority over so many countries in the civilized world. There are no races, no creeds, no colours in the British empire; there are human beings, whose well-being it has been the object of British institutions to further.
I hope that this little tempest will pass, and I sincerely regret that an amendment has been introduced at this stage of the legislation. The matter had been discussed very well in moderate terms by the leader of the opposition on the previous occasion. Why come forward on the third reading and raise a new issue, precipitating a full dress debate on this motion? As the leader of the opposition admitted, the bill is there and it is going to pass and become law because it is supported by the majority. It was supported on the

Bank oj Canada-Mr. MacNeil
second reading; it was supported in committee and after the third reading it will become law. Why then raise this issue by an amendment on the third reading? I hesitate to answer that question; with my limited knowledge of English I might incur the Speaker's displeasure. We should not look upon this country from the point of view of figures and numbers, from the point of view of majorities or minorities. We should look upon it as a whole and in that spirit which we are trying to foster in order to develop this wonderful land that is ours, the land called Canada. We should forget as much as possible the small difficulties of 1890. Let us forget the past; let the difficulties of 1890 be forgotten in 1936, when we are living in a new world. Let us forget all these small things and unite to bring about a better condition of things in Canada. We are fortunate enough to have in this country descendants of the two greatest races of the civilized world, the French and the English-speaking people of Canada. Let us be proud of that situation in which we are, and instead of fighting one another, instead of depriving one part of any of its privileges, if you will, or, if you prefer, of the concessions that have been made to it, let us unite in order to evoke the best that is in every one of our citizens, so that we may face the problems of the day and provide a greater measure of happiness for the people of Canada.
I am not ashamed of being of French descent; I do not propose to excuse myself for that. It is an accident of nature, which accident, I consider, is a happy one. I am as good a citizen as anyone who has been born a British subject, another accident of nature, and a happy one also. I have no apology to offer; I am here because my ancestors were here first. They were the first ones to open this country to civilization, the first ones who started to build up a big country in this new land. I wish to respect the laws of my country and the laws of the British empire. As a French-Canadian I have always been respectful of the laws under which we have been called upon by Providence to live. In the province of Quebec we have a law-abiding population, and we have done our share, with the gifts we got from old France, a country with which we have no connection to-day except for the mind and possibly for the heart; nationally speaking we have no connections with them. But we have inherited from that race certain gifts of which we are proud, and we are ready to apply them to the benefit of our country, to join with all other Canadian citizens to build up a happy and prosperous Canada. Let me ask in the name of harmony-not harmony through reduction 12739-241
of privileges, of concessions, or of advantages -that we work together in a spirit which will associate the gifts of the two races for the upbuilding of a better Canada. Let us forget, in these difficult times through which we are passing, our small differences; let us not be divided by small things.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: Mr. Speaker, with many other members of this house I regret the general trend of this debate. I deplore any discussion at this time that may tend to accentuate racial differences or arouse racial prejudices. I have no political axe to grind; I have only a very earnest desire to stand shoulder to shoulder with my fellow countrymen who speak and love the French language in the advancement of the common welfare of all the Canadian people. I have very clearly in mind the war efforts of .our country in the years 1914 to 1918. In the Canadian corps there was no distinction in service or in sacrifice on the ground of racial origin. We were all Canadians; French-Canadians and English-Canadians alike gained a rare appreciation of each other's qualities, courage and loyalty, and there was achieved there a united effort in the service of the common cause which transcended other considerations and which in a large measure established in Canada a true national consciousness. I earnestly submit that at this time we should strive to attain that same spirit, that same tolerance, as we face our common problems in this dominion to-day.
An important suggestion was made this afternoon during the course of the debate in this house. The suggestion, which was made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), offers a satisfactory basis of compromise, and it conforms to the practice followed in other countries where they have bilingual difficulties. It enables the issue of a note which is in every sense of the word Canadian and which cannot by any manner or means offer offence to any citizen of this country. I propose to advance the suggestion by way of amendment. I feel that it offers members of this house an opportunity to evince the sincerity of their desire to maintain national harmony at this time. I move, therefore, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) an amendment to the amendment:
That there be added to the amendment the following words:
"and that there be substituted therefor a section to provide that the notes of the several denominations shall be in distinctive colours and designs and bear thereon no words other than ' Canada,' the appropriate numeral or numerals, the proper signatures, the serial number, and the year of issue."

3786	COMMONS
Bank of Canada-Mr. Gardiner
I appeal to the government to accept this amendment that we may avoid any cause for racial dissension at this time.


Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) :: As one of the new members of the house, I have had the privilege during this session of listening during the greater part of the time. I think I am probably in agreement with all those who have sat in the house for the first time in saying that many things during this present session have astonished us. Earlier in the session the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was pleased to refer to the legislature in which I and some other members of this house served before coming to the House of Commons, as a house in which some things happened which do not happen in the House of Commons. In reply to that I can only say that there are some things happening in the House of Commons that do not happen in the legislatures of the provinces, and one of the peculiar things that do happen in this house, and more particularly during this session, is that we have been compelled during fifty-two per cent of the time to sit and listen to the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons speaking to members of this house. I do not know just why the leader of the opposition thinks it is necessary for him to take so much of the time of this house. If anyone were to mention the name of one of the ships in the British navy, the leader of the opposition would proceed to recite the names of all the ships in the British navy. If anyone refers to any section in any act that has ever passed the House of Commons, then the leader of the opposition proceeds to read all the legislation on that point that has been passed since the House of Commons came into being. And if anyone suggests placing upon the bills that are issued by the Bank of Canada a few words of the French language, then the leader of the opposition finds it necessary to read us a lecture on the whole history of the Dominion of Canada. He might have gone back a little further, and have demonstrated to us why it is that people throughout the dominion feel as they do when members of his party raise the question which has been raised in the house this afternoon and this evening. If he were to go a little further back over the history of this country, he would find the reasons for the remarks that were made a few moments ago by the minister who spoke from this side of the house, with regard to the founding of the country in which we live. Anyone who has within his veins a drop of British blood is proud of the fact

that following the disagreement between the British colonies and the British government it was the French-Canadians along the St. Lawrence who preserved this country for the empire. In building up the different dominions of the empire the spirit of British fair play has seen to it that those peoples who were there before the British came have been allowed to develop in their own way in order to enjoy the full benefit of the establishment of British institutions.
This afternoon and this evening we have listened to hon. gentlemen opposite deal with the situation as it has existed and as it exists at the present time in Canada. In their own way they have been attempting to place at the door of members on this side of the house responsibility for the issue they are attempting to raise in this country. This is not the first time members of the Conservative party in Canada have sought to raise the issue they are now attempting to create from one end of this country to the other. If I wanted to occupy the time the right hon. leader of the opposition occupies with this kind of thing I could take hon. members back over the whole history of the Dominion of Canada and show that every time the Conservatives have found themselves in opposition they have seen to it that within a very short time a cry has been raised similar to the one they are raising on the floor of this house to-day. I do not need to go back over the whole history of Canada in order to prove my point. I need go back only to 1919, when the Liberal convention was held. I would remind the house that at that time eight of the provinces of Canada had Liberal legislatures, which is the condition that exists in Canada at the present time. That was the situation that existed in Canada when we were meeting here in convention for the purpose of choosing a leader for the Liberal party. One has only to follow the activities of the Conservative party after they went into opposition in 1921, to realize that in this country to-day we have the same situation and are seeing the same tactics on the part of those who are opposing Liberals from one end of Canada to the other.
In 1922 our friends opposite set out to return themselves to power. That is the privilege of any party which finds itself in opposition, but they sought to do so by a method which has been followed by that party, when in opposition, ever since confederation. Every member of this house who comes from New Brunswick will recall the type of campaign that was put on there in order to drive my hon. friend, who now sits in this house representing a constituency in New Brunswick, from the premiership of that province. Every-

Bank of Canada-Mr. Gardiner
one knows the type of organization that was introduced into this country from the United States for the purpose of putting on that sort of campaign. Everyone in this house who has followed political history for the last few years recalls that following that experience in New Brunswick they carried on the same campaign in British Columbia. When the leader of the opposition was interrupted to-night by a remark made by a member on this side of the house coming from British Columbia, it will be recalled that the right hon. gentleman's reply was: "He will find out when he goes back home." Why will he find out? Because, as my right hon. friend knows, in every Conservative committee room in Canada to-day the same type of campaign is being prepared under his leadership. And then, not satisfied-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that statement is absolutely false, and I want it withdrawn.


James Garfield Gardiner: Then, Mr. Speaker, not satisfied with having introduced that type of campaign into the two provinces I mentioned,, what did my right hon. friend do? After he had become leader of the Conservative party in 1927, he went into Saskatchewan and, if I am not wrongly informed, consulted men in that province in order to find out what could be done there. A few hours ago I noticed an hon. gentleman opposite shaking the tips of his fingers to picture a great Conservative leader with blood dripping from the ends of his fingers as a result of some things that were supposed to have been done to him by members on this side of the house. Well, I always thought the man who drove the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen from public life in this country at that time was the right hon. leader of the opposition in this house, and he did it in a convention in the city of Winnipeg in 1927.
Immediately after having committed that act-whether or not it was 'beneficial to the Conservative party or the country I do not know-what did he do nexit? He acquired a newspaper in Saskatchewan, importing the entire editorial staff from British Columbia and Al'berta. He set up that paper in order to do the very thing he has started out to do to-day in this house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, that statement is absolutely untrue. Mr. Campbell, who now manages the Edmonton Bulletin, established that newspaper-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, Mr. Speaker, I
think Mr. Campbell has made the statement 12739-241J
very clearly that while he set up that paper he Left it at the end of five years because his term of employment had expired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not true.


James Garfield Gardiner: I think my right hon.
friend knows who 'his employer was and where the money came from that employed him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was not my employee.


David Spence: What has that to do with
the Bank of Canada Act?


James Garfield Gardiner: My hon. friend asks
what that has to do with t'he Bank of Canada Act. Well, after having listened to his speech and to the speeches of others of his party it seems to me that when we are speaking on the Bank of Canada we have a great deal of leeway.
We now come to 1928, when this newspaper was acquired by my right hon. friend or the friends of my right hon. friend, if he does not widh to take the credit himself. A campaign was put on of the most scurrilous kind ever put on anywhere in the Dominion of Canada. When my right hon. friend says that there was nothing in the nature of religious and racial discussion in connection with the campaign waged by the Conservative candidate in the city of Regina in 1930 against the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), all I can say is that the right hon. gentleman could not have been in Regina during that campaign. But I happen to know that he was there, and I 'happen to know that the reaction .to the type of campaign: which was organized in that province swept his party in Saskatchewan entirely into oblivion in the year 1935. Not a single man of the group who introduced the campaign of 'his party in the province' in 1929, and continued it in 1930, was returned to the legislature in 1934. Everyone was wiped out. I was just a little more successful in the province of Saskatchewan in dealing with the Conservative party, than was the leader of the opposition now in this house when he was leader of the opposition in the province of Albenta. I do not know Whether or not he understands what that means. At one time the present leader of the opposition in this house was leader of the opposition in the province of Alberta, and I understand he led it down to a point where he had only one Conservative follower. Well, I was leader of the Liberal opposition in the province of Saskatchewan and I led it until there was not a Conservative left in the legislature.
3788	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Gardiner
An bon. MEMBER: Little wonder!


James Garfield Gardiner: 
David Spence: You know how to do that.


James Garfield Gardiner: I understand what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well) means when he says that we should get back to the discussion of the real issues before the people of Canada, and that we should get back to a discussion of the problems confronting our people. I think the quickest way back to a discussion of those problems is to deal with matters my right hon. friend brings before the house from time to time, to deal with them in a manner which shows up the practice he and his party have followed during times they have been in opposition before, and to call the attention of the house and the country to the fact that if we are going to allow these old issues of sectionalism, language, racial bigotry and racial misunderstanding to be dragged across the trail every time a real issue is before the people of Canada, we shall never solve our problems.
At all times in Canada the Liberal party has stood for the consideration of questions of this kind on a much higher level than that upon w'hich they have been considered by hon. members opposite.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Garfield Gardiner: Something has been
said to-night about the postage stamp. My right hon. friend has been telling us how

post office orders were brought into being in bilingual form, but he did not tell us that prior to the election of 1930 every effort was being made by his followers throughout the length and breadth of Canada to win the election on the bilingual publication of the very documents of which he has been speaking. I remember in our province his followers used to come into the school, take postage stamps, show them to the children and point out to them that on one side of the stamp appeared the word "postes" and on the other the word "postage," the one word is in French and the other in English, and they pointed out that they meant exactly the same thing. They used to say, "If we are going to have harmony in Canada you will have to get that word off the postage stamp." Well, Mr. Speaker, for the time being the people of Canada saw to it that a Conservative government was placed in power. I would ask hon. members to look at any postage stamps which were issued after hon. members opposite were in power for five years. Take a look at them! What will you see? You will see that the word "postes" is still on one side and the word "postage" is on the other, but you will also see that there is a change in the postage stamp; there is a "three" on it, instead of a "two." Why is there a "three" on it, instead of a "two"? For the very good reason that the kind of talk to which we have been listening from hon. members opposite is the kind which brings people to think in terms that have nothing to do with the solution of our problem, and that invite in this country the same spirit which has divided the European continent into small nations, which has brought about misunderstanding, which has been responsible for the building of navies and the maintenance of armies, and which has brought about mistrust, misunderstanding, wars, suffering, high taxation and everything that go hand in hand with the reactionary policies of an organization such as that which sits opposite to us.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the history of the development of political propaganda of the kind we find to-day in Ontario, the kind we find beginning to work its way across the prairie provinces, the kind we find moving down towards the maritime provinces, the kind voiced by men sitting on the opposite side of the house. Men who sat through the discussion of the resolution preceding the bill, who sat through the discussion on the second reading of the bill and the discussion in committee, then, when the bill is presented for third reading, do the unusual thing of mov-

Bank of Canada-Mr. Gardiner
ing an amendment of such a kind as will draw the attention of all the people of Canada to the issue they want to raise across the country.
It is all very well for the leader of the opposition to stand up at the end of his speech and to attempt to bring the house back to a position where hon. members and the people throughout the dominion may think he is just a harmless dove spreading his wings over this country, and that 'he has no wrong intentions whatever. I remember that at an earlier stage in the development of this session he wanted to attribute some wrong desire, some wrong intention or some political motive to any person who mentioned his name. It is surprising to find that the leader of the opposition has political motives, at all. Yes, that is surprising. He raises his voice here on occasion after occasion; when we speak of judges, he talks. When we speak of anything, he talks. But those of us who come from western Canada know something about his past record. I heard him say a few minutes ago that he came to the west in 1897. I went there just four years later. I am not very big yet, but I was a smaller boy then. I remember that one of the first things-I learned after reaching western Canada was that there was a gentleman named Mr. R. B. Bennett who represented a constituency in the territorial legislature which met at Regina. You know, we used to hear some remarkable things about him even then. And when I hear him talking about judges, and the ages of judges, there comes to my mind some of the men he must have in his mind, some of the men with whom he was associated in his earlier days in the western part of Canada. Now that I have an opportunity to do so, may I say to the right hon. gentleman that his discussion of that matter was on all fours with his discussion of this one. It is affected by some of the experiences he has had along his political road. The judges of whom he was speaking in certain terms yesterday, while they are a little older than he, can still meet any issue that is raised and still give^ proper consideration to questions, and,
I might add, a consideration which will stand investigation on a question like this to better advantage than the consideration which is given by the leader of the opposition. Some of these men whom I have in mind have stood with us as we stand on this side of the house on the question we have been discussing in connection with this bill, a question which brings up in our minds the thought that we should treat all the people
who come to our shores in that same spirit with which British governments everywhere have treated these people.
I have in my hand a copy of the Saskatchewan Journals and Sessional Papers, from which I should like to read one or two extracts for the benefit of those who have not been in the west as long as the leader of the opposition and myself. This is one. It is a statement that was made at the time when the present Prime Minister of Canada first contested a constituency in the province of Saskatchewan, and it is taken from a Conservative paper published in the city of Toronto;
The only candidate who could carry a typical Saskatchewan Liberal constituency against the Liberal candidate, Hon. W. L. M. King, or other anti-Conservative candidate would be the Kaiser, the Crown Prince or Hindenburg. And not one of the three was nominated in Prince Albert.
That is one statement that was got out by our friends opposite.


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Cameron Ross McIntosh: That is a home run.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken as I have to-night for the purpose of calling the attention of the house to the position into which this sort of discussion leads us, and to indicate to my hon. friends opposite that they are not doing a service to the Dominion of Canada by starting a discussion of the kind that has taken place in this house this afternoon. They may succeed in defeating an odd Liberal government in Canada, but, after all, that is only an incident in the history of the Dominion of Canada. We have found from experience that it is an incident which the people of Canada remember for a long time because they are reminded of it every time they look at their tax bills for the next five or ten years afterwards. While they do remember such an experience for a considerable length of time afterwards, the one thing that we as a House of Commons and that parliament as a whole should remember, is that we should try to follow the traditions of the British house and the traditions of the British empire in its relations to peoples in every part of the world.
Every time I look at the union jack I am reminded of the fact that the three crosses upon the flag signify one of the most important unions that has ever taken place among the peoples of the world, important not so much because of the numbers who were brought into the union through bringing together the people of England and Scotland and Ireland, but important because of the great influence which it has had upon nations throughout the world. That flag, Mr. Speaker, stands for a union of peoples whether or not their languages, customs and laws are the same.
I might be pardoned standing in this House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada for
[Mr. Gardiner.!
calling attention to this further fact, that we have a great country to the south of us. They, too, have a flag and that flag has thirteen stripes upon it. Each one of those stripes stands for one of the original British colonies on the north American continent that were the foundations upon which that nation has been built. But when you look into the field of blue in the corner of the flag you see forty-eight stars, where at first there were only thirteen. Every time a new state was formed a star was added to the corner until to-day those stars represent forty-eight states, all under one flag, with one literature, if you like, with one set of ideals, with one set of laws, with one common purpose inspiring their people. I could go on and indicate to you, sir, that there is a union of sentiments, a union of ideals, a union of peoples.
Someone said this afternoon that there are more Germans or people of German descent in the United States than anywhere else in the world except perhaps in Germany itself. Someone else might have said that the same is true of Italians; someone else might have said that the same is true of many other nationalities which have gathered under that flag. The very fact that it is true; that many peoples have gathered and been able to live together under one flag, with common customs, with one set of ideals, with one literature, and with a community of sentiment, makes it all the more important that, we in building this great country on the northern half of this continent should unite our people with common ideals by exercising towards all people who were here before the British came that practice of British fair play which the British themselves have extended everywhere throughout the world.


Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, having seconded the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), I wish to take just one or two moments to explain my stand on this question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question!


Walter Edward Foster: I ask hon. members kindly to keep order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have no intention of taking up a great deal of time, but hon. members opposite make it very difficult to proceed. I think they should give me sufficient order so that- I may say what I have to say and what I intend to say. I have listened so long and so patiently to emotional spasms about British fair play, I would appreciate a

Bank of Canada-Mr. Doughs
little of it from hon. members opposite. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker; I have no wish to descend to that sort of thing.
Speaking to this subamendment, I wanted merely to say that I have been amazed, amused and, I am afraid a little pained to see this house spending a day and a half discussing what to many people in Canada is a very trivial aspect of this bill. There are hundreds of people across the prairies to-day who would be very glad to get money, no matter in what language it was printed. I cannot help feeling that if hon. members had used as much energy and as much heat in getting money into the pockets of the people as they have used in worrying about the language in which the money will be printed, we would be a great deal further ahead than we are at the closing days of this session. Personally, I do not care in what language our bills are printed. Being a Scotsman, I am glad to get a dollar whether it is printed in Siamese or Chinese, provided I can buy something with it.
I want to say to the government that there are people in this country, particularly in western Canada, who possess prejudices and antipathies which are very easy to arouse. We feel that this is a good time to let well enough alone, to let sleeping dogs lie. We have heard a great many recriminations to-night about the 1929 and 1930 elections. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) hurled across the floor in some derision the name of the Regina Daily Star. I wonder if I could remind hon. gentlemen opposite of the fact that in 1929 the editor of the Regina Daily Star, Mr. J. S. Cowper, who wrote such bitter editorials against the use of the French language, was a former Liberal member of the British Columbia legislature. Last August this same gentleman ran as a Liberal candidate in Alberta, and I understand he is now editor of the Edmonton Bulletin. I do not cite these facts for any political reasons because I am not implicated; I cite them to show that this arousing of antipathies in western Canada on the basis of race and religion has not been confined to any one party.


Mr. TURGEON:: What party was that paper supporting when those articles were written? Can you answer that question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have not a very high opinion of the manners or intelligence of hon. gentlemen who insist on interrupting while a speech is being made.


James Gray Turgeon: I am asking an honest question which the hon. member will not answer.
Mr. SPEAKER; Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. gentleman knows without my saying that I had nothing to do with the party which was supported by that paper at that time. I point out that the man who edited the articles was a Liberal prior to that time and is a Liberal again to-day. I point out that antipathies can, be aroused again. It is because we would like to see elections in western Canada fought on economic issues rather than on racial prejudices that I am making this plea at this time. Hon. members from western Canada who sit opposite know as well as I do that it would not be very difficult to arouse in western Canada the same issues that were aroused in 1929 and 1930. It is because we do not want to see them aroused that we are asking the government to reconsider very carefully the step they are taking.
Of what use is it for the Minister of Justice to speak very eloquently about unity when the government places before this house something that will cause disunity in certain parts of Canada? Of what use is it for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to speak about good will and at the same time insert in this bill a clause that will cause ill will in certain comers of Canada? I believe in a homogeneous people. I want to see, as I believe every hon. member wants to see, amity and good will among the Canadian people. But we suggest that good will and homogeneity among the people of Canada can best be brought about at the present time by leaving well enough alone, by letting sleeping dogs lie.
Personally, I would favour carrying on as we are now doing, but as the government has refused to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), the hon. member for Vancouver North and I are suggesting that the bills be printed to contain just the word "Canada" and the numeral, along with the signatures of the heads of the Bank of Canada. We believe that this would prevent much of the prejudice and antipathy that are bound to be aroused.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Hon. members say, "oh,
oh," but they know perfectly well what happened in Saskatchewan. The venom and bitterness of the speech to-night of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) are typical of what we have had in Saskatchewan for many days and what we hope will pass away as time goes by. We want to deal with matters according to their worth; we want to deal with these issues as they ought to be dealt with, and that is why we are asking the house to accept this subamendment.
3792	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)


Hon ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I crave the indulgence of the house for one or two minutes in order to show why we cannot accept the subamendment which has been moved. May I say, first, that I am surprised at the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). The group of which he is a member has always charged the other political parties with a lack of courage, but surely the proposal made is one that would seem to avoid or to evade the straight issue. They want Canada to adopt bank bills which would be entirely emasculated. I do not think a virile country like Canada should adopt such a bank bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the minister is in order in answering?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He can speak to the
amendment to the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: I am
speaking on the subarnendment just a minute or two. This bill would be emaciated and colourless and I wonder whether it would be accepted at par. There is another matter to be considered. The bill as suggested by my hon. friends would not he a promise to pay to the bearer. My hon. friends would first have to amend the first subsection of section 24, which provides that these notes shall be payable to bearer on demand, and so forth. The mere name of Canada, without mentioning t'he bank, and the figures and the signatures, could not be considered as a promise to pay anything to anybody. Apart from that, there are other considerations. Otf course, these bank notes must be made in such a way that counterfeiters could not easily exercise their activities, and there would be nothing easier than to counterfeit a note such as is suggested by my hon. friends.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could they counterfeit
the signature of the officials?


Ernest Lapointe: No, I
suppose not, but that is the only thing they could not do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Obviously, the amendment to the amendment containing no promise to pay, it would be impossible to support it 'having regard to the other terms of the bill. However much one might desire some compromise of the difficulties, it is quite clear that this suggested amendment to the amendment would not result in a note of the bank being issued in accordance with the terms iof the provisions of the act, there being no promise to pay.


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


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, there are a few remarks I should like to make upon another aspect of this bill, and I desire to present an amendment, but as I see it is after eleven o'clock I assume I cannot go on to-night.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, June 17, 1936