[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. This morning the Ottawa Journal published a lengthy editorial about a member of the House of Commons in which they refer to his so-called buffooneries and bad manners. They continue:
Last session, for example, Mr. Pouliot's combination of clowning and bad taste, exhibited in childish antics and atrocious attacks upon a well known and respected civil servant, blurred whatever good work was done by a parliamentary committee on the civil service, helped to bring the committee into contempt.
Last year the Ottawa Journal published an article entitled "Inviting contempt for parliament," in which the writer wonders whether much of the contempt one hears expressed regarding our democratic institutions is not often deserved. That article had to do with the appearance of Mr. Foran before the civil service committee. I afterwards telephoned to the writer of the article and asked him why he had defended Mr. Foran in the name of democracy. He answered me that occasionally he played golf with him. The article

Questions
this morning speaks of "vulgar abuse," "primitive blackguardism" and "buffoonery that is vulgar and vicious," and goes on to state:
-and even when it comes from a quarter making an argument for its being excused.
Of course, that is very bad English. The editorial this morning is headed: "An M.P. >
who should be tongue-cuffed."
There is no such word in the king's English. Apparently that is a new word for a new kind of torment or corporal punishment which is being invented for members of parliament.
I shall have to write letters of sympathy to my colleagues who are to suffer from being "tongue-cuffed." All this is said because the member for Temiscouata decided to express his views about some members of the civil service who, by the way, are members of the Rideau club. I expected that to come, but I regret that such language has been used by this paper. On the other hand, it is not the paper which has spoken, it is the Rideau club. For the information of the house, may I say that the language which has been used by the Ottawa Journal with regard to the member for Temiscouata is precisely the same language which is used daily with regard to my right hon. leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion), to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Black-more) and all their supporters in the house, by the small gang in the Rideau club which pretqnds to rule this country. That is all I have to say. .The house is informed now.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Hurtubise be substituted for that of Mr. Ahearn on the select committee appointed to consider and report on matters pertaining to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
That the name of Mr. Mayhew he substituted for that of Mr. Ward on the standing committee on marine and fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (for the Minister of Transport) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39, to amend the Department of Transport Stores Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. DUNNING:: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe), I am advised that the amendment is a minor one of a clarifying character which the minister will be pleased to deal with at a later stage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AGRICULTURAL PESTS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40, to amend the Agricultural Pests Control Act, and change the title thereof.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GARDINER:: Mr. Speaker, the general purpose of the bill is to provide for amendments to the Agricultural Pests Control Act which twelve years of experience in its administration would indicate are necessary for its further successful operation. It is a complete going over of the act; I think all the matters referred to in the bill can be much better explained in committee than at this time.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. STEVENS:: 1. Were tenders called for the new post office building on the corner of Elgin and Sparks streets, Ottawa?
2.	If so, how many tenders were received, and from whom?
3.	Was the lowest tender accepted?
4.	If lowest tender was not accepted, what is the reason?
5.	What was the amount of the tender which was accepted?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Fifteen; (b) A. Janin Building Company, Limited; A. W. Robertson, Limited; Anglin-Norcross Ontario, Limited; Alex. I. Garvock; Doran Construction Company, Limited; Concrete Construction Limited; Redfern Construction Company, Limited; Carter-Halls-Aldinger Company, Limited; Foundation Company of Canada, Limited;

E. G. M. Cape and Company; Collet Freres, Limitee; W. H. Yates Construction Company, Limited; Duranceau and Duranceau; Ilsley-Wilde, Limited; George A. Fuller Company of Canada, Limited.
3.	Lowest tender based on granite and Queenston limestone accepted.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	$602,400.


TRADE AGREEMENTS
Mr. WERMENLINGER:: 1.	How many trade agreements between Canada and foreign countries were abrogated from 1921 to 1930?
2.	By what countries?
3.	How many new treaties were signed by Canada and foreign countries between 1921 and 1930?
4.	How many treaties were signed between 1930 and 1935 by the then government with governments of foreign countries?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Three.
2.	Two of these agreements were abrogated by mutual consent: (1) The provisional trade arrangement of 1926 with Czechoslovakia to be replaced by the agreement of 1928. (2) The treaty with France of 1921 was terminated by an article in the treaty of the following year with that country.
Canada denounced in 1927 the trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, to which she had adhered.
3.	Belgium-Luxembourg, 1924; Cuba, 1927; Czechoslovakia (provisional trade arrangement), 1926; Czechoslovakia, 1928; Estonia, 1928; Finland, 1924; France (superseded by the following), 1921; France, 1922; Hungary, 1928; Italy, 1923; Latvia, 1928; Lithuania, 1928; Netherlands, 1924; Portugal, 1928; Roumania, 1928; Spain, 1925; Yugoslavia, 1928.
4.	Austria, 1933; Bolivia, 1935; Brazil, 1931; Costa Rica, 1933; France, 1933; France (Supplementary Protocol), 1935; Germany (Exchange of Notes), 1932; Guatemala, 1935; Hayti, 1935; Panama, 1935; Poland, 1935.


COMPENSATION TO ESSEX COUNTY TOMATO GROWERS
Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	Has any request for compensation to growers been made in respect of the Jan-Ru tomato situation in Essex county?
2.	What data is now available?
3.	When may compensation be expected?
	-


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Data covering acreage grown, deliveries of tomatoes, returns received by growers; also information concerning the manufacture and disposition of the product.
3.	Matter under consideration.


CANADIAN FARM LOAN BOARD-PAYMENTS TO C. S. DAVIS
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Was the firm of Davis and Davis, of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, employed as solicitors for the Canadian farm loan board in the years 1935, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	If so, what fees did the said firm receive in each of the said years in connection with loans or mortgages under the farm loan board?


Charles Avery Dunning: The following information is furnished by the Canadian Farm Loan Board:
1.	The services of Mr. C. S. Davis, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, were utilized by the Board in the period November, 1935 to May,
1937,	but were not utilized in 1938.
2.	The board paid Mr. C. S. Davis for services rendered the board the following amounts: 1935, nil; 1936, $15; 1937, $192;
1938,	nil.
The board does not maintain a system of accounts covering fees paid by borrowers. The scale of fees payable by borrowers out of moneys loaned is set by the board.


ARGENTINE CORN IMPORTATIONS
Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	What were the quantities of Argentine corn imported into Canada between September 25, 1936, and December 31, 1936?
2.	What were the quantities of corn arriving at each of the various ports in Canada where such corn was unloaded from ocean boats?
3.	What was the highest and lowest c.i.f. price of such corn?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Statistics for periods shorter than a month are not available. Imports of corn from Argentina during the three months ended December 31, 1936, were as follows:
Bushels
For distillation	 259,996
For manufacture of starch and
cereal	  1,114,169
Corn, n.o.p	 11,542,375
Total	 12,916,540
2.	Imports of Argentine corn entered for consumption at sea ports in Canada during the period of three months ended December 31, 1936:

Questions as Orders for Returns
Item
Indian com for purposes of distillation	
Indian com for manufacture of starch or cereal products	
Indian corn, n.o.p
3.	Information not available.
Port	Bushels
Montreal	 183,496
Montreal	 1,092,240
Montreal	 4,584,046
Quebec	 1,898,721
Three Rivers	 2,715,879
Halifax	 1,301,159
Saint John, NH	 618,909
Vancouver	 363,661
New Westminster	 60,000
[DOT]	[DOT] I


BRITISH COLUMBIA ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANY- MAIL CARRIAGE
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department a contract with the British Columbia Electric Railway Company Limited for the transportation of mail on its interurban lines in British Columbia?
2.	If so, how much was paid to the above mentioned company for the transportation of mail for the fiscal years ending March 31, 1936, 1937, and 1938?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	No. Mails are carried on the British Columbia Electric Railway lines under the provisions of order in council P.C. 1896, of the 13th September, 1922, governing the carriage of mails by rail in Canada.
2.	Amounts: March 31, 1936, $5,745.83; March 31, 1937, $5,733.13; March 31, 1938, $5,781.08.


ARGENTINE CANNED BEEF IMPORTATIONS
Mr. LEADER:: What was the total value of canned beef imported from Argentine in 1938?


Mr. EULER:: 


$332,927. FOAM LAKE, SASK., POST OFFICE BUILDING
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What was the total cost of the present post office building at Foam Lake, Saskatchewan?
2.	What was the cost of the site on which the post office was built?
3.	From whom was the site purchased, and what was the price paid?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	$24,944.99 (including site).
2.	Price paid for site, $1,500; Legal services, $36.23; Total cost, $1,53623.
3.	(a) Mrs. E. Mickelson, (b) Answered by No. 2.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TUSTIN:: 1.	What was the total cost of construction of the new Canadian National Railways hotel at Vancouver?
2.	What is the total number of rooms in the said hotel?
3.	How many are bedrooms?
4.	How many are known as vice-regal suites?
5.	What is the total cost of decorating, to date?
t 6. What was the total cost of all furnishings: (a) draperies; (b) furniture; (c) carpets?
7.	What was the average cost of furnishing bedrooms?
8.	What was the average cost of furnishing vice-regal suites?
9.	Were tenders asked for these furnishings?
10.	Were tenders: (a) competitive; or (b) selected?
11.	What tenders were received?
12.	Who received contracts, showing items and costs?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SHIP SERVICES
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What has been the total cost of supplying a new ship between the mainland and Prince Edward Island for transportation purposes?
2.	Will anything be done to provide additional accommodation and better service by a new boat between Toronto and Port Dalhousie on the National railway subsidiary, the Niagara-St. Catharines and Toronto Railway?
3.	How long has the steamer Northumberland been on this route, and what route was it on before coming to Toronto?
4.	What rvas the cost of this ship, and when was it built?
5.	Is it suitable for lake work, and what are the deck accommodation and shelter provided in stormy weather?
6.	How many passengers is it authorized by law to carry, and has it proper life-saving equipment?
7.	Will anything be done to provide a new boat on this route for an improved service?

Questions as Orders jor Returns


LEAGUE OF NATIONS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who were Canada's delegates to the League of Nations for 1938, and what were their expenses and other allowances?
2.	Did they submit a report for 1938? If so. was said report acted upon, and will it be tabled ?
3.	What has been the cost of the league to Canada, since its inception to date?
4.	Who appoints the delegates and the technical experts? What are their qualifications, if any, to give advice, and what training have they, before sailing, in matters of diplomacy or pacification?
5.	Did any of the delegates conduct lecture tours after their return to Canada? If so, who were they, and were such tours financed by the government?
6.	Is the league still in existence, and who belong to it?
7.	Will Canada be a member of it for 1939, and, if so, at what cost ?
8.	What countries are in arrears for fees and other expenditures of membership?
9.	Are Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia and the United States now members, or have they been invited to join a reorganized league, and, if so, when?


RAILWAY LOANS OR GRANTS
Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	What loans or grants have been given the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway for each of the last ten years?
2.	What repayments have been made by either the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Pacific Railway in the last ten-year period ?
3.	What were the terms of the loans so granted ?


CANADIAN NATIONAL (WEST INDIES) STEAMSHIP SERVICE
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	What are the names of the vessels comprising the Canada-West Indies fleet and operated in accordance with the Canada-West Indies agreement dated June 15, 1926?
2.	What is the age of each of these vessels?
3.	Are all of these ships of a class suitable for the service, and in accordance with the terms of the agreement?
4.	What was the average speed of each of these vessels on service in 1938?
5.	What was the average, per knot, of fuel consumed during 1938?
6.	What was the average speed of each of these vessels on service in 1929?
7.	What was the average, per knot, of fuel consumed during 1929?
8.	What was the total number of passengers carried, inward and outward, from Canada to the West Indies for each of the years 1929 to 1938, inclusive?
9.	Wliat was the number of passengers arriving at Montreal, Saint John, Halifax and Boston in each of the years 1929 to 1938, inclusive?

10.	What was the number of passengers booking outward from Montreal, Saint John, Halifax and Boston in each of the years 1929 to 1938, inclusive?
11.	What is the number of tons of cargo carried outward from Montreal, Saint John and Halifax (exclusive of bananas) for each of the years 1929 to 1938, inclusive?
12.	What is the number of tons of cargo inward landed at Montreal, Saint John and Halifax (exclusive of bananas) for each of the years 1929 to 1938, inclusive?
13.	What was the number of stems of bananas landed in Montreal, Saint John and Halifax, during each of the years 1929 to 1938, inclusive ?
14.	WThat was the annual operating loss (or profit) of the ss. Connector in each year from 1929 to 1938, inclusive?
15.	What was the annual interest rate on the bonds of this ship?
16.	What was the annual depreciation charged against this ship?
17.	Has any recommendation ever been made by officers of the company, or others, suggesting methods of eliminating such losses? If so, by whom, and was any action taken on the advice tendered ?
18.	What was the dead weight tonnage of all vessels in operation in each year from 1929 to 1938, inclusive?
19.	What was the overhaul expenses for each year from 1929 to 1938, inclusive?
20.	What was the average maintenance cost, per ton, for each vessel in operation each year?
21.	What was the cost of supplies as between
deck, engine-room and stewards department, for each ship, each year from 1929 to 1938, inclusive ?	*
22.	What is the total amount of money invested in capital in the fleet of ships operating on the Canada-West Indies service?
23.	What is the total loss (or profit) of this operation for the years 1929 to 1938, inclusive?


CANADIAN CHARTERED BANKS
Mr. ROWE (Athabaska):: 1.	How many branches of Canadian chartered banks are now operating in Canada?
2.	How many branches have been closed since 1929?
3.	What reasons, if any, were given for the closing of these branches?
4.	What was the total paid up capital of
all Canadian chartered banks in:	(a)	1929,
and (b) 1938?
5.	What were the reserves for the same years ?
6.	What were the net profits earned in: (a) 1929, and (b) 1937?
7.	Did this include all earnings on reserve?
8.	Wrhat was the average interest earned on commercial loans in: (a) 1929, and (b) 1938?
9.	What were the dividends paid in: (a) 1929, and (b) 1938?
10.	What was the total of all bank loans in: (a) 1929, and (b) 1938?

Elections and Electoral Districts
11.	What was the total of demand deposits in: (a) 1929, and (b) 1938?
12.	What was the total of deposits payable after notice in: (a) 1929, and (b) 1938?



DOMINION ELECTIONS


Mr. FAIR:: 1.	What quantity of wheat grading 1, 2, 3, and 4 northern, and Nos. 5 and 6 was in store in elevators in Canada on July 31, 1937?
2.	What quantity of wheat of each of the above grades was received in such elevators during the year August 1, 1937, to July 31,
1938? , . , ,
3.	What quantity of the above grades was
shipped out during the above-described period?
4.	What quantity of each grade remained m Canadian elevators on July 31, 1938?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. BROOKS:: For a copy of all payrolls, tenders, vouchers, and a statement showing quantities of timber and other materials used in connection with work carried out under the foremanship ot Hermand L. Reid, district No. 10, municipality of Cumberland, Nova Scotia, together with the name of the inspector, if any, and the rate of pay.



ST. HUBERT, QUE., RAILWAY CROSSING

Mr. DUPUIS:: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the transport commission and exchanged between the government of the province of Quebec, the board of railway commissioners or the transport commission, or any member or officer thereof, and Vincent Dupuis, member of parliament, with respect to the elimination of railway crossing at St. Hubert, county of Chambly.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

Mr. PERLEY moved:: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or any member of the government and any member of the Winnipeg grain exchange with respect to the wheat board's operating and selling policy and the distribution of the board's business among members of the Winnipeg grain exchange.


William Daum Euler: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the passing of the motion, but perhaps my hon. friend would inform me as to the period for which he desires the information.


Ernest Edward Perley: I would suggest that it be from the first of August to the first of January.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of National Health) moved:: That a special committee consisting of Messrs. Bothwell, Brunelle, Cahan, Clark (York-Sun-bury), Dussault, Factor, Fair, Glen, Heaps, Jean, MacLean (Prince), MacNicol, McCuaig, McCulloch, McIntosh, McLean (Simcoe East), Mullins, Gauthier, Pelletier, Perley, Power, Purdy, Rickard, Robichaud, St-Pere, Stevens, Stewart, Stirling, Taylor (Norfolk), Turgeon, Turner, Wermenlinger and Wood, notwithstanding section one of standing order 65 in relation to the number of members thereof, be appointed to study and report on the following subjects:
(a)	Methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts in Canada and in other countries and to make suggestions to the house in connection therewith;
(b)	Methods whereby:	(I) the source and
disposition of sums received and expended in promoting the return of members of the House of Commons may be readily traceable; (II) publicity may be given to all receipts and expenditures in connection therewith; (III) the cost of elections to candidates may be reduced; (IV) the amount that may be spent by or on behalf of a candidate in his election campaign may be limited;
And that the said special committee have power to send for persons papers and records, to examine witnesses under oath and report from time to time.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this motion is to set up again for this year a committee which has been functioning for the past three sessions of this parliament. During the 1936 session the committee studied and reported on such matters as proportional representation, the alternative vote, compulsory registration and voting. During the session of 1937 it considered a large number of proposals which had been made to this house, and particularly to the committee, having for their object the revision of the elections act. Of these proposals, something over one hundred in number, I am informed, some thirty-three were adopted and passed into legislation.
The committee also gave some consideration during the 1937 session to the question of the method of arriving at an equitable redistribution of the seats in this house. During the session of 1938, in the light of the information they had gained from the suggestions made to them by the public, by members of parliament, by organizations, and also by the chief electoral officer, whose long experience in matters of this kind formed the basis of his recommendations, the committee studied and finally recommended unanimously



Elections and Electoral Districts
an act known as the Dominion Elections Act, which, with some minor amendments, finally passed this house. I think it can be said, generally speaking, that this act, so far as we are able to judge, since it has not been in operation in an actual theatre of war, has given general satisfaction.
There remain for the consideration of the committee two subjects which are cognate to those already discussed, namely, first, that of methods of effecting redistribution of seats in this house, and second, the question of election and campaign expenditures.
With respect to the redistribution of seats, I think the advisability and even the necessity of remodelling the procedure whereby every ten years or so this house is made the theatre of a somewhat unseemly, undignified and utterly confusing scramble for personal or political advantage, should be evident to all. The difficulty of making an equitable distribution of seats in any country is increased many fold in this country, where we must take into consideration diversity of interests, economic and social; the racial distinctions which exist; the growth of population; and the varying movements of our population brought about to some extent by economic causes in our cities, and in the rural districts, by the opening up of our hinterland. I say this country is an extremely difficult one to redistribute, and that makes it all the more necessary that there should be a drastic change in the system which we have followed up to the present.
As hon. members of the house know, these redistributions have taken place as a result of conferences, of meetings of committees, and finally of what you might almost call a battle royal in this house. It is inevitable no matter which party is in power that there should be complaints and that the distribution of seats will not meet wfith the approval of all. There are to-day, as there have been in the past, what I might call almost appalling inequalities of distribution. To cite only a few of them: In the province of Quebec, the constituency of Argenteuil has 11,122 voters and sends one member to this house. Another rural constituency, that of Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, has 30,363 voters and sends only one representative to this house. Among the urban constituencies in the city of Montreal, St. Lawrence-St. George, with 22,549 voters, sends one member, and St. James, with 54,760 voters, sends one member. It is not surprising that there has arisen a suspicion that the redistribution was undertaken or was carried out not so much in the interests of giving a better distribution of seats but, on the part of some government, to have a greater
[Mr. Power. 1
number of their own followers in the house. But I say and repeat that this would happen no matter what government were in power, and we can only come to the conclusion upon looking over the ground that there should be evolved some method other than the law of the jungle-might is right-in order to bring about a distribution which would be fair to the people of Canada.
With this object in view, the committee instructed its counsel to inquire into the systems in vogue in other countries, particularly in the newer countries of the British empire. At this distance, at least, it would appear that the legislation in force in Australia and New Zealand could perhaps be adapted to our needs, and the counsel for the committee has made a study of this legislation and is prepared to submit to the committee a draft bill, not by any means as a formal bill or as a government bill, but in order that it may be able to make a further study of these matters. The draft bill would contain some such provisions as this: That there be set up a commission, presided over by a judge of the supreme court, and joined to him the surveyor general of Canada and perhaps one other member; that when the redistribution of any particular province was being studied, one or two persons from that province might join in the deliberations; that there should be public meetings held throughout the country and representatives heard from the different bodies; and that this commission would draw up a plan of redistribution. I should say first that the commission would be given instructions, because in this country particularly instructions would be necessary: instructions, for instance, as to the basis of redistribution, which basis, as is already well known, is laid down in the British North America Act, the basis whereby each province is allotted a certain number of members. They might also be given instructions with regard to such fundamental factors as the physical-geographical features, means of communication, existing boundaries of electoral districts both federal and provincial, and boundaries of administrative areas. The object in suggesting a bill to the committee is to give the committee something to work on which might stimulate thought and perhaps eventually action. I can only say that if the committee sees its way clear to bring in a recommendation and this house were to pass some such legislation, it would earn our commendation and gratitude.
Now a word or two with respect to the other matter which is referred to the committee, namely:
Methods W'hereby: (I) the source and disposition of sums received and expended in promoting the return of members of the House of

Elections and Electoral Districts
Commons may be readily traceable; (II) publicity may be given to all receipts and expenditures in connection therewith; (III) the cost of elections to candidates may be reduced; (IV) the amount that may be spent by or on behalf of a candidate in his election campaign may be limited.
Last year a bill entitled the Political Expenditures Act was introduced into this house and immediately sent to the committee. Owing to the fact that nearly all the time of the committee was taken up with the study and the moulding of the Dominion Elections Act-which had to have precedence over any other business, because had there been no dominion elections act passed last session there would have been no provision in our statutes for the holding of a general election had one beep necessary last year-it was impossible to give more than casual study to the political expenditures bill. But the committee did report this, on motion of Mr. Robichaud;
Resolved that the committee report on Bill No. 90-	.
That was the political expenditures bill.
-as follows: Your committee approves of the objects of Bill No. 90 and recommends that a similar bill be introduced at the next session of parliament and referred to a committee of the house for its consideration.
I should say that generally speaking, from what we have been able to ascertain, from correspondence and from comments in the press, the idea of the Political Expenditures Act was well received. I believed last year, and I still believe, that there were no faults in it which could not have been corrected by amendments made in committee. But I am willing to admit that a hasty perusal of the bill, such as in all probability was given by most of us, would seem to indicate that it was based on an academic idealism not quite consistent with our hard-boiled political philosophy.
The objections raised last year were mainly these: that there was no necessity for a special act, and that it would be better if the whole law with respect to elections were found within the four corners of a single enactment; that the procedure might be costly, and that the nomenclature was new and should not be changed. For instance, there was mention of the corporation sole, of the trustee, and so on-all words which meant what we have been accustomed to call the official agent. There was the suggestion that the method of keeping the accounts was somewhat involved, and that certain very onerous duties were placed upon the banks who should keep the accounts of political candidates-duties which it was not quite likely that the banks would discharge.
It was thought, also, that the administration of the act would require the setting up of an entirely new department, and generally speaking that the act was too complicated and that some simpler method might perhaps be found.
Towards the end of the last session, in reply to the right hon. Mr. Bennett, I said, as reported at page 4230 of Hansard;
It is quite possible that there were contained in that bill certain provisions which did not meet with the entire approval of all the members of this house or even of all the members of the committee. I am under the impression that sooner or later, possibly this year, the committee will accept at least the principle of the bill, and it will perhaps be left for some of us to work out the details in a manner which will be more acceptable to the members of the house generally.
During the recess the subject matter of the bill, perhaps more than the bill itself, was made the object of further study, and it will be found quite possible to submit to the committee suggestions which, by amending only two sections of the Dominion Elections Act itself, will achieve the same result as was sought last year in a separate bill, and will embody in one statute instead of two all the important and essential features which appeal to those sincere in their advocacy of reform.
It is with some misgiving that I mention sincerity in the same breath as reform. Reform, that staid and respectable goddess, has of late been sued too often and too successfully by pseudo-messiahs not to have been divested of some of her pristine virtue. The peoples of this north American continent have not, of late, been particularly enamoured of reform movements as such, and I fear that perhaps last year too much emphasis was placed on reform and moral uplift, thus arousing a certain antagonism and prejudice which derogated from the really true and practical value of the legislation which was introduced.
I am not unmindful, either, that the legislation itself, not unexpectedly, met with the gibes and sneers of the sceptical, the perhaps ill-disposed, and certainly of the ribald; and it was not very long before the bill was known as the "lily-white" bill, the "snow-white" bill and the "purity purge." To have received more support in the house, it should really have been entitled "an act to prevent the exploitation of parliamentary candidates, and to promote economy in elections."
It is essentially a businesslike piece of legislation, and it was an attempt so to modify the law that the candidates would be enabled to apply to election campaigns the same open, sane businesslike methods that they apply

Elections and Electoral Districts
in their own business. It was most emphatically not the deathbed repentance of a reformed political rake who, with the zeal of the convert, is anxious to cram new-found civic virtue down the throats of his colleagues.
I should like to repeat what I have already said, that the cost of election campaigns is too high, and that some means must be found to lower it. I should like to repeat also that political corruption, wholesale bribery and the distribution of liquor has to a large extent disappeared from our political morality, usages and customs. It has been succeeded, though, by more modern methods of propaganda and proselytism, which are almost as expensive. Electors, rightly or wrongly, believe that campaign funds are unlimited, and that they are to be dug or gouged out of an almost bottomless purse. As soon as an election is in prospect, candidates, organizers and supporters get together and decide that their man must have the largest and best-equipped hall in the community. He must have the best brass band, and his advertising must be on the front page. He must have the best and the longest possible time on the radio. His placards and posters must be the most artistic, and if Rembrandt or Titian were alive to-day they would be hired to decorate the fenceposts of the neighbourhood with the portraits of the candidate.
It is absolutely futile in many instances for the candidate to protest that he has no funds. The faithful insist that he must have the same consideration as any other candidate, and that the constituency is being discriminated against unless he is as well advertised as the very leaders of the party in the country. The way to avoid this tendency towards extravagant expenditure is, I believe, first, to publicize the aggregate amount of funds received by the party; second, to publicize the expenditures made in any election campaign; third, to limit the amount which may be expended in a constituency; fourth, to have detailed accounts of every cent spent in a constituency made and reported, I can rather imagine that if this measure is enacted something like this may well happen. When the election is in prospect the candidate will call in Bill Smith from the fifth range of the second concession of blank township, and he will say, "Well, Bill, how are things going this year?" Bill will say, "Not so good, you know; not so good. The opposition are burning up the ground with their automobiles; they are going around from house to house; we shall have to make pretty good preparations here." Eventually it will come down to something like this; "Well, what is it

going to be this year?" Bill will probably say, "Two or three hundred dollars; you know, we will have to have a brass band, and meetings, and this and that." The candidate probably will say to Bill, "It can't be done this year any more; it can't be done as it was in the past, because some fool in parliament has just passed a bill to prevent me from spending more than 83,000 in this constituency. The other side are in exactly the same boat."
I know exactly what Bill's first reaction will be. It will be that of one of my friends who, on being told that there was to be no liquor used in the constituency by either side, said, "Well, I hope to hell you will both be beaten," which is the vernacular for the Shakespearean "a plague o' both your houses." But when Bill is persuaded that this is the law, I think he will finally come round, and the last straw that will eventually convert him will be this statement: "All right; if you do get $50 or $100 it is going to be printed in the blue-book and all your neighbours will read about it." Then I think Bill will come round and do for nothing what in his so-called loyalty he had always boasted he was doing for the party for nothing anyway.
The suggestions which are proposed to be incorporated in the submission to be put before the committee, and which are really those which were contained in the political expenditures bill last year, without some of the frills to which I have referred, will cover such points as these: Limitation of the amount that may be spent in a constituency; books and detailed accounts to be kept by an official; the detailed accounts to be incorporated in a return to be sent to the chief electoral officer-not, as is the case at the present time, to be sent to the returning officers and hidden away; the chief electoral officer to examine all returns and make inquiry if necessary; the chief electoral officer to make reports to the Speaker after inquiry made; the chief electoral officer to publish summary returns in the Canada Gazette and a similar summary in the blue-book; and lastly, national and provincial federal organizations to keep detailed accounts and make returns to the chief electoral officer, and publication in the Canada Gazette and the blue-book to follow.
The point I should like to stress here is that if we take even the provisions which already exist in our legislation, and clarify them and strengthen them and extend them to provide for real instead of veiled publicity, we can and will persuade even the unbelievers among the faithful that the law no longer winks at evasions, and we shall be giving

Elections and Electoral Districts
greater satisfaction to the public. It is true, as was said last year by a number of people, that you cannot make people good by act of parliament. You cannot by act of parliament prevent people from committing murder either, but you can by placing laws on the statute book make it inconvenient for him to do so and extremely uncomfortable for him afterwards if he does.
I firmly believe that there is no necessity for all the expenditure which is made in political campaigns. I do not believe that all this expenditure alters one single vote. If the people have made up their minds to vote a certain way, 5,11 the money in the world will not change that determination. I also think that this legislation or any legislation such as this cannot be passed unless it has the wholehearted support of every corner of the house and every individual member in it. And I think that support will be forthcoming if hon. members realize that this is a business proposal, that in a simple and practical way it is proposed to put candidates in such a position that they shall be able to resist pressure, and that the law can be enforced with a minimum of evasion. I think we are all sincere in our desire to remedy the abuses and improve the machinery of our present electoral system. The public has a right to assume that the representative whom it sends to parliament has been elected on his own merits and without any suspicion that he is here because he or his friends or his party or his supporters had the longest purse.
If a measure such as is suggested is passed by parliament, its effective operation will be obstructed only by those who in the past have profited by the deficiencies in the existing system; the remainder of the population will, I believe, be extremely glad to have in their hand some weapon to assist them in fighting racketeering in election campaigns, and I am sure that parliament will receive the hearty endorsement and grateful approbation of all who are sincerely interested in the betterment of our social and political conditions.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Leeds):: I am
sure the house is very much interested in this double-barrelled resolution. As a member of the special committee of last year on the elections act I desire to address myself very briefly to the subject.
It must be clear to every hon. member that both proposals set forth in the resolution are difficult and complicated. First, as to redistribution I assume we may fairly conclude that there is no intention to bring about a redistribution on the eve of a general
election; that the redistribution that has been made will stand, and that the next election, whenever it comes, will be fought on the basis of that redistribution. I take it that the object of the resolution and the bill to be founded upon it is to adopt a different method for arriving at a redistribution of the seats. The minister has very properly pointed out how complicated and difficult that is. We have made considerable progress since the early days when a redistribution was a purely partisan measure. Later the method was adopted of appointing a joint committee representing all parties in the house, and that committee advised a plan of redistribution.
It must be admitted that there are inequalities, but from what the minister has said I think these inequalities are inevitable. When you take into consideration the density of population in some parts of Canada as compared with others, the unit of urban as compared with rural representation, the fact that one province has a fixed number of seats on which the representation in the other provinces is based-all these facts tend to complicate and make difficult the adoption of a fixed unit for a constituency. In taking part in the work of these committees I have been struck by the discrepancies in the province from which the minister comes. I remember on one occasion pointing out some of them and suggesting that they be corrected. The answer I received was that the number of seats in that province was fixed; that it was not necessary to redistribute that province; that conditions had become settled; that these constituencies were now well known, and that therefore they should be left as they were. I do not think that argument is good; nevertheless it prevailed in many instances. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has laid down the principle that the unit of representation in the cities might very well be larger than in rural districts. That accounts for some of the other discrepancies. Then area has to be taken into consideration. As to whether there should be a commission of judges, or how we could arrive at a redistribution, I am not prepared to say. All these methods have been advocated for the last quarter century, and have been studied; but the committee was not prepared to recommend any change in the existing method. I doubt if the present committee, constituted as it is and having given the subject the study it did last session, would be prepared in the dying days of a parliament to recommend any new method of redistribution. Of course that is only my personal opinion; it may be that I am quite wrong.

Elections and Electoral Districts
Then as to the other feature of the bill to which the minister has referred, I agree that if existing legislation-


Charles Gavan Power: This really is not a bill; it is a reference to the committee in order that they may study these methods.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is quite right. I agree with the minister that if existing legislation could be enforced, many of the evils would disappear. There are those who believe that we have about as much legislation now as we can enforce, and that it would be difficult to carry out anything much more drastic. W7e all agree, however, that if it is possible to correct the abuses, injustices and hardships that are suffered by candidates in these elections, everything possible should be done to bring about that result, and I can see no objection to giving the matter further study. That is the way the resolution impresses me at the present time. Both these questions are very important, difficult and complicated, and I hope a further study of them may bring about some improvement.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer briefly to the two recommendations made by the minister, referring first to paragraph (b) of the resolution. The bill which the minister sent to the committee last year in reference to the control of election expenses was not very well received, as he has said. That unfavourable reception did not come from one party only, but from all parties. Feeling that something should be done I made a suggestion to the minister last year which, if it had been accepted and incorporated in the bill, I believe would have gone a long way towards reducing the cost of elections to candidates, and would have been of some help in eliminating corruption, using that word in regard to election expenses that are not reported by the candidates in the returns they forward to the chief electoral officer.
My suggestion was that we should follow the system that is followed pretty well throughout the British empire with the exception of Canada; because I believe Canada is the only part of the empire in which the control of the polls is entirely in the hands of one political party. By this I mean that the deputy returning officer and the clerk, the two officials who control the poll, are appointed in Canada by one political party, but I do not think that situation exists anywhere else throughout the empire.
If the minister will listen to me for a moment, the reason I am referring to this matter is that last year in my opinion-I may

be wrong-if the minister had not permitted his views to be expressed to the majority of the committee, that suggestion would have been incorporated in the act.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend should not say that. He knows that I attended only one meeting of the committee, and that the only time I opposed his suggestion was when it came up in the house. It is not fair to accuse me of influencing the committee when I was not there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the minister will just listen to me-


Mr. BRADETTE:: Never mind the insinuations.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not need any suggestions from the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette).


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Always insinuating.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member can get up and speak for himself. I do not want any interference from him, and I will thank him to remember that. I am not speaking on this matter for the mere purpose of talking. I think the members of the committee last year will be fair enough to admit that I have made perhaps as exhaustive an inquiry into election matters as any other member of this House of Commons, and I am now presenting to the house my best opinion on the subject.
To resume, when the matter of having in the polling booths two officials representing the two political parties was first presented to the committee last year, I am satisfied that a majority were in favour of it. The matter was considered favourably for some length of time, but towards the end of the meetings of the committee it was definitely outlined that it would not be acceptable, and therefore it was not adopted.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Might I ask the hon. member a question, instead of making a speech on the subject? Is it not a fact that when this subject was first broached in the committee last year different members expressed the desire to have it held over for a thorough discussion later; and that when that discussion took place it was decided not to adopt the suggestion?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Perhaps it was something along that line. The committee, in other words, were quite disposed to consider the matter, and it might have carried. I may be wrong in that, of course, for every member of the committee has a right to his own opinion. I will repeat, however, that in my judgment that would be a good method to-

Elections and Electoral Districts
eliminate unnecessary expense and certainly a lot of corruption. For instance, in my own case I did not have a scrutineer at the last election. Why? I determined that I would not pay a scrutineer; I could not, when making the return of my election expenses, take the oath if I had done so and the scrutineer had voted. Therefore I did not have a scrutineer. And when my election expenses were sent in to the returning officer every cheque issued for the payment of election expenses had a voucher attached to it. My return was one hundred per cent true. In the last election many members of parliament had scrutineers. I am not going to make any comment on their having done so, but I believe it was an infraction of the act to vote them.


Charles Gavan Power: Would my hon. friend cite the section of the act to which he refers?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, they had to be
paid.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: We never have paid scrutineers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The conversation passing back and forth across the floor is in the jocular manner in which the minister spoke of this matter a moment ago. Every one of us knows that there are many elections which have cost many thousands of dollars and which have been reported to the returning officer as costing only three or four thousand dollars. Many expenditures were made for which vouchers were not handed in.
That is one way in which the act can be improved. I have said that I believe Canada is the only member of the British commonwealth of nations which places two officials of the same party in the polling booth. In England the polling booths are not under the control of the parties; they are largely under the control of the municipalities. In Australia the officials are appointed with no relation to their politics, and remain in office indefinitely.
I should like to say one further word about Ontario. The minister's remarks about redistribution were general and did not apply particularly to Ontario. There were thirty-one Ontario seats which were not altered in any way during the last redistribution. Everyone knows that we tried to set up certain principles which should be followed, one being that where a town was located on a county boundary it should be placed in the riding in the county to which the reeve attends as a county councillor. I believe there is only one town in Ontario to which that
rule does not apply. We tried to adhere to county boundaries, and I think we did very well. We tried to set reasonable population limits for the different ridings. The redistribution called for an approximate population of 44.000 odd for each riding, which was based upon the division of the population of Quebec by 65. But we were obstructed in our efforts and were forced to do two or three things to which any one with reasonable judgment should have been opposed. Where you have a county with a population of 16,000 to 18,000 adjacent to a county with a population of approximately 25,000, they should be placed together. But because of an agitation which arose in a certain part of Ontario during the last redistribution we were forced to allow certain ridings to remain largely as they were.
If this matter is to be referred to a committee I think certain principles should be laid down. I certainly want to support any reasonable move toward a reduction in expenses, and I firmly believe that certain principles should be incorporated into our act to apply to redistributions.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think that this is the time when we should go into the details of the elections act. However, I wish to say a word or two in commendation of the minister for the general principles he has laid down this afternoon as to how elections should be conducted in the future. I do not intend to say very much about the elections of the past.
When the minister speaks of a substantial reduction in the cost of elections, I am sure he strikes a responsive chord in all sections of this house. Elections to-day are far too costly, although I cannot say that with regard to my own or with regard to those conducted by members of my group. Some members of our group have conducted their elections with expenditures of $400 or $500, in some cases even less than that. If candidates in fairly large constituencies can be elected for $400 or $500 there is no reason why it should cost certain candidates approximately $50,000, as has been stated on the floor of this house in the past. I think the candidates themselves may be to blame in this particular regard. If a candidate wants to spend money during an election, it is the easiest thing in the world to find persons who will come along and accept that money for work which they may or may not do.
A word with regard to redistribution. There is no doubt that anomalies exist in connection with the size of some of our constitu-

Elections and Electoral Districts
encies. We have some constituencies with populations of from 25,000 to 30,000 adjoining constituencies with populations of 60,000, 70,000 or possibly 80,000. When the committee gets down to work I think it should be able to fix certain limits with regard to population, so much for an industrial constituency and so much for a rural constituency. I am quite willing to concede that rural constituencies should contain smaller populations than industrial ridings, but I do not think that the disproportions which exist at the present time are entirely fair. However, the committee will have to go into this matter.
As far as the members of this group are concerned, we give our wholehearted endorsa-tion to the princples laid down this afternoon by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power)-or may I also call him the minister of elections?


Mr. R. A. PELLETIER (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I believe all hon. members of the house noted with satisfaction the enthusiasm with which the minister introduced this motion, and I hasten to assure him that it is with a spirit of cooperation that I rise in my place. I feel, as he does, that this is a step forward which will be well received by the great majority of the people of this country. I desire to congratulate him upon his statement when introducing the resolution, as well as upon the remarks he made last year when he introduced his bill. Last year when he spoke on the same type of resolution he said that there were two points which would be brought up during the course of the discussion. Perhaps I had better deal with them now.
The first was that central campaign funds were necessary and essential. To that I would reply that while they may not be absolutely necessary or essential, undoubtedly they are of some advantage to the public. However important we may think our policies, our pronouncements, our discussions and our debates may be, we must realize that outside of this house and throughout the country there are many thousands of persons who are far less interested in us, in our activities and in governmental activities than they are in the sport pages of the daily newspapers, in the radio or in the movies. I believe with the minister that political funds are necessary to a certain extent. Nevertheless, this question of political funds has caused a great deal of misapprehension, if I may use that word, throughout the country. From time to time we find references as to the effect of political funds upon the political life of our country. I

should like to cite the words uttered by the minister last year as reported on page 2027 of Hansard. He said:
Undoubtedly there is growing throughout the country a contempt for politicians and distrust of certain phases of party politics. There is a belief firmly implanted in the minds of many thoughtful men that the result of electoral campaigns is not a true reflection of the views and opinions of the people, but that these views and opinions have been influenced by propaganda and sometimes by corrupt and corrupting funds raised by people who hope to profit by the advent to, or the maintenance of one party or another in, places of power and responsibility.
The minister believes, and I believe, that this will meet with the approval of the vast majority of the people of this country. A motion is now introduced to set up a committee to recommend amendments to our present law so that it may never again be said that Canada has such a thing as corrupt political funds. That is why this committee is being appointed.
Political campaign funds are being discussed from time to time by various people and by the press in this country. Only the other day I happened to come across an article in the Saturday Evening Post, which in its issue of February 4, 1939, speaks of a person, a United States citizen, I believe, whom they call "Sell 'Em Ben Smith." He is now head of Thomson and McKinnon, which the Saturday Evening Post describes as:
-an old, respected, profitable, Wall street stock brokerage house.
It goes on to say that Sell 'Em Ben Smith:
.	. . succeeded his friend, Jack Bickell, on
January 1,	1939. Smith and Bickell are
partners in Wall street and in Canadian gold mines as well.
He is also, according to this article in the Saturday Evening Post, a heavy contributor to the campaign funds of President Roosevelt. I do not know that there is anything wrong about this gentleman coming to this country. Nevertheless it is known that he has contributed to political campaign funds elsewhere, and now we find him visiting Canada from time to time. I say this not because I believe there is something wrong about it, but because I believe it is time that we protected our own interests in Canada and that we avoided any suggestion of anything wrong being done in this country with respect to campaign funds. That is why I particularly welcome the motion the minister has introduced.
Apart from that, there have been what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) likes to call allegations throughout this country about campaign funds. The most recent and notable examples are certain articles which

Elections and Electoral Districts
appeared in the daily papers published in the city of Ottawa. Not long ago on its front page the Citizen carried a notice to the effect that there was need for a judicial inquiry to get campaign fund facts. The article went on to make various statements on the front page, when a thing like that is published abroad it tends to give the impression to the public at large that there is something absolutely wrong with our present system of campaign funds.


Charles Edward Bothwell: What is the date of the publication?


René-Antoine Pelletier: March 3, 1939. I am not sure if that is the issue in which this notice appeared on the front page, but the issue of March 3 carries an article exactly similar to that which appeared on the front page either the day before or the day afterwards.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Is it a letter?


René-Antoine Pelletier: No, an editorial, entitled "Need of judicial inquiry to get campaign fund facts." From time to time also in the same newspaper there have been articles to the effect that campaign funds were bedeviling Canada. An editorial appeared, for instance, on March 7, 1939, in the course of which statements like this were made:
For years the bottom of the St. Lawrence river has been dredged below Montreal in a continuous outpouring of public funds. One result of this dredging has been to lower the water level in Montreal harbour more than seven feet as compared with the level before dredging started. Evidence of this wasteful result of dredging has long been available to both parties, but they say nothing about it. A judicial inquiry into the relationship of patronage politics to dredging contracts would startle Canadian taxpayers.
Articles of that kind travel throughout the length and 'breadth of this country. Again, last year, during the debate on the address, the then leader of the opposition, Mr. Bennett, made certain statements which were characterized as allegations or vague rumours to the effect that levies were common in connection with contracts of the Canadian National Railways. Desiring to render a service to the people of this country by dispelling such rumours I brought forward a motion at that time calling for an investigation of these matters, but the Prime Minister told me that the manner in which I had proposed my motion was calculated to involve the fate of the government if put to a vote, and suggested that if the question were brought forward in such a way that members would feel free to support or reject the motion, he would welcome it. Let me make that quite clear.
I have taken the trouble to search Hansard of last year for the exact words the Prime Minister used on that occasion. At page 464 he said:
We are only too anxious to see that our electoral laws are made as effective as possible to prevent anything in the nature of corruption. The government intends, in pursuance of its promise at the last session, to deal with the franchise and with the electoral laws again this year, so there will be an opportunity for all hon. members to come forward with any suggestions which they may have, any concrete, practical proposals which they may care to make. The government will he glad to consider any such proposals. I here and now invite hon. members, instead of wasting their time in doing what they can to defame the institution of parliament and democratic government in this country, to come along with practical suggestions whereby we can prevent in the future anything of the kind which they to-day are imagining has taken place in the past, or which actually may have taken place in the past.
So that the proposal I intend to make to-day in the form of an amendment to this resolution is really the result of a call from the Prime Minister to every member of the house to lend his assistance to the government so that these things which he called shadows may forever be dispelled from the minds of the people.
I know for a fact that editorials and articles such as those to which I have referred to-day have rankled in the minds of various members of this house. Just the other day the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) criticized bitterly the attitude of certain newspapers in this country. He said at page 1440 of Hansard, speaking of the Ottawa Citizen: _
That newspaper has made certain statements in the last two or three weeks and I suggest right now to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that the editor should be brought before the bar of the house and be required to give, what I know he cannot give, one tittle of evidence that either the party opposite or this party has collected money improperly.
He went on to refer to statements that had been made by the Citizen, and replying to him the Prime Minister said that he agreed with him in certain particulars, especially with reference to certain newspaper editorials. Furthermore the Prime Minister suggested that he would request the public accounts committee to summon this writer before it, then and there to give under oath any evidence he might have. I believe the Prime Minister suggested the public accounts committee simply because at that particular time there had been a fuss made about a certain contract given by the Department of National Defence. It was well known and thoroughly understood by everyone concerned that there was no suggestion of political corruption

Elections and Electoral Districts
involved in this contract, but because, I believe, these articles had appeared at that particular time the Prime Minister suggested the public accounts committee. If I remember correctly the government had not then given notice of the resolution which we are debating to-day, and perhaps up to then it had not been the intention of the government to move any such resolution as this with respect to campaign funds. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we are going to try to do away with corruption, the best place to investigate these matters is not before the public accounts committee but before the special committee on elections contemplated in the motion brought forward to-day by 'the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power).
These are matters which I believe we should consider in connection with the motion now before the house. However, I do not believe what I have said so far is the strongest argument which I could use in support of the amendment which I desire to propose. The motion provides that a special committee consisting of certain members be appointed to study and report on the following subjects: (a) methods of redistribution; and
(b) Methods whereby: (I) the source and disposition of sums received and expended in promoting the return of members of the House of Commons may be readily traceable; (II) publicity may be given to all receipts and expenditures in connection therewith; (III) the cost of elections to candidates may be reduced; (IV) the amount that may be spent by or on behalf of a candidate in his election campaign may be limited.
I know it is the sincere desire of the government that the committee charged with the responsibility of bringing back to the House of Commons the recommendations which they seek, should have the greatest possible latitude so as to bring back the best possible report.
I know it is the intention of the minister, of the government, and as a matter of fact of every hon. member, to bring about such conditions in Canada that allegations and vague rumours will no longer appear in this phase of our national life.
Last year, in the course of a debate very similar to this, the Prime Minister was very resentful about the fact that he had not been given any notice of the amendment. He stated at that time that he had relied on certain rumours which he had heard in the corridors of parliament. My desire being, as I said at the beginning, to cooperate with and assist the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for this motion, I took the trouble this year to send the ministers a copy of my amendment several days ahead of time so that they would not have to rely on rumours in

the corridors of parliament but would be fully notified as to my intention concerning this matter. The amendment is to the effect that we should have greater latitude in the way of gathering the information which this committee should have in order that it may bring in a better report. In this amendment I have referred to a definite period of years within which, I suggest, investigations should be made. I have fixed ten as the number of years, and my purpose in doing that is that we may embrace the newer political parties. I should not want it to be said that the Social Credit party were not called upon to do what other parties, new or old, were required to do. I should like all of them to be treated as on an equal basis. For that reason I have provided sufficient time to go back to the very beginning of these movements, so that they may be included in any investigation which will take place.
After all, when it comes down to investigating the matter of donations to political parties, I believe the Prime Minister has agreed from time to time that such action is quite proper and wholly in order. He went further; he said last year that not only was there one man responsible for gathering party funds but that as far as his own party were concerned they kept a whole committee to do that very thing; the record of that statement is on the pages of Hansard. The then leader of the opposition felt the same way about it. He related various circumstances of which he knew; and he insisted that certain parties contributed to political funds in the same way that they would contribute to their church. One man in particular said that his mother had taught him that, of every dollar he earned, there should be first a certain portion for the church, and second, a certain portion for the political party to which he belonged. In view of the attitude taken by the former leader of the opposition and the present leader of the government, no one should hesitate to come forward and give this committee which it is proposed to set up the information which is desired by all in order to facilitate its task. I move, seconded by Mr. Fair, the following amendment to the motion;
That the motion be amended by adding the following words immediately after the words "special committee" in the last sentence of the motion:
"in order to facilitate the carrying out of instructions contained in paragraph (b) of the resolution, have power to investigate the amounts of contributions held at various times by various federal political parties, or party assistants on behalf of such parties, in Canada,

Elections and Electoral Districts
for the past ten years, the sources from which such contributions came and the dispositions from same contributions of all sums of one hundred dollars or over, and ..."
I believe that the house, the Prime Minister and the government will be only too glad to adopt this motion. By doing so we shall dispel rumours, we shall put on the table the cards we have at our disposal, and no one in future could write articles such as have been written recently. There would be no such thing as allegations or vague rumours, and it no longer would be necessary [DOT]to get up in the house and plead in defence of the honour of the house itself or of any particular hon. member.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I do this at the indirect request of the Prime Minister. Last year he invited us to assist him in order to help the House of Commons to do away with these vague rumours, and I believe that he will receive my sincere effort at cooperation in the spirit in which I move this amendment.


Mr. ROBERT FAIR (Battle River):: As a member for the past three sessions of the committee on elections and franchise I want to express in my first words commendation of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) for having brought in this resolution. Last year, as the minister has pointed out, the question was before the committee, but because of lack of time we had to leave it over for the time being. I am very glad that he has brought it up agair. this year. I hope that his colleagues will see to it that the appropriate measure is brought forward and carried to a successful end in the spirit in which the minister has presented the matter to-day.
I cannot agree with everything the minister has said in commenting upon certain things which have happened-for instance, as to free liquor at election time. I had the pleasure of visiting Saskatchewan last year during the provincial election, and free liquor was one of the big things in that province. Again, those who went to Edmonton East during the federal by-election know that many other free things were in evidence right there in Edmonton.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Did the liquor come from Alberta, along with the promises?


Robert Fair: You can go to the provincial by-election in Athabaska and find out about the free liquor, the free dances, and free music which were in evidence. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) has mumbled something, and I could tell him about something which happened last June,
or about the end of May, very close to his home, during the provincial campaign. If he wants to find out anything in connection with Saskatchewan he does not have to go far from his own doorstep. He will find plenty right around there-enough to satisfy him.


Malcolm McLean: Very smart. If there was any liquor there, you brought it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Promises and liquor.


Malcolm McLean: We are long
past that stage.


Robert Fair: If I might have the attention of the house I would tell the hon. member for Melfort that I do not touch liquor, and I did not bring any into his constituency. The Liberals saw to it that there was plenty of liquor on hand-and free, at that.
Apparently the Minister of Pensions and National Health believes that open confession is good for the soul. If we are to believe everything the papers tell us, he is soon to go to that haven of political rest, and will not need to worry about political contributions. If he goes there I certainly wish him happiness-just so long as the country sees to it that that haven is put up with.
We are toid that too much money is spent in connection with the election of certain members. I am not going to specify any member in particular, but I believe I could tell of one whose election on one occasion cost $70,000. I understand a member draws something like $4,000 as indemnity, and when we realize that $66,000 above the amount of the indemnity was spent to elect that man, then we must believe that somebody, somewhere, was possibly contributing some of that $66,000, expecting to get something in return.
Statements have been made in the house since I have been a member which, while not offered as definite charges, have included some very strong allegations and are sufficient, I believe, to lead anybody to the belief that this measure should be put through. Not only should the measure pass, but it should have teeth in it to make it effective. If hon. members cannot be elected without corruption, then we cannot expect anything but corruption in connection with some of the legislation which comes before the house.
I would recommend that members come here free of party or contributory funds. In that way we would probably have better legislation and a better Canada than we have today. The conditions which exist are the result of operations within the parties which have held office for a number of years, and I must say that they are conditions of which



Elections and Electoral Districts
I am ashamed. If a change in our election practices will bring about better conditions for the people of Canada, then let us have that change, and have it now.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the observations of the minister in presenting the resolution. It does seem to me that since last session an effort has been made to provide something on which the committee which is being set up may work. As chairman of that committee for the last three sessions of parliament I must say that I believe every member was most anxious at each sitting to do the best he could to see that the elections act was brought to the point where it would be the most effective act we have ever had in Canada dealing with this subject.
The Political Expenditures Act came to the committee towards the close of the session. It was under discussion at two or three sittings, and although most committee members expressed themselves in sympathy with the idea, some of them were not altogether in favour of the terms of the bill. It was for that reason the resolution which passed the committee was worded in the terms quoted to-day. We recommended and expected that a committee would be set up this year to further study the principles embodied in the bill, and I believe I am safe in saying that every member of the committee was more or less in sympathy with the suggestions made by the minister to-day, although possibly not in all cases with the details.
When the committee is set up I believe it will have the duty of considering all the suggestions which can be made by the minister and other members of the committee who have studied the political expenditures measure, and by others from whom the committee can get further information which may be required.
I need hardly say every hon. member realizes that the first part of the resolution requires considerable study. I refer, of course, to the paragraph dealing with methods used to effect a redistribution. In 1937 the committee had the opportunity of devoting considerable time to a discussion of this problem, and although they did not report, it was not, as suggested by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), because they could not come to a finding. They believed the matter would have to be returned again to the committee for further study. From the discussions which took place with respect to redistribution, it was my opinion that an arrangement 
which would be a substantial improvement over the method now in vogue could be arrived at.
With respect to paragraph (b) of the resolution, and the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) I can say only it does seem to me that the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) part of which was read to the house to-day, and as we listened to it last year,' expressed the very opposite of the interpretation the hon. member for Peace River has placed upon it. The amendment proposes that a committee of the house inquire into contributions which have been made to campaign funds over the last ten years, and ascertain the effect and influence of those contributions, where they were spent, or what disposition was made of them. Well, why stop at ten years? If we are going into an investigation of that kind we might as well go back to confederation. It seems to me the only object the hon. member can have in mind in asking the committee to make an investigation of that kind, in connection with the paragraph which refers to the "methods whereby the source and disposition of sums received and expended in promoting the return of members of the House of Commons may be readily traceable"

or the second, third or fourth subparagraphs in that paragraph-is that the group to which he belongs may gain something which would be of assistance to them. Surely nothing can be gained by investigating the source and disposition of campaign funds for the last ten years, or any other period. If there have been any specific dredging contracts which should be investigated, as referred to in the article quoted, there is ample provision in the rules of this house to enable that to be done. But it is impossible for a committee to do anything as a roving commission such as this amendment proposes.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: What is the hon. member afraid of?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Afraid of nothing. Since the hon. member asks that question, I am free to admit that in the past campaign funds have been used by every party that asked for the votes of the people, whether they called it a campaign fund or anything else. But is there any difference in principle between the man who contributes ten dollars towards the expenses of a campaign when he is not able to give personal service, and the man who drives his car and spends days or perhaps weeks campaigning for some friend or in the interests of the party that he believes is going to give the best government?

Elections and Electoral Districts


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: There is a difference when a corporation gives a large sum of money.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I can see no difference between those two men. Many people have not the opportunity to spend time in campaigning, or perhaps have not the ability to do so. As far as my experience goes, it costs the man who spends his time in that way a lot more than the few dollars another man may contribute to help put over a campaign.
I can see no difference in the principle.
To go back over a period of ten years and investigate all the contributions of over S100 made to any political party in this country, and to find out the disposition of them, I feel confident would take a commission with such roving powers several years, even to make a fairly decent interim report. Everyone admits that there have been campaign funds in the past-


John Charles Landeryou: Is no record kept of these campaign funds?


Charles Edward Bothwell: I can speak only for my own constituency. As far as the campaign is concerned, the official agent files his return of contributions 'received by him. The candidate himself has to make a report of his own expenses and any moneys that came into his hands; as to any money that comes to the central fund, if I might so term it, of any of the parties, I have never seen any record of it. I do not know whether there is any central fund or not in any party. I never have personally received any money from any central fund belonging to the party to which I owe allegiance, and I do not know of any person else receiving any contribution from any central fund of any other party. In any event surely nothing can be gained by going muck-raking over the past ten years.
What this committee has been endeavouring to do during the past three sessions of parliament is to work out an elections act which will clarify everything pertaining to elections, simplify them, make elections less costly. As far as the cost to Canada is concerned, under the Dominion Elections Act we have succeeded in reducing it by a substantial amount and if we can now insert provisions in the act which will save money for the candidate, the object is certainly a worthy one, The resolution itself covers all that we need do.
I have been wondering whether the campaign funds that have been spoken of by hon. members ever had any more influence in an election than the promise of S25 a month that was made in two elections that I know of.


John Charles Landeryou: What is wrong with that?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What a conscience you have!


Charles Edward Bothwell: I believe it had a great deal more effect than any campaign funds I ever knew anything of in the constituency I have the honour to represent.


John Charles Landeryou: Your minister does not agree with you; he said money has no influence.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Well, that $25 a month was to be a continuing thing, practically putting a man on a pension.
As far as I can see, no committee of this house could possibly carry out the terms of the amendment proposed. If I am to be a member of that committee I am ready and willing to spend all the time possible and whatever ability I have in an endeavour to put into effect the objects aimed at-not in the exact form enunciated by the minister;
I am not admitting that everything he said is correct. I believe it is a matter that will require days and weeks of study by the committee; nevertheless I am prepared to do my share in trying to achieve the objects aimed at by the political expenditures bill of last year.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) seemed to be of the opinion that the committee were ready to adopt a suggestion made by him that the deputy returning officer and the poll clerk should be of different political stripe. As chairman of the committee of last year I may say that I did not gain that impression. The matter came up for discussion, several hon. members spoke on it, and then it was simply tabled for later consideration. The report of the evidence contains pages of discussion on it, but the committee decided not to adopt the suggestion. The political expenditures bill, so far as I know, had no influence on the action of the committee in that regard.
I also understood the hon. member for Davenport to say that the situation in the province of Quebec as to the number of voters in various polling subdivisions did not apply to Ontario.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I made no reference whatever to the province of Quebec. I did refer to Ontario.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I just noticed the hon. member was not in his seat for a moment. I have the figures here for Ontario. In Ontario the smallest rural constituency has only 11,073 electors, whereas the largest has 47,870.
1S20

Elections and Electoral Districts


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the population of those constituencies?


Charles Edward Bothwell: The populations are 18,666 and 88,597 respectively.


Mr. MANION:: What are the names of
the constituencies?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Glengarry and Nipissing. Then in regard to urban constituencies, the smallest one-or as closely as we could get it in our investigation-is Danforth, with a population of 41,824 and 29,034 electors. On the other hand Spadina has a population of 82,127, with 52,160 electors. I just mention that to show that the situation described by the minister in regard to the province of Quebec exists in Ontario also, and we can go right across Canada and find the same thing in other provinces.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If I might interrupt my
hon. friend for a moment, I said there were conditions in eastern Ontario, and perhaps western Ontario as well, to which I was opposed and to which other members of the committee were opposed; but we were compelled to allow the ridings to remain as they were because of an agitation that was carried on to retain representation for seats such as Glengarry. We wanted to place Glengarry and Stormont together; we wanted to join Russell and Prescott, but we were not allowed to do so.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I just wanted to explain that.
Another matter which was brought up in connection with redistribution was the relationship between urban and rural constituencies.
I believe every member of the committee was convinced that the urban constituencies should be considerably larger than the rural constituencies, and the evidence taken contains figures as to the relationship in other parts of the empire between rural and urban constituencies.


John Charles Landeryou: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Both-well) speaks with authority; for he said he had no knowledge of any central campaign fund. If he has no such knowledge I do not see how he could be in a position to state that an investigation covering the last ten years would take up so much time or be so difficult as he suggests. The amendment reads:
. In order to facilitate the carrying out of instructions contained in paragraph (b) of the resolution have power to investigate the amounts of contributions held at various times by various federal political parties, or party 
assistants on behalf of such parties, in Canada, tor the past ten years, the sources from which such contributions came and the dispositions from such contributions of all sums of one hundred dollars or over . . .
Surely in the committee it would not be very difficult to establish whether or not there was a central campaign fund; surely it would not be difficult to establish whether there are any records as to the amount of money paid into and paid out of such central fund. Surely it would not be difficult to establish whether or not it is true that large industrial and financial institutions make contributions to this-fund and whether or not they expect to get anything in return for the large contributions that it has been suggested they make from time to time. So I do not see that this would-be such a tremendous undertaking. Surely the muckraking to which my hon. friend referred would not extend to such proportions that it would be impossible to make an investigation into it. I do not even suggest that it would necessitate muckraking, but those are the words of my hon. friend.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Does the hon. member think it would be possible for a committee of this kind to find out what influence a certain contribution to a political party, if it was ever made, had upon the dredging contract in the St. Lawrence river?


John Charles Landeryou: There is nothing like that contained in the resolution. There is no suggestion that there should be an investigation into campaign funds in respect to the dredging of the St. Lawrence river.


Charles Edward Bothwell: It refers to dispositions from such contributions.


John Charles Landeryou: I ask my hon. friend just how he reads that into the resolution.


Charles Avery Dunning: The mover spoke of that as one reason for his resolution.


John Charles Landeryou: He was just referring to an editorial to show the need for an investigation into this matter. I believe the hon. member who moved the amendment will agree when I say that he wants to establish whether or not there is a central campaign fund; whether or not there is any record of this fund; whether or not the fund has been audited, and so on. Surely these vast sums of money are not paid into a fund with no record being kept. I am not even suggesting that there is a central campaign fund, though many have declared that to be so.


Mr. MARTIN:: Assuming that this amendment were in order and that it were carried,, would the hon. member be prepared to ask

Elections and Electoral Districts
the premier of Alberta to explain what was done with the $100,000 voted by the legislature of Alberta for propaganda purposes, which we all know went to help elect Social Credit candidates in Saskatchewan?


John Charles Landeryou: That, Mr. Speaker, is a deliberate falsehood. Further, I am prepared to say-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think the hon. member must withdraw that expression. I do not believe it is parliamentary.


John Charles Landeryou: I simply ask the hon. member to confine himself to a statement that can be accepted by us as the truth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I. assume, Mr. Speaker, that in saying it was a falsehood the hon. member wishes to withdraw any innuendo that might be understood.


Mr. REID:: We believe it, anyway.


John Charles Landeryou: If my hon. friend desires an investigation into the affairs of the province of Alberta-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I was simply asking the hon. member to do what I know he will do, withdraw any suggestion that I was guilty of a falsehood.


John Charles Landeryou: I will withdraw any suggestion that the hon. member himself was guilty of a falsehood, though the statement he made was not true. In fact, the premier of the province of Alberta has declared that it is not the truth. Those charges were made in Alberta, and he stated that they were wrong. I ask my hon. friend upon what he bases that remark. Is it on rumours, or newspaper clippings?


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I do not think it proper for the hon. member to ask questions of this kind. The house is not in committee, and it is not proper to put questions across the floor at this time.


John Charles Landeryou: Then may I say to my hon. friend and to the house that we do not hesitate to say that we want a complete investigation into all these matters, if you want to extend it that far, though I believe the investigation should be confined to the affairs of this parliament. In regard to the promise hon. gentlemen opposite claim we made the people of Alberta in regard to the payment of $25 a month, I should like to see that matter referred to the banking and commerce committee or some other committee for investigation, because it is right in line with the promises made by the Liberal party that they would issue currency and credit to meet the
needs of the people. I think there is no doubt the people of this country are in need of increased purchasing power. We can debate the amount, but I do not believe $25 is too much to suggest.
I hope in this amendment we shall have the united support of all hon. members of the house. I believe it would clear the air and would indicate our sincerity in this matter. It would disclose possible information which would be very valuable to us in drafting amendments to the bill itself.


Mr. J. S. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the minister was absolutely sincere in what he represented to us this afternoon. From my point of view, this resolution marks a tremendous advance in our political life, and I think we ought to accept it as such. Inherent in every man is a suggestion of sadism, sometimes physical and sometimes intellectual. I deplore the suggestions that have been put forward in this house that we should rake over the coals of the past. If we have been playing with cards having unequal angles, the new deck about to be distributed is the one with which we shall work in the future. I call for a clean sweep. I should like to see absolute purity in the whole of our political life. I definitely associate myself with the minister's resolution and announce my opposition to the amendment.


Mr. W. H. GOLDING (Huron-Perth):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the statement made a short time ago with reference to the promise to pay a monthly dividend of $25 in Alberta, I may say that during the election in that province I had sent to me some of the literature which was used by study clubs and other groups throughout the province prior to and during the election campaign. When Mr. Aberhart, the premier of Alberta, was in our town, last December, he made the following statement-


René-Antoine Pelletier: Having absolutely no objection to any hon. member discussing the $25 per month dividend-


An hon. MEMBER:: You have no objection!


René-Antoine Pelletier: I rise to a point of order. I maintain that we are not now discussing any particular item of political corruption. We are discussing an amendment, and what the hon. member is now saying is somewhat akin to a reference to political corruption along one particular line. That could be investigated by the committee when the time comes.


Walter Edward Foster: I do not consider the hon. member has stated a point of order.

Elections and Electoral Districts


William Henry Golding: I have no desire to violate the rules of the house. I think this statement should foe on the record. I was pointing out that when he visited his home town, Mr. Aberhart made a certain statement, according to the following report:
In an interview, Mr. Aberhart denied ever promising a $25 a month dividend to Albertans. He had told audiences he saw no reason why a dividend shouldn't be paid and that he thought this dividend shouldn't be less than $25 a month. Dividends will only be paid, he said, out of a surplus created by Alberta's natural resources.


John Charles Landeryou: May I ask my hon. friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Charles Landeryou: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Foster: What is the point of
order?


John Charles Landeryou: I want to know what the hon. member is quoting from.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member said he was quoting from a report of a statement made by the premier of Alberta.


William Henry Golding: I am quoting from the London Free Press. This is a report of a statement by Mr. Aberhart when he visited our town last December. He went on to say:
Never will any dividends be paid from taxation. That only impoverishes one group to satisfy another.
I have in my hand a pamphlet which was sent to me by none other than the premier himself.


John Charles Landeryou: What is wrong with that?


William Henry Golding: I should like to read it. This is headed:
Study Group Feature No. 3. Purchasing Power in the Hands of the Consumers.
There is an introduction here; I do not know whether I should read it.


John Charles Landeryou: Read it.


William Henry Golding: I shall be glad to put it on Hansard, but I want to read one part of it. This is what was sent out to the study clubs which were studying social credit.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Let us hear it.


William Henry Golding: It goes on to say-


John Charles Landeryou: On another point
of order, Mr. Speaker; what is the hon. member quoting from?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member told you.


Walter Edward Foster: I understood the hon.
member to say he was quoting from a circular which he had received from the premier of Alberta.


William Henry Golding: I should like to put this whole circular on Hansard so that hon. members can see for themselves what it says.


Walter Edward Foster: That can be done only with the unanimous consent of the house.


John Charles Landeryou: Unanimous consent. Some hon. MEMBERS: Put it on.


William Henry Golding: This is the circular:
Study Group Feature No. 3
"Purchasing Power in the Hands of the Consumers"
Introduction.
A.	It is quite evident that mankind has solved the problem of production. We live in the age of plenty.
1.	But in spite of this, the paradox is ever before us. We have poverty in the midst of plenty.
2.	The great problem is to place purchasing power in the hands of the consumers.
Body.
A.	A solution is being suggested in two ways-
1.	Remove the surplus by exporting or sabotage.
(a)	This will create the need of more goods and industry will hire more employees.
(b)	Who will pay for goods destroyed?
(c)	For the last few decades there has not been sufficient purchasing power to buy the goods produced. So the trouble will at once return.
2.	Create employment by beginning an immense system of public works.
(a)	This will give purchasing power without creating more eonsummable goods.
(b)	Where will we get the money to finance these public works? Our debts are now high enough.
(c)	Furthermore how long will we be able to provide public works to be done.
B.	There is only one remedy.
(1)	Through the agency of basic dividends granted to every bona fide citizen we shall
ive purchasing power sufficient to buy the are necessities of food, clothing and shelter, without basing the same on work, but the unearned increment of social credit.
(2)	This will be distributed through credit houses at which monthly a credit pass book will be presented by each citizen and an entry of $25 will be made.
The citizen will then be able to pay for purchases by a non-negotiable certificate ordering the transfer of the credit to another.
The process will be largely a matter of bookkeeping.
(3)	For travelling in other parts of Canada and small purcnases at home. Dominion currency will be supplied by the credit house, upon the presentation of a nonnegotiable certificate for the amount.

Elections and Electoral Districts
(4)	No citizen will be allowed to overdraw on his account without special arrangement for same.
(5)	Salaries, wages and commissions, etc., are in addition to these basic dividends.
A. These dividends will be paid to the individual man or woman, married or single, and each will have full authority over same.
(1)	Young people reaching the age of seventeen and continuing educational training of any kind will be given $5 a month. This amount will be increased by $5 a month at each succeeding birthday until the full dividends of $25 will be secured.
(2)	Anyone handicapped physically or mentally may be given a bonus dividend.
(3)	To prevent exploitation of the country's resources, citizenship must be carefully protected from unworthy individuals.
(4)	No citizen shall be allowed to barter away or otherwise dispose of his basic dividends and thereby become a vagabond or tramp with no fixed place of abode or with no means of sustenance.
Any one who understands the English language cannot help but see that there is mention there of certain sums of money- $25 for adults and S5, $10, $15, $20 and $25 for young people over the age of seventeen years. In that campaign a promise of the payment of a $25 dividend was made, and if that is not bribery I do not know what I am talking about.


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to what has been said by the last two or three speakers, I am under the impression that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) is not quite in order. I am not raising that point at the moment, but perhaps shall do so a little later. It brings up questions which are entirely new issues, and has nothing to do with the motion which has been placed before the house. In any event I am at a loss to understand just why this amendment is moved.
I have here extracts from Hansard which perhaps I had better read, indicating that in all quarters of this house there is an appreciation of the fact that there are campaign funds. Last year in the course of the discussion I myself said that there were campaign funds, and that they were necessary, and I discussed in this house- quite frankly the question whether or not the publicity of campaign funds would dry up their sources. There never was in mind any hiding of the fact that no political party can get along without some financial support. Mr. Bennett, at page 36 of Hansard of January 31, 1938 is reported as having said:
Contributions to political parties are not in any sense censurable.
And he went on at great length along the same line.
The right hon. leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) as late as March 1, 1939, said:
Campaign funds are necessary for the purposes of an election. Is there anything w-rong with securing funds to help to propagate the principles in which one believes?
I have many other extracts from Hansard which tend to show that nobody denies the existence of campaign funds.
. My hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party also admit that there are campaign funds. They admit also that they require them. I have in my hand a clipping from the Vancouver Province, an advertisement entitled "The C.C.F. makes a frank appeal to you." In the advertisement there is a picture of my hon. friend the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth). The appeal is made through Arnold Webster, First Vice-President, and it says:
I wish to address very briefly C.C.F. supporters throughout British Columbia-especially the thousands of sincere men and women who for one reason or another are not active members of our organization.
Many of you, at different times, have said something like this: "You know I can't safely associate myself with the C.C.F. My job makes that impossible, but I believe thoroughly in the cooperative idea; in fact, I'm with you and Mr. Woodsworth 100 per cent. If I can ever help the movement, let me know."
Mr. Webster apparently continues:
Well, I'm making that appeal to you now.
There will be a federal election this year. In every one of the sixteen constituencies in
B. C. the C.C.F. will have a good chance of victory if we are able to carry out the preliminary organizational work that is required.
You know, of course, that the old parties do not bother ordinary folk with such requests for money. Those who are making large fortunes out of the work and wealt h of others will gladly contribute thousands of dollars to the campaign funds of the Liberals and Conservatives-
I wish they would only bring them along, and I am sure the leader of the opposition would be glad to see some of them.


Robert James Manion: I should be very glad.


Charles Gavan Power: The advertisement continues:
-and, as a result, control their policies and their decisions.
Against these privileged groups stands the
C.	C.F., the one important movement to-day that reflects the best in the hearts and minds of the common people of Canada.
We are beginning now to plan this year's campaign. Will you help us?
Money is needed to purchase radio time, to prepare attractive literature, to send organizers into neglected areas-to do the hundred and one things necessary to assure the success of C.C.F. candidates.



Elections and Electoral Districts
I wonder what else the other parties do except the one hundred and one things necessary to ensure the success of their parties. It goes on:
Many of you, no doubt, will wish to share in the work of building a strong organization in this province in preparation for the 1939 election.	.
You can make a direct contribution or pledge-
Something like a twenty-five dollar promise, probably.
-a set amount per month and contributions will be privately acknowledged and remain confidential.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles Gavan Power: It continues:
All contributions should be sent to . . . Herbert Gargrave, provincial secretary, at C.C.F. headquarters, Holden building, Vancouver, B.C. Help the C.C.F. to help you.


James Samuel Taylor: To which
member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party was the hon. member addressing his remarks?


Charles Gavan Power: To all of them.


James Samuel Taylor: I thought he was addressing someone in particular.


Charles Gavan Power: No. But I may in a
moment if my hon. friend wishes. I have in my hand Hansard of last year, containing the report of the debate on the address, in which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who, I understand, is a prominent member of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, says:
The time has come, in the interests of clean and decent government in Canada, when political parties should be compelled to publish the sources of all their campaign funds.
The deeds of these mighty men make mock of the words they say! Here his own party pledges itself to keep secret and confidential the surreptitious contributions it is going to receive. I wish the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in the house would be like the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation outside the house-


Mr. COLDWELL:: It is.


Charles Gavan Power: If my hon. friend can show that, doubtless he will.


Major James William Coldwell: I will.


Charles Gavan Power: After all his rage, his anger, his indignation, at secret contributions, his party endorses and appeals for these same secret and confidential contributions.
The point I wish to make, Mr. Speaker, is this:	The Liberals know there are eampaign funds; the Conservatives know there

are campaign funds; and apparently the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation know there are campaign funds.
Now I come to my hon. friends the Social Crediters. There are those of us who believe that it is just as honest for the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation to use the campaign funds, which they have collected in this surreptitious manner, to influence the electors as it is for the Social Crediters to use the electorate's money, the people's own money, to influence them by promises of twenty-five dollars a month. As between the methods evolved by these two political parties I do not think it is for us to judge. If the one condemns the other I shall be extremely sorry, for I sympathize with both. Is that vote to which reference has already been made of $100,000 appropriated in the legislature of Alberta for the propagation of the social credit faith to be considered as a campaign fund or is it not?


Charles Avery Dunning: It surely is.


Charles Gavan Power: If any one of us of the
disreputable old parties were to-


Robert James Manion: Speak for yourself.


Charles Gavan Power: Out of sympathy for my
hon. friend the leader of the opposition I claim some kinship.


Robert James Manion: It is only a matter of race.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a matter of race, and not of politics. As I was going to say, if these so-called disreputable old parties were able to find money so readily and so easily from a vote in the legislature of the province in which they were in power-let us say, for example, that the province of Quebec gave $100,000 to whatever party that province now supports, or let us say that Nova Scotia gave $100,000 for the propagation of Liberal principles-


Mr. ROWE (Dufferin-Simcoe):: How about Ontario?


Charles Gavan Power: -or that this government were to decide to ask this house for $100,000 to propagate Liberalism-I can see my hon. friends in the corner rising up in their wrath, in holy horror.


John Charles Landeryou: No.


Charles Gavan Power: Did my hon. friend say
"no"? My hon. friend says he would not oppose it? Some fine day we shall have to put it to the test. I should like him to serve on this election committee and make a suggestion such as that to the committee, and if it were carried, bring it into this chamber and propose it. But whether it is propaganda

Elections and Electoral Districts
carried on under government auspices for one political party or another, it still involves propaganda funds, and my hon. friends have no right to raise their hands in holy horror when other political parties are obliged to find means to carry on their work of education.
What does my hon. friend suggest? He suggests that we should inquire into sources of campaign funds in the last ten years. The reply of my hon. friend who was chairman of the committee last year is that that of itself would take ten years. But leaving that aside, what will the hon. member who makes the suggestion have when he is through with the inquiry? He will have muck-raked; he will have thrown dirt at a large number of people in this country; he will have thrown suspicion on the old political parties; but he will not have advanced to the step at which we are to-day, when we have a bill to remedy these abuses. Does he want muck-raking or does he want action? If he wants muck-raking he can follow the procedure he suggests. If he wants action, he can do, not what he did last year, namely stay away from the committee during most of its sittings, but go to the meetings of the committee and help it with its work. Last year my hon. friend went to six sittings of the twenty-three sittings of the committee. When he saw there was no muck-raking to be done, when he saw there was nothing to foster that suspicion which he deplores, he stayed away. He stayed away when there was real work to be done.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Charles Gavan Power: I will apologize right away. Sit down. When there was real work to be done he was not there. I am not apologizing for that statement.


René-Antoine Pelletier: I want to point out to the minister that I was not appointed to that committee until after it had been established for some time. The minister knows that.


Charles Gavan Power: I will check that. That is strange. I found, on checking over the record of his attendances, that he was there for the first five meetings and then quit. I will find that in a moment. I think I have it here somewhere.


John Charles Landeryou: Let us have the facts.


Mr.   POWTER@: Oh, yes. There is no trouble about that. I will not sit down until I give the information to the hon. member. I took the trouble to look into my hon. friend's record, but if I am mistaken I shall be glad to be corrected. I know he appeared at the first meeting, or perhaps the second; then 71492-115}
he was absent for one meeting, and I think he appeared for five consecutive meetings. Here we are: "Mr. Pelletier's atttendance at meetings of the special committee on franchise and elections, 1938: April 26"-which I take to be the first one-"present; April 28, absent; May 2, 3. 6, 11, present; May 12, 13, 17,19, 20, 24, 30, 31, June 1, 7, 9,15,16, absent;-June 17, present; June 21, 23, 29, absent. Twenty-three meetings; absent, seventeen meetings; present six meetings."
I wonder what my hon. friend seeks to accomplish by his motion. I have said that not only is there a piece of legislation which could be studied by the committee, namely the political expenditures bill of last year, which the committee is not precluded from studying, but there are also some suggestions with respect to improvements of the elections act which will be introduced this year. What more does he want? He says he wants to put an end to suspicions and vague rumours. I might suggest to him respectfully that one good way would be for him not to talk about them.
There is little more to say on this matter, except that I do not believe any useful purpose, namely the purpose of putting on our statute books legislation which will curb to some extent abuses that we know exist in connection with expenditures in political campaigns, will be served by an investigation such as he requires. I say also that I believe the amendment is out of order, and that you, Mr. Speaker, should so rule.


Major James William Coldwell: May I have an opportunity of saying one or two words before the amendment is ruled upon, if it is questioned. The minister was kind enough to refer to my rage and my horror regarding campaign funds. Let me say I do not think I exhibited any rage.


Charles Gavan Power: I take that back.


Major James William Coldwell: I may have exhibited some horror; but if I did, that horror found its seeds in the addresses which I heard on occasion from the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar), whom I followed during the old progressive days, when there was no one more caustic than he regarding the collection of campaign funds.


Mr. STEVENS:: Chickens come home to roost.


Major James William Coldwell: May I refer to the advertised appeal by the first vice-president of our organization in British Columbia? We make those appeals publicly, through the press, and at every one of our meetings.
1S26

Elections and Electoral Districts


Charles Avery Dunning: Quite right, too.


Major James William Coldwell: And over the radio.
An han. MEMBER: Why not?


Major James William Coldwell: That is the way we have of raising funds. I have never noticed the minister's own party making appeals of that description.


Charles Avery Dunning: We do it all the time.


Major James William Coldwell: Then why complain because we make them?


Mr. HOWARD:: We are not complaining.


Major James William Coldwell: I understood that the minister sought to imply there was something sinister in the suggestion in the advertisement that contributions would be regarded as private and confidential. We do receive contributions from people who, if their employers knew they were contributing to our campaign fund, would lose the jobs they now hold. We know that to be so.


Malcolm McLean: Oh, no.


Major James William Coldwell: It has happened. Moreover, I daresay they might be penalized in other ways. Having been treasurer of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation before the last general election, I am proud to be able to tell the house that we are quite willing to have our campaign funds thoroughly investigated, because although we won 400,000 votes, the only amount which was at my disposal as the national treasurer of the campaign fund was less than $2,000. It was less than $2,000 for the entire national campaign. We had hoped that we might put our leader on the air for at least one national broadcast, but were unable to do so. Consequently, when the inference is thrown at us that there is something sinister when we suggest that the relatively small contributions we received from our supporters ought to be kept private and confidential, I would tell the minister that really he is stretching the point.


Charles Gavan Power: It is not sinister; it is only according to your principles.


Major James William Coldwell: The word used was " surreptitious," and that word has a sinister meaning.


Charles Gavan Power: No. You condemned it yourself, and that is why I brought the matter to your attention-and for no other reason.


Major James William Coldwell: I would assure you, since our campaign funds and our method of collecting them has been brought before the house this afternoon, that at least we have never received hundreds of thousands of dollars from a power corporation.


Charles Avery Dunning: How do we know? How
does anybody know that?


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact, I would ask the minister, who knows me very well, to accept my word for it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course I shall. But my hon. friend is not his whole party, any more than I am my whole party. And when one is willing to accept private contributions, that is where the danger arises.


Major James William Coldwell: I was treasurer before the last campaign, and we are quite willing to have an investigation. An investigation was held into some Liberal party funds, and the fact I have just mentioned was fully established at that time.
May I say I believe the suggestion made in the amendment is of interest to every hon. member, and to all parties. As the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) indicated, from time to time newspaper articles appear and references are made in public speeches which tend to undermine confidence in the election of members to the House of Commons, and in the virtue of parliament. Consequently I believe the amendment is in the right direction. I therefore rise to do two things, first to set the minister right, if he thinks there w-as anything surreptitious-


Charles Gavan Power: "Surreptitious" only means hidden-go to your dictionary.


Major James William Coldwell: But certain words, by usage, acquire a particular connotation, and the minister knows that as well as I do.
As I said before, we are quite willing to have our funds fully investigated, if the other side is willing. I want to say only this, that we are supporting the principle of the amendment because we believe it is in the best interests of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Walter Edward Foster: With reference to the
point of order raised by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), I am of opinion that the amendment of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) is not in order, because the so-called amendment is not in fact an amendment at all. It is a new motion the hon. member is endeavouring to place before the house, one of which he has not given the house notice and concerning which hon. members have had no time to form opinions.
In order to support my decision I would refer the house to two similar decisions rendered on February 28, 1929, one by the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, the then Speaker of the House, and the other one by the then

Elections and Electoral Districts
Deputy Speaker, Mr. J. F. Johnston, then representing the constituency of Long Lake. Those decisions are to be found in volume 66 of the Journals of the House at pages 109, 110 and 111. I find further support in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 127, citation 397, where it is stated:
An amendment must not raise any question which by the rules of the house, can only be raised by a distinct motion after notice.
Therefore the amendment is out of order, and I declare it so.


René-Antoine Pelletier: Speaking to a point of order-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I have rendered
my decision. The hon. member may appeal, if he wishes.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to the resolution. The minister who introduced it, and some other hon. members who have spoken, have referred to the variation in the density of population as between constituencies. It seems to me in a country such as ours it is difficult to avoid that condition, and I doubt if there is any method whereby equality could be brought about.
At the same time some of the disparities shown are so great that they would appear to be unfair to one or other of the parties. However, one is confronted with the fact that some sections of our country, huge in area but sparse in population, must, in the interests of fair representation, have their representatives in parliament. I am not attempting to defend a system in which that condition exists, but I do believe that until those areas are more densely populated than they are at the present time, some of those inequalities must be accepted.
I do not believe that I would disagree with most of the minister's observations with respect to the general conduct of elections. It is my belief that conditions throughout the country are improving. I shall not go into detail in this connection, but I might point out by way of example that the son of a man who ran in one of the Quebec constituencies for election to the first parliament after confederation, and who had contested elections before confederation, told me that in those days the regular thing was to have the hogshead of whisky out in the back-yard, and to make it understood that the people who came round on certain days were free to use it, and that they expected it to be there. Such was the custom of that day, and I assume all candidates in certain sections of the country followed it. To-day that is largely done away
with, although there are times in certain elections when whisky is not in the hogsheads, but is passed round. In my own constituency I have never seen, on my side at any rate, anything in the way of the passing round of whisky. I think there is a good deal of exaggeration in the minds of many people throughout the country with respect to the powerful effects of the buying of the electorate.
I remember a very good story which actually happened in my constituency. One of the members who. preceded me-and a fine fellow he was, in his own way-at election times depended altogether upon the spending of money. He would go to the extent of mortgaging his house, and in every way putting up the last dollar he could raise. He carried on the election campaign in that way, and he did endeavour to buy votes when he could. On one occasion a friend of mine told me of a certain incident. He said that this old member-a good friend of mine, incidentally-asked him how such and such a village was going to vote. The reply was, "Well, there are about ninety votes there, and I fear they are all very doubtful." "How much money will it take to get them right?" The reply was, "About $5 each." The representative went out and bought every vote. But when the votes were counted they got only one of them.
I do not believe that there is any more use in attempting to buy votes to-day than there was in those days. I believe there is much exaggeration with regard to the matter. Certainly in my constituency, which the gentleman in question had represented in past years, I had no money to throw round. I paid what I thought were legitimate expenses, and carried on election campaigns as honestly as I could, during all the years I represented the constituency of Fort William-and I believe the situation is the same to-day. I have no doubt the hon. member who now represents that constituency is just as honest as I am. I found the seat could be won in a good and honest manner, and with no dishonest expenditures of money whatsoever.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it costs too much
just the same.


Robert James Manion: It does, I entirely agree,
and I also entirely agree that we should do all we can to do away with that extra cost. I agree also with the minister when he says that money is needed to run elections. He has given some evidence regarding our friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. We have all heard that saying-I believe it was Sir John A. Macdonald's-that elections are not won by prayer.

Elections and Electoral Districts


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It was Tarte.


Robert James Manion: Well, they were both
pretty good judges. In that book which my hon. friends opposite are so fond of quoting I discussed the whole question. My friend has missed a chance to look it up. I pointed out, and I point out again now, that there should be more publicity about campaign funds. There is nothing shameful about campaign funds, so long as they are honestly acquired.


Mr. STIRLING:: And honestly used.


Robert James Manion: If people put up money
to help the party of their choice, because they believe in that party, and no strings are tied to that money, what is wrong? There is no more wrong in a man putting up $5,000 for the Liberal party or for our party than in someone putting up $5 for my friends to the left. The man who puts up the $5 may be hoping that his friends will get in so that he will get a job. The man who puts up $5,000 or $50,000 or $100,000 is just as honest as the man who puts up a small amount; he believes in the principles of the party he is supporting.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Suppose he gives to two
parties.


Robert James Manion: Well, he may have some
reason for doing so, and it is his money. Suppose he gives to the four parties, if you like. He knows that elections cost money. If he chooses to contribute to both Liberal and Conservative parties, and asks that no pledges be given or strings attached to that donation, there is nothing wrong with it that I can see, and I imagine I am just as honest as my hon. friends to my left, with all due respect to them. I believe we should bring this matter out into the open.
I hesitated about saying anything on this matter, because I think the minister dealt with the question very well, and the Speaker has now ruled the amendment out of order. But the other day I proposed to the Prime Minister that he bring the editor of the Ottawa Citizen before the bar of the house and make him prove some of his charges. I have here some of the charges he made, and I am going to road them, without comment. The hon. member who moved the amendment was trying to do what the editor of the Ottawa Citizen proposed. I have here half a dozen editorials from the Ottawa Citizen which made me see red. When I read these editorials, suggesting that both the old parties are a lot of crooks instead of decent citizens, it made me angry. Having been associated with political affairs in this house for twenty years, I 
say that members of parliament are just as honest as editors of newspapers or any other class, and I resent the suggestion that we in this house, whether Liberals or Conservatives or my hon. friends to my left, are a lot of crooks. I recall well an example of this irresponsible chatter; I was sitting in a smoking car-have I told this here before?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Robert James Manion: Well, I heard a man criticizing both the old parties as a lot of crooks and I asked him on what authority he based his statement. He replied he did not base it on anything; he had just heard other people saying it, and he thought it the right thing to say. The irresponsible criticism of many people is of just the same type.
This is an example of what I object to. It is from the Ottawa Citizen of February 6:
National government is the next objective of amalgamated authority in Canada: it will include the economy of subscribing to the campaign funds of only one party.
That is not particularly bad. Here is another, of February 2:
It is the same old order, with no difference between parties excepting in the distribution of political patronage. Both parties are controlled by the same invisible government.
I say this party is not controlled by any invisible government or any individual, group or interest big or little. The government can answer for themselves, but I say that this party to-day is not controlled by anyone. We have campaign funds-I do not say we have much; I wish we had more. Obviously, we cannot have an organizer going round this country without someone paying him, and I cannot afford to pay him from my own purse. Our friends have contributed small amounts to carry on our organization, and I have nothing to be ashamed of. Not a dollar had a string on it in any shape, manner or form. The idea that there is anything wrong about doing that is ridiculous.


John Charles Landeryou: I should like to meet the men who give money away without any strings on it.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member apparently is of the type who does not think anyone can be honest.
This is another of these quotations from the Citizen; it is dated February 21:
The Conservative party will probably have to be satisfied with less than 40 per cent of the usual contributions as they are said to be distributed by the financial investors in the old game of party politics-


Charles Avery Dunning: "As they are said to be."

Elections and Electoral Districts


Robert James Manion: Exactly, that is the type of stuff.
In any casej there are signs that the Conservatives are becoming resigned to the prospect of being allowed a few cabinet seats in a national government as it is being demanded in the places where both parties collect the money to pay election expenses.
These are more of these ugly charges without any facts to substantiate them.
Another of January 28:
The power of the party machine to silence members-
This, I think, is a slander on every hon. member, including my hon. friends to my left.
The power of the party machine to silence members goes far beyond this influence of the central campaign fund. Members on the government side become involved in patronage deals. Members on the opposition side look forward to the day when they will again enjoy the spoils.
Another one, of which I have not the date,
states:
The whole democratic structure is threatened from within as well as from without. An independent parliament, free from dependence upon predatory campaign fund sources. . . .
I think this parliament is independent; I do not admit that this parliament is tied up to any campaign fund sources. Another statement is:
The party machines are largely financed by secret relations with contractors, promoters and privileged interests. Members become involved through indebtedness when election expenses are to be paid or later in the competition to display party loyalty before the next election-
The last I will quote is from the Ottawa Citizen of January 27:
Before the end of this session it will probably have been demonstrated to the paymasters of both parties-
I object to the statement that I have a paymaster. I repeat that I am under obligation to no individual, class, group, interest or anything else, neither is this party, and I object to the Ottawa Citizen making a statement like that. I resent such statements because they are slanders on all hon. members; as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Pelletier) I think said, it is doing damage to and undermining democracy. I agree with that, and that is why I resent such statements. When I suggested that the editor of the Citizen be brought to the bar of the house, how did he defend himself? He demanded a judicial investigation. In other words, he accuses one of being a thief; the accused challenges him to give some proof, and the accuser says, " Oh, we will get a judge to investigate your whole life."


Charles Avery Dunning: No, he puts it up to you to prove you are not guilty.


Robert James Manion: Exactly, not the British system of assuming innocence until guilt is proved, but " you are guilty " first, and then he will send out a fishing expedition to see if he cannot find something against you. That is an irresponsible and improper method, and my hon. friends who move and support this amendment take the same attitude. So far as I am concerned I agree with the minister;
I do not consider that this fishing expedition would get anywhere. Men who contribute to [DOT] the campaign funds of both parties do so legitimately. I assume many who contribute may not want the fact known. Suppose a man is a manufacturer; he believes rather in the principles of the Liberal party, who claim they are low tariff people, although they do not always live up to it, but he is more in sympathy with the principles of the Liberal party than with ours. He may wish to contribute to the Liberal party funds, quite legitimately; he likes them and wishes to support them. But he may say, " If it is known that I have contributed to this fund and another party gets in, that other party might do something in the way of tariff changes which would hurt me." After all, he has a legitimate right to make his contribution in privacy, so I do not consider that an investigation would get anywhere at all.
It is almost six o'clock and I wish, before we take recess, to finish what I have to say. Many people contribute to party funds honestly. They believe in certain principles, and they wish to support the party that professes those principles. There are different kinds of dishonesty. Let me give an illustration of what I would call a worse piece of dishonesty than anything in regard to campaign funds. I was in Alberta not so long ago, travelling by automobile, and during the trip I heard over the radio a very prominent, if not the most prominent, social crediter in the province. He announced to his group-and apparently there was a large audience-that he was going to have a professor give expression that afternoon to the principles for which the capitalist system stood. That was done. The man who was master of ceremonies would make a clever and witty interjection every once in a while, more or less destroying the argument of the supposed professor of political economy who was setting out the principles of the capitalist system. Then, when the " professor" had finished, this other gentleman demolished the whole argument in a few well-chosen sentences. Of course it was a very bad argument, poorly put together, anyway; because the same man who made the interjections, the same man who demolished the argument, was the man who wrote both

Elections and Electoral Districts
sides of it. I found later that the supposed professor of political economy was the janitor of one of the provincial public buildings. Is that proper? Is that honest politics? I was driving with a prominent citizen of Calgary; I hung my head and said, " I am ashamed to think that any man in public life could descend to that type of campaign. No leader of either of the old parties would do that sort of thing." I say that type of campaign was much more discreditable than anything that has been done by either of the old parties.
I do not wish to argue against the Social Credit people. They have a perfect right to whatever attitude they choose to adopt, but at the same time 'I think we should all admit that we are honest. I do not think honesty is confined to any individual or any party in this house. In regard to my friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party, during the election in London the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidate who opposed me made an appeal for funds, saying that if he were not helped financially he would not run. He put on a more elaborate and, so far as I know, more expensive campaign than I did; certainly he was on the radio a great deal more than I was. I have nothing to say against that; I find no fault with it at all, but let us agree that if you have not enough money yourself, you cannot carry on elections unless someone helps to pay the expenses. Whether a man contributes So ,000 or S5 to campaign funds, if there are no strings attached to it; if there is no crookedness in it; if the contribution is not made for the purpose of bringing about some dishonest act on the part of a party in power, then I say it is a perfectly legitimate contribution.
In closing, let me say that we want to cooperate with the minister, as I think all members of this parliament should cooperate, to lessen the cost of elections. They are far too expensive. It is unfair to the candidates of all parties. I think we should do everything we can to clean up election irregularities of all kinds in order that real public opinion may prevail and a fair deal given to all classes. In that way, by promoting public welfare, we may have a real democracy. So far as I am concerned, and speaking for my party, we will do everything we can in this committee, if it is appointed, to help clean up for the future. We are not worrying about the past. I do not believe in these fishing expeditions, and anyway, frankly 
I do not believe in charges of scandal. I never have believed in one party charging the other with doing something scandalous. Very seldom is anything proved of a scandalous nature. In the present unsettled condition of the world, unless a man is so certain of his facts that nothing can refute his charge I believe this sort of thing does nothing but undermine democracy, undermine our whole electoral system, undermine the freedom in which we all believe. I agree in large measure with what was said by the minister in introducing this resolution, and we will do all we can to help him clean up the elections of the future.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) to a problem which has arisen and which, I hope, will be taken into consideration by this special committee. I suggest to the minister that it would be advisable to broaden the terms of reference to the committee in order to enable consideration of a matter of vital consequence to many electors in British Columbia. In order to clarify the discussion I propose to move an amendment in terms which I hope he will accept. Briefly, I desire to direct his attention to a situation existing under the present provisions of the Dominion Elections Act, 1938, as it affects lumbermen, fishermen, miners and seamen. Under the act which was in effect during the federal general election of 1935, provision was made for what was called absentee voting, and special classifications were indicated therein for fishermen, including all those persons engaged in the fishing industry; lumbermen, including cruisers, loggers and so on; miners, including prospectors as well as workers in or about mines; and sailors, including all those engaged or employed on board ships or vessels. These persons were entitled to vote under special provisions contained in sections 99, 100, 101, 102 and so on, of the act. However, these provisions were abolished under the new act introduced at the last session. The chairman of the committee which sat last year, the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-

Elections and Electoral Districts
well), explained the situation to the hoyse, as reported on page 4246 of Hansard of June 24, 1938. At that time he said:
The committee found that the expense of absentee voting did not warrant our including it in this bill.
He goes on to say:
And it was by reason of the expense which was incurred in connection with absentee voting the committee decided that for the sake of a vote of that size we would not be warranted in inserting a clause which would deal with absentee voting.
He then enumerated other reasons why it was considered inadvisable to provide for absentee voting. I commend the minister when he endeavours to introduce amendments to the act to prevent any person from voting twice, but I had hoped that the new sections would not prevent certain classes of voters from voting at all. After a study of the act I have found that the workers engaged in the industries I have mentioned, that is lumbering. fishing, mining and those at sea, will not have an opportunity to exercise their franchise. We have done what it is possible to do in this country to encourage people to exercise their franchise, and it seems to me inadvisable that any obstacles should be placed in their way at this time.
I have made a study of the sections of the act in consultation with representatives of the organized workers in these various industries, and they confirm the conclusion which I stated last session, namely, that many of these workers will not have an opportunity of exercising their franchise. I hope that the committee will take into consideration ways and means of enabling those workers who must migrate from place to place in the pursuit of their vocations to exercise their voting rights on polling day. The act of 1938 not only abolished the provisions for absentee voting, but restricted to some degree the residential qualifications. Section 14, subsection 1, reads:
Save as hereinafter provided every person, man or woman, shall be qualified to vote and be entitled to be registered as an elector on the list of electors for the polling division in which he or she ordinarily resides-
The word "ordinarily" was introduced last session.
-at the time of the preparation and revision of the list of electors therefor.
It then goes on to give other qualifications. "Ordinary residence" is defined in section 16, subsection 2, as follows:
The place of ordinary residence of a person is, generally, that place which has always been, or which he has adopted as, the place of his habitation or home, whereto, when away therefrom, he intends to return. Specifically, when 71492-116
a person usually sleeps in one place and has his meals or is employed in another place, the place of his ordinary residence is where the person sleeps.
At the request of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) the bill was amended in some respects, and section 46 was amended by the deletion of the word "ordinarily" to make it possible for an elector within the electoral district in which he resides to present himself only at a rural poll to vote, provided he is vouched for by an elector already on the list in the poll. I submit that under the conditions which prevail in these industries in British Columbia a large number of men are actually disfranchised. When one considers the conditions of employment imposed on loggers, for instance, one must realize that the great majority of the camps at which these men work are outside the electoral districts in which they ordinarily have their residence. I confirmed this fact by inquiries since last session. The principal operations are on Vancouver island at Cowichan lake, Campbell river, and on the Queen Charlotte islands, these points being distant from the cities and towns where these men are recruited for these operations. Under the conditions prevailing in the industry they are unable to secure time off in order to vote, and they are unable to defray the expenses of returning to the polling division or the electoral district in which they have their ordinary residences.
The plight of the fishermen is still more serious. If polling day occurs when they are at the fishing grounds they are likely to find themselves in the predicament of being unable to return to their places of ordinary residence, which are usually in the vicinity of Vancouver. It might be possible to permit them to vote at the port from which they obtain their supplies when they are operating at the fishing grounds. There are many seamen employed on tugs and barges engaged in the coastwise trade who might be able to vote at a port of call but who certainly could not return to the polling division or the electoral district in which they are ordinarily resident.
The act of 1938 made provision for other classes of electors who are permitted to cast their votes outside the electoral district in which their names may have been placed on the list at the time of the issuance of the election writ. I refer to section 16, subsection 6, wherein provision is made for ministers, priests or ecclesiastics of any religious faith or denomination, for teachers and students. I submit that an attempt should be made to extend a similar privilege to the thousands of workers in the lumbering and



Elections and Electoral Districts
fishing industries and to those engaged at sea.
I do not wish to detain the house, but I do hope that my amendment will be acceptable to the minister. I am suggesting at this stage merely that the terms of reference to the committee should be broadened in order that the committee may take into consideration ways and means of dealing with this problem. I therefore move:
That the motion be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
(c) Methods whereby lumbermen, fishermen, seamen, and miners in the province of British Columbia may be enabled to exercise their franchise under the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I must support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). There is no district in British Columbia outside my own where the necessities for some such plan are greater, and I do not except the district represented by the hon. member who has moved this amendment. Some of his electors may live in North Vancouver or Vancouver and go out to work in his riding, but if they live' in Vancouver or North Vancouver and go out to' work in my district, they are wholly disfranchised under the conditions which he has mentioned. As he said, the act which was passed a year or so ago made provision for voting in a polling station other than the one in which an elector was registered, but this was confined to the electoral district in which the man resided. That takes care of a number of cases in my district, but only to a limited extent.
There is no doubt that the present law does disfranchise a considerable number of the classes to which the hon. member has referred. This has been the case as far back as my memory goes, with the single exception of the election of 1935 when, as the hon, member has stated, there was inaugurated a system of what was called absentee voting, drafted in a large measure from the British Columbia system which works adequately in the smaller area of a province. But there were features about that system which did not make it so attractive as the hon. member suggests, and for this reason:	It was
founded on a system known as the fixed list, and the list was changed only once a year. In British Columbia we used to change the provincial list once every month; but in the dominion act passed here-and members will correct me if I am wrong-provision was made for a revision only once a year, with the result that in that province, where we have a good deal of a floating population, many more people were disfranchised than there

would be under the system now used. If they were there but if they did not get registered at these annual revisions, they were simply out of luck. I think the working men lost more votes under that method than under the system now proposed.
The hon. member for Vancouver North has pointed out that the act passed two years ago did make provision for school teachers and ministers of the gospel being allowed to vote if they moved into new territory, but it was upon the condition, which had to be definitely established, that they were going to become or had become permanent residents of the new district. A minister of the gospel, for example, had to prove that he was the ordained or accepted minister of his church, and a school teacher had to produce a certificate from the school board that he or she was legally and properly employed under contract for a certain period of time. The object of that was to do away with the danger, which must immediately suggest itself to the mind of anyone who considers these matters, that if you make it too easy for people to vote in a new district it is quite possible for a wealthy man or a wealthy party to bring in a couple of hundred men, say from a city district adjoining, keep them there for ten days-less than that would suffice-have them vote as temporary residents, and then return them. That is an even greater evil than the one my hon. friend is trying to avoid.
While he did not put it forward as his own opinion he referred to the argument of the high cost in the last election against having any more absentee voting. But I do not know whether the high cost was ever as definitely ascertained as it might have been, compared, for instance, with the cost of men voting at an advance poll. The cost there is quite comparable with that of an absentee vote.
Then he said that a great number of men who sought to vote were not allowed to vote. That happened in my district to the extent of several hundred people. They were thrown out against my protest simply because the deputy returning officers had not been thoroughly informed, or were incompetent, and they did not draw up the ballots in the way the act prescribed. They were given a certain number of blank ballots, and the act prescribed that if a man in the district of Comox-Alberni came to a deputy returning officer and said he wanted to vote in southeast Kootenay, the deputy returning officer must take a blank ballot, make a facsimile of the one used in southeast Kootenay, and

Elections and Electoral Districts
put down the name of every candidate, his occupation, residence and so forth. But in a great many instances the deputy returning officer was either ignorant or did not bother to do that. The very utmost he would often put down would be Jones, Brown and Smith, as the names of the candidates; he would not bother about their occupations at all, and many good votes-good in my opinion because the men were going to vote for me-were thrown out for that reason.
I know one case where the deputy returning officer, evidently in a spirit of good fellowship, apparently said to a man, "Whom do you want to vote for"? The man replied, "Jones"; the deputy returning officer wrote "Jones" down on the ballot and nothing else, and in that way perfectly good ballots were thrown out. That was on account of the system being new and the deputy returning officers not being sufficiently posted. Also they had to stop on a busy election day to make out a facsimile ballot. The case could have been met by furnishing the deputy returning officer with printed ballots for every riding in the province.
Even if the question of cost is considerable, there are other methods by which the proposal of my hon. friend, which I heartily endorse, could be carried out. His amendment, as I understand it, asks only that a method be considered whereby loggers, lumbermen, fishermen and so forth may be able to exercise their franchise.
In Australia, speaking from memory, I believe they have several systems of dealing with absentee voters. One of them is the post-card system. Nothing more stringent is required than for the voter to sign a postcard in the presence of the returning officer, and then under suitable restrictions and precautions it is mailed back to the place whence the voter came.
There is another method whereby they can vote absentees in person, something like that mentioned by my hon. friend. But the postcard method seems to work there without any opportunity of fraud and without any excessive cost, and I would hope that some system like that might be adopted. Surely we owe it to everyone that they should be allowed to exercise their franchise. And the fact that a voter's occupation takes him away at certain seasons of the year for two, three, six or eight months should not be allowed to stand in the way of his voting.
While I am speaking I might say a few words on the general proposals outlined by the hon. member who introduced this resolution. Some member speaking this afternoon

said that the subject matter as introduced last year was unpopular. But I submit it was not the subject matter that was unpopular; it was the bill that was universally unpopular. I regretted to hear the minister-perhaps I did not hear him arighb-speaking in a tone of laudation, I thought, of that misbegotten thing which was introduced last year.


Charles Gavan Power: What was that?


Alan Webster Neill: The bill, the so-called purity bill. I thought he spoke this afternoon with some note of approval of it.
Mr. POWER Naturally.


Alan Webster Neill: It must have been owing to the fact that he is the putative father. There is an axiom in law in cases of disputed succession, that he is the father whom the marriage points out. I might paraphrase that by saying that he is the father who introduced the bill. The minister was associated with it in that regard, and in that regard only, in a very step-fatherly way. We all know that his ability and, above all, his sense of humour, would have entirely prevented him from having drafted of his own initiative such an abortion as the thing which was presented last year.


Charles Gavan Power: Do not insult my child by saying that.


Alan Webster Neill: The bill was worse than the word I applied to it. I think it was a burlesque. Having read it a year ago, I have not now a clear recollection of all its provisions, but it certainly was a ridiculous and an unworkable thing. I wonder sometimes if it was not intended to be unworkable. One of the matters of interest to the group members was this thing called a corporation sole and two other positions at the same time, a sort of trinity proposition, and provision was made that the trinity had to be a lawyer or an accountant. It might well be that in ridings represented by social crediters there was no lawyer or accountant of their political party; they would be compelled to employ and be under the domination of this lawyer or accountant, who might be entirely opposed to their views, and he could make it very interesting and disconcerting in the conduct of the election. His powers are almost unbounded.
Something was said about limiting the costs to so much per head. Well, I am sorry, but if they put the costs at any reasonable figure I am afraid it will mean that I shall be unable to take part in an election. Ten cents a head, I assume, would be a reasonable cost.

Elections and Electoral Districts
and that would allow me a thousand dollars to spend on an election which ordinarily costs me between four and five thousand dollars. They say, "Oh, well, but it is done in Great Britain." But Britain is an established, settled country where a polling station, if it has eighty-five people to-day, will have eighty-six or eighty-four five or ten years from now. They know what it will cost. In our polling divisions we may have three hundred to-day and perhaps three at the next election, or perhaps four or five hundred. The conditions are so different that they cannot be compared, and I do not think any hon. member wants to be put in this position. You have struggled through the election with the difficulties of this corporation sole and these other capacities as well; you think you have won through at last, have kept within the margin you were told to keep in, that is that you must not spend more than ten cents a head, and have won the election.
I speak now not for myself, because it does not apply to me as I do not get party funds. But take the case of the man drawing party funds. He has been elected, or so he thinks; he has kept within the costs as far as he can honestly ascertain them; and six weeks after the election he gets a notice from Ottawa, "sorry, you have spent $4.81 more than you should have done, and you are unseated." He writes back and says, "No, I didn't; I kept well within the margin." "Oh, yes, but your proportion of the money spent by the headquarters of your party, your share, estimated to be so much, comes to so much, and therefore that puts you over the line." We do not want a machinery which will put members of parliament, no matter whether they are ourselves or some other candidate, in that position.
I agree heartily with what the minister said, that he thought the present bill, by merely being extended and expanded in certain regards, could do a great deal of what is aimed at in these resolutions. I heartily agree with him there. Take the case of the expenditures of sums of money. Under our present act the agent has to put in a return under oath of the amount of money he has received, how he has expended it and-note this-from whom he received it. Could one have anything more definite than that? But the way he gets out from under it under the present circumstances is this. He says, " I got $4,000 from Bill Jones and others." Bill Jones may have contributed $200 and the party fund or some corporation may have contributed the balance. That could be very easily adjusted by compelling the agent to state in the case

of every sum bigger than say $50, from whom he got it, and that would be done by a trivial change in the act which we have now.
We are told, and it is a sort of bait held out to us, that one of the results of this may be to reduce the costs of the candidates. Well, I cannot see it. I am afraid it is going to increase the cost to us, because we are going to be at the beck and call of the corporation sole fellow; in the middle of the election he may come forward and say, " You cannot hire that hall because you are exceeding your quota up to date," or something of that kind, and in this trinity of capacities he is likely to cost you a great deal of money. Above all that, there is the harassing anxiety when you are running an election-and it is an anxious enough time-that you will never know until it is all over, perhaps six weeks or perhaps six months afterwards, whether you have not been unseated through some trivial overexpenditure which you were perfectly incompetent or unable to stop at the time.
I know there are restrictions of this kind in Britain, but conditions there are totally different from what they are here, especially in the west where conditions change every month and every year. Now I would desire to see every one of the suggestions the minister has in his resolution put forward and carried to a conclusion. Certainly we want everything that is put there. But for the love of heaven and for the love of wretched candidates who will have to carry on, cut out last year's bill, or put it in the fire, or put it to some more ignoble purpose.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I should like to say one or two words in seconding the amendment to the resolution moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil). Before I do that I wish to congratulate the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) upon the subject-matter of the resolution which we discussed before recess. I am in the fullest accord with the two sections of that resolution, and I hope that not only will the committee be able to find ways and means of making a more satisfactory and possibly more just redistribution of seats than we have had hitherto, but that it will also find ways and means of keeping election expenses within reasonable bounds. I do not share the fears of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) that at some time I may over-spend, that I may spend more in my election than is allowed by the committee, because I am sure that I shall never have that much money to spend. Poverty has its advantages; I am free from that fear.

Elections and Electoral Districts
I wish it to be noted that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North has reference to British Columbia only. The reason that absentee voting is so important to British Columbia is first, the economy of the country, which takes a great many of the voters away from their homes on election day; and second, because we have had for many, many years absentee voting in the provincial elections. I am not sure whether the first act was passed in 1920 or 1924, but I think it was the former year. I believe all federal members from British Columbia are agreed upon the value and the desirability of absentee voting. I never heard one of them oppose it. I remember that on one occasion shortly after the system had been put into effect there was some opposition because of irregularities which had developed, but that was overcome, and there has been no opposition since. I hope, therefore, hon. members will keep in mind that we are asking that this amendment apply only in British Columbia. Of course if hon. members from other provinces wish the same method to apply in their provinces, that is satisfactory to us.	.
I should like to read two sections from the revised statutes of British Columbia, chapter 84, having to do with provincial elections. Section 10S provides for absentee voting, and it will be observed, when I read the section, that in British Columbia absentee voting applies not only to persons outside their own electoral districts on election day but to persons who may be in their own electoral districts but not in the particular polling division in which they are registered. Section 108, subsection 1 of the provincial act reads:
For the purpose of exercising his franchise, any voter whose name is on the list of voters for one polling division of an electoral district, and who is absent from that polling division on the day on which the poll is held, may obtain an absent voter's ballot-paper in any other polling division of the same electoral district and may record his vote in the manner provided in this section.
That section covers all of British Columbia, with the exception of the electoral districts in the cities of Vancouver, Victoria and New Westminster.
Section 109 is still wider than section 108. Subsection 1 of section 109 provides:
For the purpose of exercising his franchise at any general election, any voter whose name is on the list of voters for one electoral district, and who is absent from that district on the day on which a poll is held therein, may obtain an absent voter's ballot-paper for that district in any polling division of any other electoral district in which a poll is being held, and may record his vote in the manner provided in this section.
As I said before, in British Columbia we have had this method of voting for the past twenty years. The people have become accustomed to it. Loggers and others who, on election day, are away from their homes, or from the places where their names appear bn the voters' lists, feel that they have something to do with the election of the government when they are allowed to exercise their franchise.
It seems to me that democracy means the extending to every class within the country the privilege of taking part in the government of the country. To the extent that we can do that, and to the extent that all classes can take part in the government of the country, jujt to that extent do we have democracy. And to the extent that any class, or section of any class, is restricted from taking part in the government of the country, or in electing its representatives, to that extent is our democracy limited.
A great deal of argument has been made about the cost. In my opinion in the election of 1935 the high cost was on account of the inexperience of the election workers. I am sure that with better organization and the freer use of the absentee method of voting the cost would be much less. In the amendment we are asking to have this method applied to four different occupations, namely, lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners. I would point out to the house that in the provincial elections in British Columbia absentee voting is not restricted to any particular occupations. As I have indicated in the two sections I have read, any person who is not in his polling division or electoral district on election day may vote by absentee ballot. I would ask the government to give the most favourable consideration to the amendment to enlarge the scope of the reference to the committee, before deciding to turn the amendment down.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), I can only say that last year in committee considerable time was spent in discussing the subject of absentee voting. If the amendment is in order, which I doubt very much, my first objection to it would be that it applies only to British Columbia. If the act is going to be amended to provide for absentee voting, then it would appear to me that there should be general application so that it would apply to every province. The maritime provinces must be in exactly the same position as British Columbia, and the same observation would apply to those constituencies facing on the

Elections and Electoral Districts
great lakes. The sailors on those lakes will be absent from home, just in the same way as the seamen, lumbermen and fishermen of British Columbia may be absent.
The hon. member has referred to my remarks of last year as reported at page 4246 of Hansard. On that occasion I said:
The committee found that the expense of absentee voting did not warrant our including it in this bill. For instance, in the election of 1935 there were 5,334 votes polled under the absentee voting provision. We found that 1,533 of them were rejected. The cost of absentee voting was approximately $250,000, or $65 plus, per vote. And it was by reason of the expense which was incurred in connection with absentee voting the committee decided that for the sake of a vote of that size we would not be warranted in inserting a clause which would deal with absentee voting.
If expense is no object, then I assume we can provide for every person in Canada, no matter where he or she may be, exercising his or her franchise on election day. Certainly machinery can be set up in some way whereby every man would have an opportunity to vote, either before or after the election, and whether or not he was in his own constituency or polling subdivision.
However, I believe the committee had before them all the representations which have been made this evening, and they gave every consideration to the matter. Their conclusion was that they were not justified in inserting the absentee provisions which were in the 1934 act.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Was any other method of dealing with the problem considered by the committee?


Charles Edward Bothwell: Various methods were discussed. As a matter of fact, representations were made to the committee by an organization of sailors on the great lakes. Representations were made with respect to the exercising of their franchise, and I believe a resolution of two or three pages was presented in which suggestions were made which would have had the effect of permitting them to vote. However, so far as I am concerned as a member of the committee-and I assume other members will have the same view-I am ready to reconsider the matter, if it is deemed advisable. But I do not see how the same committee can reach a conclusion different from the one they arrived at last year. If the amendment is in order I would consider discussing the matter again-although I see the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) shaking his head. I assume he is of the same opinion I am, namely that it will not get any further than it did last year.


Mr. VICTOR QUELCH (Acadia):: I had
no intention of speaking on this motion, but in view of certain statements that have been made during the debate I should like to make a few brief remarks. It has been suggested that the social credit proposals were used as a bribe during the last provincial election in Alberta. Hon. members making those charges show complete ignorance of the growth of the social credit movement in that province. That movement started at least three years before the election. It was started as an economic movement, with no intention at that time of political action. An attempt was made to persuade the United Farmers of Alberta government to introduce legislation implementing the social credit proposals, and it was not until that government had definitely refused to take any action in that regard that finally the people of Alberta from one end to the other demanded of Mr. Aberhart that he organize politically. In view of that it cannot possibly be maintained that social credit was used as a bribe, because the people cannot very well bribe themselves, and it was as a result of the demands of the people that the action was taken.
I will, however, agree that in the last election social credit was used as a bribe, not by the Social Credit party but by the leader of the Liberal party in Alberta.


An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Victor Quelch: I hear one hon. gentleman
laugh.	I quote this statement from the
Edmonton Journal of August 17, 1935:
Many Liberal candidates and speakers are denouncing social credit with great vigour. But no matter how completely one may agree with what they have to say on the subject, it is impossible to forget the stand that their leader has taken and the pledge that was given in the party's platform. A statement from Mr. Howson was published in the editorial column of the Medicine Hat News on January 14 last, which read:
"The Liberal party has maintained an open mind and has and will be at all times fully prepared to treat the social credit idea sympathetically. ... I sincerely hope that no Liberal member or candidate and no Liberal may take the position of fighting the social credit movement."
In an address at Bentley, three and a half months later, Mr. Howson had this to say:
You may be surprised to learn that the Liberal party was in the field on behalf of social credit before the Alberta movement started. . . . Mr. Aberhart has promised his followers no more than the Liberal party has. As a matter of fact he has promised them less.
So when people suggest that social credit was used as a bribe in Alberta, remember that it was by the leader of the Liberal party.

Elections and Electoral Districts


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope the
hon. member is making it clear that he is speaking of the provincial leader.


Victor Quelch: Yes, I mentioned the name, Mr. Howson.
Some people may say that the Social Credit party in Alberta has not succeeded in carrying out its promises in full. But if the leader of the Liberal party-and I am now talking of the federal leader-had kept his promises, then Alberta would have had a far better chance to fulfil its program than it has had. Of course I am referring to the promise made in Saskatoon in the 1935 campaign, reported as follows:
In Alberta at the present moment the government was launched on the experiment of social credit. "I hope with all my heart that they will he successful," said Mr. King, assuring the audience that if he was returned as Prime Minister of Canada, Alberta would be assured of the greatest freedom in carrying out its experiment under the Liberal policy of not interfering with the rights of the provinces.
Surely no one will suggest that that promise has been fulfilled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So long as the province kept within its own field it has had ample scope.


Victor Quelch: The Prime Minister may say that disallowance was out of his hands. But I refer to another matter in which the promise of this government was not kept. I refer to the action taken in the spring of 1936 when some of the provinces, including Alberta, had certain bonds maturing. They were given the option of either depending upon their own resources, which generally speaking meant default, or becoming a party to the loan council.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I think the hon. member is getting far from the resolution before the house. The question of Mr. Aberhart is not before the house.


Victor Quelch: It was only when the Prime Minister denied that the rights of the provinces had been interfered with, that I mentioned that subject.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Manic'' took exception to a certain Professor Anonymous. Surely he is not suggesting that the premier of Alberta was trying to make the people of Alberta believe that this gentleman was in reality a professor of economics. If he was fooled by that play he was the only one who was. It was just a piece of playacting, but apparently the acting was so good that the leader of the opposition thought it was real. It was generally understood by
everyone in Alberta; the people knew those who took part in that little play; it was a little act put on week after week.


Robert James Manion: There was no hint of
humour about it the day I heard it.


Victor Quelch: It depends on one's point of view. To the followers of the movement it was humorous; from the psychology of a hidebound Conservative of course it would be highly distasteful.
Another point referred to by the leader of the opposition was those articles in the Ottawa Citizen. Personally I cannot see anything to take exception to in those articles. It is old, old stuff which, generally speaking, has been believed in Canada for years. We all know there are campaign funds; we know that in some instances contributions have been large, and I do not think there is any change in that respect.


Robert James Manion: I did not claim that there are no campaign funds, I said there are. But the Citizen charged that both the Liberal and the Conservative party are the tools of the people who contribute to campaign funds; that is what I contradicted.


Victor Quelch: The leader of the opposition admits that large sums are contributed to campaign funds. I ask why? Why are they contributed? For the purpose of supporting a certain policy. Would the leader of the opposition suggest that if the old-line parties departed from their present orthodox reactionary policy, these contributions would continue to come in?


Robert James Manion: Certainly they would continue.


Victor Quelch: Not from certain large financial corporations, who contribute funds in order to maintain the status quo.


Robert James Manion: I do not admit that.


Victor Quelch: If they thought for a
moment that the old parties would depart from their present program, these contributions would immediately stop.


Robert James Manion: The people who contribute believe in certain principles; if we departed from those principles they would not support us, I admit that.


Victor Quelch: Yes; unfortunately the
people who can contribute these large sums are large financial corporations, and they are willing to contribute as long as the present reactionary policies are maintained. That is what the people object to; they object to

Elections and Electoral Districts
large financial corporations being able to support a reactionary government. That I think is a fair statement. It is not a question of whether there is a string tied to any contribution; the question is that these large financial corporations are willing to donate funds to maintain the status quo. That is why I think it is a very good thing that this bill is brought in by the Minister of Pensions and National Health. It will receive our support.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil) is out of order on two counts. The first is that the statement made in it is absolutely inaccurate. The amendment is that the motion be amended by adding the following clause-to study, I assume:
(c) methods whereby lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners in the province of British Columbia may be enabled to exercise their franchise under the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
But they are able now to exercise their franchise, excepting only a certain few who happen to be away from their homes. Of all the people of Canada, those who took advantage of the absentee voters clause during the last election numbered only 5.000. Of all the people in Canada who could take advantage of the absentee voters clause, only 5,000 did so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That does not make the amendment out of order.


Charles Gavan Power: It is out of order, because an inaccurate statement is made. The amendment says that lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners should be enabled to exercise their franchise. If it had said "in order that certain miners who are absent from their homes may be able to exercise their franchise," I would be able to understand it, but it makes the gratuitous statement that somebody is endeavouring to prevent lumbermen, miners, fishermen and seamen from exercising their franchise.
Apart from that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this amendment raises a new issue. The resolution before us deals with redistribution and with political expenditures. What is sought to be referred to the committee here is an amendment to the elections act, which act was thoroughly discussed by the committee for three years and passed by this house last year. I do not think it is the opinion of the house that the reference should be enlarged, and in any event no proper notice was given which would permit raising the issue.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I think the minister is
stretching a point when he says I offered a gratuitous, inaccurate statement. In my remarks I endeavoured to outline the problem, and I would direct your honour's attention to the fact that a ruling was given previously this session, when the act to amend the Fisheries Act was under consideration, to the effect that when the general act was under review it was in order for an hon. member to bring in an amendment.


Charles Gavan Power: But no part of the Dominion Elections Act is under consideration at the moment.


Charles Grant MacNeil: I am coming to that. In his remarks the minister stated that he might take into consideration certain amendments to the Dominion Elections Act which would strengthen its provisions in dealing with political expenditures; and in that regard he did suggest that the Dominion Elections Act would be under review again by this committee, in some respects at least.
I hope the minister does not press the point of order. I see no objection to having the committee give consideration to this vital problem. I have not suggested any particular solution; I have merely asked that the committee review the problem in the light of additional evidence now available.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There is only one point at
issue, namely, whether a member of this house has the right to add something to a reference to a committee. I do not think it has ever been contended that a member has not the right to move an amendment to extend the terms of reference, and that is all that is being sought in this case. The minister himself has presented a resolution referring two matters to the committee; another member of the house rises and asks that the terms of reference be extended in the present instance by including fishermen, lumbermen, miners and seamen in British Columbia.


Charles Gavan Power: A few fishermen, lumbermen, and so on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He did not say "a few."


Charles Gavan Power: But that is what he should have said.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, Mr. Speaker, if in the last election five thousand of these people were prevented from voting, I would not call that a few.


Charles Gavan Power: Five thousand all over Canada.

Elections and Electoral Districts


Abraham Albert Heaps: Well, five thousand is not a few. If the minister thinks the terms of reference should include the maritime provinces, I have not the least objection to having them included, in order to bring the amendment more in order according to his way of thinking; but I cannot remember any time in this house when it was held that an hon. member did not have the right to move to enlarge the terms of reference to a committee.


Angus MacInnis: Before you give your ruling. Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that this motion merely extends the terms of reference contained in the resolution moved this afternoon by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power), and that it concerns a matter closely related to the subject matter of the resolution itself. Surely if five thousand voters are barred from voting because of the limitations of the elections act as it now stands, that is a matter of some importance to this house. Many hon. members who are sitting here received less than five thousand votes. So I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, before ruling on this amendment, to give it most careful consideration, because it is of the greatest importance, psychologically if not in reality, to many people living in British Columbia who, because of circumstances over which they have no control, are unable to be in a place where they can cast their ballots on election day.


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


Mr. FINN:: I should like to say just one word on this resolution.


Walter Edward Foster: This is a point of order. Does any other hon. member wish to speak to it? The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), and seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), is that the motion be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
(c) Methods whereby lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners in the province of British Columbia may be enabled to exercise their franchise under the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) rightly points out to the house that voters of these classes are already entitled to vote, under the Franchise Act. Therefore I think this amendment, as an addition to the motion before the house, would be useless. If it had been a direction
to the committee to inquire into further facilities to be afforded voters of these classes, it might have been considered, but on that score I consider the amendment not in order.
Further, I have looked into the question of amendments and subamendments generally, and the rule is that no new question may be introduced in this manner. I quote from Bourinot, at page 321:
If such a practice were tolerated, all the benefits of giving due notice of a motion, and allowing the house a full opportunity of considering a question, would be practically lost. A member would then be in a. position to surprise the house at any moment with a motion of importance, and the necessity of giving notice would be superseded to all intents and purposes.
This was the second point raised by the Minister of Pensions and National Health, and on these two points I consider that the amendment proposed is out of order.


Charles Grant MacNeil: With all deference, Mr Speaker, because of the principle involved, 1 must challenge your ruling.


Walter Edward Foster: There is only an appeal from my ruling.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Then I appeal from your ruling.
Mr. SPEAKER put the question as follows: During the debate on the motion to appoint a select committee to study and report on methods used to effect a redistribution of electoral districts, and methods whereby the source and disposition of sums received and expended in promoting the return of members of the House of Commons may be readily traceable, and so on; Mr. MacNeil moved, seconded by Mr. Maclnnis, that the motion be amended by adding thereto the following clause:	[DOT]
(c) Methods whereby lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners in the province of British Columbia may be enabled to exercise their franchise under the Dominion Elections Act, 1938.
The amendment was ruled out of order on the ground that it raised a new question beyond the scope of the notice of motion, and a new instruction to the committee should have been moved instead.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, your honour's ruling a few minutes ago was based, I take it, on the objection raised by the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) that the reference included, if I might .put it that way, too much territory, and I noted that when your honour ruled you stated that had the motion been differently worded it might have been in order. The preamble of the resolution states that the committee is to be appointed to study and to report. I therefore move seconded by the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) that the motion be amended by adding thereto the following clause:
(c) Methods whereby certain lumbermen, fishermen, seamen and miners absent from their electoral districts may be enabled to exercise their franchise in dominion elections.
I believe, your honour, that this meets the objections which were raised. The previous amendment that was presented was well [DOT] discussed, and the reasons for the adoption of this amendment are those that have already been discussed earlier this evening.


Charles Gavan Power: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this amendment is out of order on pretty much the same grounds, but personally I think perhaps every member of the committee would have no objection to this question going before it again this year. This is a matter that was studied for three years and met with an unfavourable reception by the committee, but rather than waste the time of the house I would suggest that the question be allowed to go to the committee.


Walter Edward Foster: The amendment is about the same as the previous one so far as being in order is concerned.


James Samuel Taylor: Mr. Speaker,
I find myself in agreement with this amendment because it does tend to enlarge the democratic privilege of the voters, and I should be glad if the minister would accept this amendment and allow the question to be considered by the committee.
Blackmore
Coldwell
Douglas (Weyburn)
Esling
Fair
Green
Hansell
Hayhurst
Heaps
Jaques
Kennedy
Kuhl
Landeryou 
Messrs:
Leonard
Maclnnis
MacNeil
Macphail (Miss)
Marsh
Marshall
Massey
Needham
Neill
Pelletier
Quelch
Ross (St. Paul's) Woodsworth-26,


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, while I voted to support your ruling because, on the general principle of parliamentary procedure, I think a Speaker's ruling should be upheld so far as it can be, at the same time I should like to make it clear that those on this side of the house who voted to support your ruling believe that if there is any method whereby the lumbermen, fishermen, seamen, miners and others who are unable, because of absence, to vote at their regular polling place, can be given the right to vote, it should be given to

Unemployment and Agricultural Distress
them. My opinion, as I listened to the amendment of the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. MacNeil), was that it was one that should be moved in committee.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How could it be?


Robert James Manion: I think it should be moved when the matter is being considered in the committee. My hon. friend (Mr. Power) shakes his head. Then it could be moved as an amendment to the report of the committee or when we are dealing with the act itself, if amendments are to be made to the act. But I rose merely to say that while I voted for the Speaker's ruling, I believe that if there is any method whereby the principle of both these amendments can be incorporated in the Dominion Elections Act, I should be entirely in favour of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it might serve to regularize the amendment to have it in the form of an instruction to the committee that they may consider the following. That, I understand from the clerk, would be the correct form in which the amendment should be put, and if it would satisfy hon. gentlemen opposite to have it presented in that way, it would conform to the rules of the house.


Mr. COLD WELL:: Mr. Speaker, I agree to that suggestion and thank the Prime Minister.


Walter Edward Foster: Then, by leave of the house the amendment will be amended accordingly.
Amendment (Mr. Coldwell) agreed to.
Motion (Mr. Power) as amended agreed to.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) (for the Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide assistance in the alleviation of unemployment and agricultural distress and for such purpose to authorize the execution of undertakings in the general interest of Canada and requisite for the purposes of the act, out of moneys appropriated by parliament, and also to provide financial assistance to the provinces by way of loan, advance or guarantee, out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund, and for the appointment of necessary officers, clerks and employees.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) (for the Minister of Labour) moved that the house go into committee tomorrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure for the purpose of promoting and assisting in the training of unemployed young people to fit them for gainful employment in Canada and, for such purpose, to appropriate sums aggregating four million five hundred thousand dollars to be expended over a period of three years from the 31st March, 1940. The application of the act and the payments made thereunder to be conditional upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon with the several provinces.
He said: There is a slight error in the fifth line. The line reads:
... to be expended over a period of three years from the 31st March, 1940.
That should have read:
. . . to, be expended over a period of three years beginning with the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1940.
If the resolution might be amended in that form I should like to move it, and inform the house that His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution as amended, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: May we have any further details with regard to this matter?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is only a motion to proceed to-morrow in committee. It is the formal motion required to have it appear under government orders.


Mr. MASSEY:: Did the Prime Minister say that the date is 1940 or 1939? This year or next year?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: "Beginning
with the fiscal year which ends March 31, 1940." It is a roundabout way of putting it.


Robert James Manion: Why not simplify it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It can be
simplified to-morrow.
Motion as amended agreed to.
Seed Grain



SEED GRAIN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ernest Edward Perley: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), based on a report in the western papers of a discussion which took place at the convention of the association of rural municipalities, setting out an alarming situation with respect to the lack of seed grain, especially rust resistant grain, in certain areas of Saskatchewan. I wish to ask the minister if he is prepared to assure the house that either the provincial government or this government will in due time take action which will provide for the requirements of seed in the area where it is needed.


James Garfield Gardiner: The matter of supplying seed where it is needed in Saskatchewan has been under discussion. I understand that the provincial government have the matter well in hand, but I am not in a position to say anything more than that with regard to it.



WHEAT POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: In view of the fact that seeding on the prairies may commence within a month, can the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) inform the house when we may expect some definite pronouncement regarding the question of a fixed price for the 1939 crop and the continuance of a wheat board? I may say we are being asked this question continually. When may we expect an announcement?


James Garfield Gardiner: All I can say with regard to that
is that the policy of the government will be announced in due course.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF PRESENTATION OF REPORT OF ROWELL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert James Manion: I wish to ask the Prime Minister
(Mr. Mackenzie King) when he expects to receive the so-called Rowell commission report. It was mentioned in the speech from the throne that a certain course of procedure

based upon that report might be carried out, and I am hoping that the report will be received early in the session so that we shall have plenty of time to give it consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The last time I had a
word with the chairman of the commission was at the beginning of the year so that I might advise parliament when parliament met. I was then informed that the commission hoped to have their report ready about Easter. I am sorry that I am unable to say whether they are still of that opinion. I shall inquire and try to let my hon. friend know later.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 35, to create a national film board.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Definitions.
Henry Herbert Stevens: The other evening I
pointed out that from the terms of the resolution I feared that what we were about to do was to erect more elaborate machinery for carrying on what could very well be done with the existing machinery. This part of the section, (c) "commissioner," is a part of the interpretation clause which deals with the question of introducing the name "commissioner." The next sentence, (d), refers to " director." My view is this, that without the enlargement of the personnel of the motion picture bureau, that bureau with its director could do all that this bill provides to 'be done. Not only does this clause mean the appointment of an additional first-class public official, with, no doubt, a substantial salary, but it means that he will be surrounded with all the staff which goes with a position of that kind and it involves a great deal of additional expense. I am quite aware, because I have read the bill through, that certain provisions in it make it necessary to appoint the commissioner, but I am taking this first opportunity since the introduction of the bill to reiterate my protest of the other evening that what we are really doing is expanding the service,
I believe unnecessarily. Let me add, so that there will be no question of my motives, that the bureau under the direction of Mr. Badgley,

National Film Board
the present director, has done excellent work and is capable and competent to do continued work quite equal to that contemplated in this biH.	.
I assume the minister will say-I will anticipate what he is going to say-


William Daum Euler: The hon. member may be
wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I may be wrong, but I think I know his mind in this matter. The minister will probably say that this commissioner is to coordinate the present diverse activities of a number of departments in connection with this matter, and that it is necessary to introduce some new person, with a glorified title, in order to impress those in other departments with the importance of this gentleman, so that they will willingly pass on to him their requests, which at present apparently they are not prepared to do to the director. I pointed out the other day to the Prime Minister that all that was necessary in connection with the present machinery was the exercise of administrative authority in order to achieve what this bill is doing, without any additional expense, except that which might be necessary in the physical enlargement of operations-that is, in an increased number of films and so on, if that were thought advisable.
The other evening, speaking from memory, I said that the vote had been about $50,000 or less. I find it was $40,000, or less. In this year's estimates the amount is $150,000. Here is a jump from less than $40,000 to $150,000, a substantial portion of which will be used up, I might say, by the commissioner and his staff, through enlarged offices-because you will have to have offices for the commissioner, for his secretary, for his stenographic staff, and so on. You will have a new battery of offices and an enlarged staff, and by no means all of that $150,000 will go towards the improvement of the actual service.
I say to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that if they will give to the present bureau- additional funds such as they gave last year, they can get from the present personnel and organization all the service they want and all the service that is required in connection with the motion picture business of the government. This is simply the commencement of a large, new organization; and I venture to predict that next year those who come to the house-and possibly some here to-night will not be here at that time-will find that the estimates are again enlarged, and that
this, that, and the other thing will be required in order that this new body may have room to operate.
I am sorry the minister did not listen to my suggestion the other evening, and that he has persisted in going ahead with this new organization. In other words, he is superimposing upon an efficient existing organization unnecessary expansion and personnel. I might say, by the way, that usually the minister is reasonably cautious and conservative in his views.


William Daum Euler: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is, of administration. But here he is now becoming quite reckless in his manner of expenditure.


An hon. MEMBER:: Liberal.


Henry Herbert Stevens: My hon. friend reminds
me that the expansion tendency is Liberal, and I accept that. I was a little delicate about suggesting it. However, it is really a waste of funds, and I protest earnestly and sincerely against it.


William Daum Euler: May I say the fact that I am not able to see eye to eye with the hon. member who has just spoken is really no reflection upon his powers of persuasion. As a matter of fact, with all due respect to him I am afraid he is not quite seized of the intentions of the bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, I said I recognized that if the balance of the bill were carried the commissioner would undoubtedly be necessary to carry out its provisions. But, leave the commissioner out, and you will not need the balance of the bill.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend will appreciate that it takes some centralized authority to coordinate the work of the various departments-


Henry Herbert Stevens: You have it now.


William Daum Euler: -which, primarily, is the purpose behind the bill. If he will appreciate, too, that the board is being set up with the thought that one of its activities is to be the framing and production of what I called national films, he will see that there is a real need for an official of this sort.


Henry Herbert Stevens: None at all.


William Daum Euler: And for a board. That, of course, is just because of a difference of opinion between the hon. member and myself


Henry Herbert Stevens: Decidedly.
National Film Board


William Daum Euler: While my hon. friend has had experience in the Department of Trade and Commerce, perhaps he has not appreciated, as I believe many hon. members have, the great place which the film has made for itself in ordinary business and in various activities throughout the world. Probably he does not realize that other countries are adopting this medium for the promotion and spreading of intelligence, information and, if you like, entertainment for the working out of certain national interests.
That is the purpose of what we are* doing. When the hon. member speaks of the term "commissioner" as being a glorified name to impress other departments-well, I think that is hardly worthy of him. That is not the purpose at all. As a matter of fact, it does not matter particularly to me whether the man in charge is called a commissioner or by some other name. I regarded that as a suitable name to describe his functions.
I think my hon. friend does not show a complete appreciation of what we want to do. It is this, that the director of the bureau and may I say that I can join with him in paying tribute to the efficiency of the director-has enough to do in running the bureau and in dealing with the production of films.
The commissioner will have entirely different work to do. Under the board itself, which will frame policies and which will decide as to national films, if you like, and as to the work which is to be carried on, the commissioner will himself have a sphere in which he may work, and will do work which in my opinion the director of the bureau will not be able to do. There will be sufficient scope for work for both of them.
Had I the time I might dwell upon what I mean by the production of national films. I said the other evening there might be a need or a desirability for the production of a national film which would appeal to the whole country, and which could not be produced by any one department. As we have it now, we have half a dozen departments of government which produce films, but which deal only with the particular work of their own department. But that does not touch what we mean by a national film.
Perhaps from some notes I have before me I might give a somewhat more complete description of what is meant by a national film.
I have spoken of what is meant by a departmental film, namely one which would serve the needs of any one department. For instance, the Department of Trade and Commerce might require a film in connection with the promotion of the sale of goods. One [Mr. Stevens.1
might be required by the Department of Transport, which would deal with encouraging tourist traffic. Then, we might require another for the Department of Labour, and still another for the Department of Mines and Resources, which might deal particularly with the mining of gold or any other mineral. Then we might have a film which would appeal to the whole country; sometimes they are known as prestige-building films. Usually in a dramatic or imaginative way they show different aspects of a country's life. They show its work, its resources, and its achievements in the various fields of social and industrial endeavour. Such films are designed to sell the idea of a country in terms of national perspective, so as to build up an increased interest and a favourable sentiment towards a nation and its people, at home and abroad.
The other evening the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) offered the suggestion that provision be made for the distribution of national films designed to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and problems of Canadian people. That conveys pretty well the idea of what is meant by a national film.
I am not going into the matter at greater length, but I would say that if the committee believes there is work to be done by way of having national films which appeal to the country at large, entirely distinct from the work of any one department, then I think we have room for the formation of a film board, to be headed by a film commissioner, which would carry out that work entirely in addition to the work of coordination of the operations of the various departments, to which I made reference before.
The hon. member has made reference to the amount of money appropriated this year. He has said that last year we spent a little less than $40,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No; last year the amount was about $88,000. In 1037 it was $40,000.


William Daum Euler: No; I have information before me showing the amounts for the last ten years going back to the time when the hon. member was in charge of the department. These are the amounts:
Year
1930-31
1932-	33
1933-	34
1934-	35
1935-	36 1930-37
1937-	38.
1938-	39,
Amount in estimates $75,000
75.000
65.000
45.000
70.000 SOjOOO
40.000 40,800 41,880 40,279

National Film Board
The drop in 1935-36 may be significant. So it would appear that the amount is quite small. As the hon. member has correctly stated, last year the amount was more than $88,000. The explanation is simple. My hon. friend may not know it, but in the last year or so the estimates have been drawn up somewhat differently from what they were before. Where before the salaries were included in civil government, they are now included in the film vote. That practice is now carried on throughout the various departments. In the coming year the same thing will be done, but in addition to that we are going to spend more money for film purposes. We propose to make five or six additional films, because the films now distributed in the old country, those films in our distribution depot in the United Kingdom, are obsolete. They are no longer worth sending out, and we must have something new if we want them to be worthy of this country. That is the reason for the additional appropriation.
I do not share my hon. friend's fears to the effect that the film board will be expanded into a heavy-spending body. I do not anticipate that for a moment. The work we want to do is coordinating the film activities of the various departments. I sincerely believe we can actually save some money.


John Ritchie MacNicol: By cutting down the expense in the film branches of other departments?


William Daum Euler: Exactly, where there is overlapping or inefficiency. But with the growth of the film as a method for the dissemination of information and advertising I would not say that it is not possible and might not indeed be thoroughly justifiable and a proper thing to do to spend more money in that way. We are using this particular method of advertising Canada and Canadian activities and the work of the various departments. But it is not the intention arbitrarily to create a board with a big staff and spend large sums of money. In fact, I think at the outset about the only additional expenditure besides perhaps national films that we ought to have is the salary of the commissioner himself. I do not know what that salary is going to be. It is important that we get the right man as commissioner, because an important duty will rest upon him in the working out of the national films themselves. Beyond that, I should think a stenographer and perhaps a clerk in the office will be all that is required.


Robert James Manion: That is the way it always starts.


William Daum Euler: Well, I say quite frankly that if it is found to be in the interests of Canada that that branch should expand, I should have no hesitation in bringing before the house added estimates to carry out what I consider to be in the interests of the country. But in the meantime there is no intention of having it become a heavily manned and expensive department.


Robert James Manion: Could the minister give the costs of the film branches of other departments?


William Daum Euler: I can only give what the other departments expended with other film
producing concerns:
Finance	
Justice.. .. _	
Mounted police	
Post office	 [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Mines and geology branch.. ..
Lands, parks and forests	
Agriculture

That is for the last fiscal year, 1937-38.


John Charles Landeryou: Does that include the Department of National Defence?


William Daum Euler: That department is not mentioned. This is information supplied by the treasury officials regarding expenditures made by the departments for motion pictures and other photographic work other than payments to departments of the public service. Some of the work is done through the bureau and some by outside concerns. I think one or two of the departments did not use the bureau at all. Since we have a bureau that is as good as anything in this country or even in the United States, it is hoped that in the interests of economy, if for no other reason, that they will use the facilities we have now in the bureau. We have a plant there that has cost the country something like $200,000- I do not think in the last three years since I have been in charge of the department that much has been added in the way of capital expenditure. But we have a well equipped and well manned bureau that can do the work; why should it not do it?


Robert James Manion: Is the money spent by the other departments, amounting to nearly $52,000, for work done by the moving picture section of his department or by outside companies?


William Daum Euler: This is ''other than payments to departments of the public service." That is not very clear. I am not sure whether it is the money spent with the bureau or money spent, for instance, with Associated Screen
National Film Board

News or some other private concern. This is not all that was expended by the other departments; that is true. But we do hope that in the coming year, when this board is established, all the departments of government will as far as possible use the facilities of our own bureau. If the bill goes through, it will be necessary for the various departments to get permission of the board before they can project any films.


Robert James Manion: Has not the minister today a Mr. Badgley who is director of the moving picture branch of his department, which really is the only moving picture branch of any importance that we have in the country?


William Daum Euler: That is correct.


Robert James Manion: Does the minister know
whether that work done for the other departments was done by outside companies, or paid by the different departments to his moving picture branch?


William Daum Euler: It is done both ways.


Robert James Manion: Yes. The moving picture bureau under Mr. Badgley of the Department of Trade and Commerce, is a branch for which I have a good deal of respect. While I was never Minister of Trade and Commerce I was acting minister of that department occasionally when the then minister, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens) was away. Thus I became acquainted with the work of Mr. Badgley and his group, and I have a great deal of respect for him.
In view of the comparatively small amounts that are being spent by the other departments mentioned by the minister, who said the mines branch was spending some 820,000 while various others were spending less, some as little as $5,000, is it not sufficient to leave things as they are and allow Mr. Badgley to carry on exactly as he is doing, with this modification: If other departments want moving picture work done, it should be done by Mr. Badgley's branch? If it is necessary, from the point of view of other departments, to have some check on Mr. Badgley, that might be effected by some kind of interdepartmental committee. Take the mines branch, as a good illustration. Possibly there will be more and more work done on behalf of that branch, which has to do with one of our great industries. The Department of Agriculture might be another branch that would have a good deal of work to be done. If Mr. Badgley had something in the way of an interdepartmental committee to assist him, he could do exactly what would be done by the new commission proposed by the minister.

We have Mr. Badgley, an able civil servant, who has been doing splendid work: the minister himself said so, and I know that to be the case from what little experience I have had with that bureau. He is not to be encouraged to carry on his work on the wider scale which the minister believes will be necessary. Instead of that, and instead of attaching greater importance to his position, the government is thinking of bringing in some outsider, no doubt a man who has had something to do with moving pictures, putting him over Mr. Badgley and forming a new bureaucratic branch of government. I say this sincerely, and with no thought of merely opposing the minister: I believe we have enough departments of government now.
I remember many years ago in this house listening to a speech by the Minister of Mines and Resources (Mr. Crerar); as I remember it, he was then in opposition. I have never forgotten that speech; it is the only one he ever made that I remembered- he is behind the curtain there, so I will tell him this. In his speech he showed the rapid increase in the number of civil servants, year after year. I do not wish to steal the thunder of my hon. friend the member for Kootenay East (Mr. Stevens), but as he pointed out the other day, every time a new branch of any kind is established it starts out with an officer and a secretary. Within a few months the secretary has a secretary, and of course there is always a messenger in the beginning as well. Then, before you know it, you have a real branch of some department built up, and the more employees they get the more important they think they are. It is a strange thing, but I am informed by outstanding civil servants that many of them at any rate, if not all, judge their importance by the number of employees they have under them. So it seems to be a habit, whenever a new branch is established, to build it up and make it important. I could give many instances which I remember. I have one in mind in particular, but I do not wish to name it because I believe it performs a useful service. I can think of others, however, that have started in the same way and have been continually built up. Finally, instead of spending the $125,000 which is indicated for this year, we shall be spending perhaps S250.000, and we shall have another bureaucracy taking over part of our government.
I say to the minister in all sincerity that he should hold up this bill a little longer, give it further consideration and see if a scheme cannot be worked out, as I feel sure it can, whereby Mr. Badgley may remain in

National Film Board
control of his own bureau, assisted by something in the way of an interdepartmental committee made up of representatives of the other departments interested. These might include the Department of Mines and Resources and perhaps the Department of Agriculture. The minister of that department, being such a good friend of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, probably would be of particular assistance. That is an aside, however; that is not really of any great importance.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend does not
really mean that.


Robert James Manion: No, probably I do not. To be serious, however, I do believe the minister could allow things to remain as they are, with Mr. Badgley in control, and set up a committee of representatives of two or three other departments, who would see that all applications received fair treatment. I am sincerely of the opinion that the minister would be well advised to hold up this legislation and not start another branch which to my mind is not necessary, and I say that after having listened with reasonable care to what the minister has said and to the discussion that has taken place.


Mr. McIVOR:: I have a purpose in rising
at this time, Mr. Chairman. I believe this change will make for efficiency. There seems to be more than one head to this body now; and I am sure the leader of the opposition, being a medical man of note, would agree that one head was enough for one body. We have reason to believe that the work of this branch is increasing, and it is most important work. We can send down to this branch, secure films and send them back to our constituencies without any charge of any kind. Many of these films were shown in Chippawa park last year, and they attracted and interested tourists from outside Canada.
I desired to ask whether the work of this department was growing rapidly, and also whether the department is now under one head? My other purpose was to tell the minister that one of the most important sections of Canada seems to have been left out when these films were made. Those who know the head of the lakes will agree that there we have scenery second to none on the continent of north America. For instance, we have Kakabeka Falls, with 190 foot head. If the minister will see that these pictures include some of the beautiful scenery at the head of the lakes, I am sure it will interest tourists from all over this and other countries.


Denton Massey: Mr. Chairman, I gather
that in connection with this bill the minister is permitting a general discussion of the whole situation, and I think we must look at it from the point of view of the importance of the job that is to be done. After all, we have at hand an organization for the production of films. As I understand it, the minister is not anxious to add to that organization; rather, he desires some body which through one individual, the commissioner, will have control over the production of films for the various departments of government. His idea, as I gather it, is not to add to the present film division; his desire is to have a coordinating body.
The success or failure of the coordinating body which he suggests, as I see it, depends upon two main factors. In the first place the success of what he has in mind will depend very largely upon the choice of the commissioner. If the commissioner is a man who has not had the full breadth of experience necessary for this position, he will not be of value to the board to which he is responsible; for, after all, he will be the connecting link between that board and the mechanical production of these films. Therefore he must be a technical man, able to give to the board such advice which is so necessary in the production of a successful film.
According to this bill, there are three gentlemen outside the permanent civil service who are to be appointed to the board. When discussing the resolution the other evening I suggested to the minister what I thought was a most important point. I suggested he make sure that among these three men there should be at least one-it would be preferable to have more-who had certain experience, not only in the production of film but in its conception. After all, an idea is one thing and the production of it is another. It is all very well for the minister of any department to suggest that a film should be produced to accomplish a certain purpose which he has in mind-it may be that the tourist bureau would want to show that in certain parts of Canada there are attractions for the tourists in the form of bass, maskalonge or otherwise- but one would not expect the minister to be a showman, as I suggested the other night. The conception of that film would be one thing; its production would be another. Just exactly how are you going to provide a short to be shown on the screens in the northern part of the United States drawing attention to the fact that there are certain areas in Canada where the maskalonge is just waiting for the tourist to come to take him home? After all, there are various ways in which that
National Film Board

can be done. I have seen it done successfully and I have seen it done badly. Therefore, in considering the suggestion which the minister makes, I think it is highly desirable that the commissioner should be the type of man which I have outlined. And further, as I have said, at least one and preferably two of the three men to be appointed outside the permanent civil service should be of the type who can give the fullest and best advice to the whole board.
I do not know whether the minister has anyone directly in mind to be appointed commissioner, but this man should possess three main attributes. In the first place, he should be a technical man or he should be constantly making contacts with those who have technical ability. He should be able to tell the board whether or not what is suggested is possible. After all, there may be a suggestion made in all sincerity by a minister for the production of a certain film which might present unusual and extraordinary technical difficulties. The commissioner ought to be able to see at once that while such a film can be produced, if it were produced in a certain way it could be turned out at perhaps a third of the cost. He should have some knowledge of the technical difficulties which may be encountered in the production of film and some realization of the technical possibilities.
Then he should be a showman in his own way. He should have some idea of how a film should register upon an audience. He should be able to say to a minister whether or not the suggested film will be suitable for the type of audience to which it is to be shown. In the third place, and probably the most important, he should be an advertising man. If we look through the pages of our newspapers, if we glance at our magazines or if we listen to our radio we do not find it difficult to tell whether the advertising we see or the advertising we hear has been prepared or produced by a man who knows something about that art. The effect of advertising, be it received through the eye or through the ear, or both simultaneously, must be spontaneous. To be effective, advertising must be at once effective. When you see a film, the impression which it is intended to leave is either left upon your mind or it is not. It seems to me that the necessity for an advertising type of commissioner is an exceedingly important point.
There is a great need for films to present Canada, not only to Canadians but to the people in other parts of the world. The minister knows from his own experience in other countries that the phrase "made in Canada ' does not have the effectiveness it
fMr. McIvor.J
should. We are proud of our agricultural products, as we have every right to be; we are confident that our manufactured products are of a type and kind which should have acceptance on the markets of the world. Certainly it is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite that it is highly to be desired the channels of trade be opened to Canadian produce and to Canadian manufactured products. On the other hand, any salesman knows that adequate advertising decreases sales resistance and heightens desire, and thus is an important part of successful trade.
As the government of Canada has made it possible, through such agreements as the Ottawa agreements of 1932, to permit our entry into the market of the United Kingdom, it seems to me to be highly desirable, from the point of view of the producer of this country, that the government assume its share of responsibility in attempting to merchandise those products in that particular market. I have been to various shops, vegetable markets and so forth in the United Kingdom, and I have found great difficuty in obtaining made-in-Canada goods. I am sure the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) will agree on at least this one point, that we should advertise our merchandise as fully as possible, be it agricultural products or be it manufactured products, in the market in which we are attempting to sell.
Canada is a tremendous country capable of producing highly diversified products, but I have yet to happen to be in an English or Scotch cinema when there was being shown a picture depicting Canada from the point of view of the production of farm products or the production of manufactured products. The average resident of the United Kingdom has little idea of the length and breadth of Canada; he has little idea of what our prairies look like and so on, but he can be shown these things. This need not be done according to the Hollywood conception; it need not be based upon some absurd drama; it should be by means of a carefully prepared government film. For example, if we are to sell our excellent prairie beef in the United Kingdom, surely the consumer in the United Kingdom should have an opportunity of seeing from what part of the world that beef comes. Such a film could be made extremely attractive.
Then I turn to the tourist trade. The average resident of the United Kingdom has never been to Canada. The number of tourists from the United Kingdom to Canada

National Film Board
is very small compared with the number that come from the United States. Perhaps this year the resident of the United Kingdom may be a little wary of going to the continent. He likes to travel, and he should be made to realize that Canada can provide a perfect and comparatively safe playground for his summer holiday. Are we in the process of preparing adequate advertising literature, films or whatever may be needed to attract the visitor to Canada? I am sure Mr. Dolan is to be heartily congratulated upon the work he has done with the tourist bureau; but, as I have said in the past in committee, the vote which we grant each year for the development of our tourist trade is highly inadequate. Our tourist trade has been one of our most profitable businesses. Many hundreds of thousands of tourists come here each year from the United States, but we can do more, much more, to develop this trade.
To sum up what I have said, it seems to me that the purpose of this bill is perfectly sound from many different points of view. I fully realize that there may be the danger of appointing another commission, that we may be providing a temptation to broaden out and spend more money. I suggest to the minister that he has at hand, without going very much further, the necessary material to build up through readjustment what he has essentially proposed in his bill. I have, as I have already said, great confidence in Mr. Badgley. It seems to me the work he has done so far has demonstrated that he possesses in great part those attributes I suggest the commissioner should possess. The minister may say that it is a two-man job to run a film bureau and to act as commissioner on this board. It may be so. On the other hand, if that is so, instead of retaining the present set-up of the film bureau why would it not be possible from out of the film bureau to take the head as a sort of commissioner and give him the necessary assistants to carry on the work which he would not be able to carry on by himself in the future as a result of his new responsibility. I think it is quite possible, Mr. Chairman, to form, as it were, a committee rather than a board within both the ministry and the permanent civil service.


William Daum Euler: There will be an interdepartmental committee in addition to the board.


Denton Massey: And will the interdepartmental committee be composed of permanent civil servants?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Denton Massey: May I ask the minister whether the board will consult the committee, or will the committee report to the board?


William Daum Euler: The committee will really cooperate more particularly with the director of the bureau. My hon. friend will find when we come to that clause in the bill, it will be described in the bill itself.


Denton Massey: Then I do not wish to detain the committee any longer. I have spoken at greater length than I had intended.
I just want to say in conclusion that I think the minister will find and appreciate that he has on hand at the moment the necessary machinery for the production of films, and that in his effort to coordinate the activities of the various departments he will arrive at the conclusion that a board composed of the present available personnel is the best possible means of achieving that end. I suggest that he give full consideration to the possibility of developing the board itself from within the ranks of those who sit on the treasury benches and of the permanent civil service, bearing in mind that he has at his disposal the services of two such able gentlemen as Mr. Badgley and Mr. Dolan.


Mr. WHITE:: Mr. Chairman, I am a little curious to learn from the minister the vent of these films. How are they circulated? Their purpose I take to be principally to attract trade and tourist travel from abroad to Canada. Are these films shown in moving picture theatres, and if so, are prices paid by the government to these theatres for the showing of the films. It is a very simple thing to produce films of Canada, its resources, scenery and so on, but a very different matter to have those films shown more or less throughout Europe and the United States. I should think that is a costly proceeding, and if the government has not as yet been paying out money to that end, what sort of circulation of the films has been secured?


William Daum Euler: The bureau has produced literally thousands of feet of film which are being distributed. They are not shown to as great an extent in the theatres as might be wished, because with the present practice of moving picture theatres of running two feature films, there is not much room for a short film.


Robert James Manion: Not enough sex appeal.


William Daum Euler: Perhaps not, but it is hoped that progress will be made by showing the film in the theatres. There are also a great many organizations which are very glad to receive these films. They are distributed to
National Film Board

schools, Y.M.C.A's and various social organizations. I might give some indication of the work which has been done.


John Charles Landeryou: Would the minister at the same time give the type of film distributed?


William Daum Euler: I am not sure that I can at the moment give the particular types of film distributed, although I can procure that for a later stage. The motion picture bureau has a world-wide circulation for its films far in excess of any other film organization in Canada and probably greater than any other governmental film organization in the world. It has more films in circulation in more countries than any other organization in Canada. The bureau has produced twenty-three new films in the last year. It has at the present time over 6,000 copies of its films in active circulation in about thirty countries and is reaching an estimated audience of probably 40,000,000 people each year. Actual reports for the past year show a total audience in the United Kingdom of over 4,000,000 and between nineteen million and twenty million in the United States.


Gerald Verner White: Are the films free to these organizations?


William Daum Euler: In most instances.


Robert James Manion: Is not the story which the minister has just told of the very good distribution that is now taking place an argument against what he is proposing? In other words, the present distribution is so good, as he has just described it to us that I do not see why he needs any different type of organization. That struck me when the minister was giving his explanation. While I knew there was a considerable distribution. I do not mind saying I had no idea it was so widespread as the minister has just indicated. A distribution of film that reaches 40,000.000 people and spreads over thirty different countries seems to me a splendid distribution. The organization would seem to be doing such excellent work that I do not know why the minister wishes to change it. That is what puzzles me a bit. I think a little widening out along the line suggested by my hon. friend the member for Greenwood (Mr. Massey)-and that was really the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Kootenay East and myself, namely that the present organization be widened-with Mr. Badgley remaining as the head, and something in the way of an interdepartmental committee to advise him, should answer the purpose. If the minister wished, there could also

be something in the way of outside honorary advisers. But the idea of bringing in another commissioner, and setting up another bureau over Mr. Badgley and the men who have brought about this splendid distribution, seems unnecessary and really strange to me.


William Daum Euler: I am sure that my hon.
friend will agree that nothing is ever so good that it cannot be improved, and that is exactly what we hope to do in the setting up of this organization. Something has been said with regard to Mr. Badgley who -is now director of the bureau, and the suggestion has been made that he could handle the whole thing. I have nothing to say of Mr. Badgley but what is good; he is an excellent official. But- and when I say this I am giving no intimation whether Mr. Badgley or anyone else is to be the commissioner because neither the government nor I have given any consideration to who the commissioner might be-I do contend that if we are going to carry on this work in the way that has been suggested by the hon. member for Greenwood and according to what is in my own mind, it means a better distribution, the elimination of overlapping, and the creation of what we might call departmental films. I think there is a job there for two good men; one as a director of the bureau, to do the work that is being done now-and perhaps still better work is possible with added facilities-and certainly there some one else is needed for the framing of national policies and the producing of national pictures such as will be done by the board with the assistance of the commissioner, the commissioner being an executive officer.
I am convinced, after giving this matter a great deal of thought, that it will add to the efficiency of our picture distribution if we adopt a plan something of this kind. The bureau itself is the productive factor. The work of initiating films, especially of a national character, is something entirely different. It is related to it; but it requires, to my mind, a different kind of efficiency-initiative, and the power of developing films on a national basis for educative purposes, advertising purposes and so forth. Not the production itself, which is more or less a mechanical job, but the initiating of ideas in connection with national films, requires something more in the way of special capacity, and it is for that reason we want to enlist the services of someone from the outside.
The hon. member for Greenwood made a very good point, I thought, when he said that there will be required on that board one technical man who knows something of the

National Film Board
film business, something of the value of advertising, something of the sort of appeal which can be made to the public. That knowledge ought also to be in the commissioner himself, and it is going to be an important matter to select the right man for that position. It may be Mr. Badgley; I do not knowT. There seems to be considerable solicitude in the committee as to what will become of Mr. Badgley. I am not prepared to say. I am perfectly sincere when I say that the selection of the commissioner has not been made even tentatively as far as I am concerned. But I believe that if we want to carry out the principles outlined in the bill, to coordinate the work of the various departments and initiate national films for general country-wide educational purposes, we need the two organizations and their officers, the director of the bureau and the commissioner to proceed with the work under the board itself.
I do not know that I can make any better argument. I could give, perhaps in more detail, a description of the work it is hoped to do. I could give a description of the work which is now being done, and show that the work done by the various departments individually and separately, while good in itself, can be tremendously improved by eliminating some of the overlapping and unnecessary expenditure.
I should like again to reassure if I can some hon. members who seem to fear that we are going to set up a costly organization to run into hundreds of thousands of dollars of expenditure and create another bureaucracy. I regard that as imaginary. I do not believe it will happen, because the committee should remember that all the moneys the board will spend must be voted by this parliament. On the board there will be two members of the government and three civil servants. From that it surely must be evident that the operations will be thoroughly under the control of the government itself and of parliament. So long as I happen to be at the head of the department there is not going to be any spreading out of an expensive staff in connection with this board. As a matter of fact, I am astonished that so much argument has arisen in connection with it. It is not a tremendously expensive agency that we propose to set up; it is just something which seems to me to be the sensible and businesslike thing to do. So far from creating expense, I believe we shall eliminate some expense and obtain more efficiency than we have had hitherto. That is all the purpose we have in mind.


Grote Stirling: For instance, in the matter of accommodation, will there be room in the
motion picture bureau for this board of about fifteen people, including the advisory board, the secretary and so on? Is there accommodation for a number such as that?


William Daum Euler: I have not given any thought to that. But this board will not meet very often, probably only once or twice a month, and surely it will be an easy matter to find a room in which its meetings can be held. As to the small office staff, one or two at most in addition to the commissioner, I do not think I shall find any difficulty in providing room in my department to accommodate these people.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not going to prolong the discussion beyond making clear my position. I had directed my remarks to the subclause of section 2 regarding the commissioner, but the discussion has broadened out until it involves really the bill. There are two or three matters to which I should like to refer. The term "coordination" has been used, and the suggestion has been made that this bill represents the first time that a little common sense has been injected into this business-


William Daum Euler: Oh, no.


Henry Herbert Stevens: and that we are now going to do the businesslike thing and coordinate the motion picture business. The motion picture business was coordinated years ago when a bill was introduced for that very purpose. That is why the bureau was established. But, as I said the other night, because of loose administration-and I am not blaming particularly this government any more than previous governments - other departments crept into the business and we had the same condition as existed before the first coordination. Now we are going to have a second coordination to coordinate the first coordination. That is really what we are doing. All that was necessary was that the Prime Minister and the minister or the governor in council should call attention to the tendency to spread out, point to the fact that there was a bureau, and instruct the different departments to do their motion picture business through that bureau which at present exists, and which was coordinated once for that purpose.
The second point is that while you are erecting a board, you have at present in the minister's department an organization which will take care of all that is proposed in the bill. The national research council is under the direction of a committee of the privy council of which the minister is chairman. There are, I think, four ministers on that committee.
National Film Board


William Daum Euler: More than that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Four or five. It is comparatively a small committee. The same thing could be done in this case. You could make your committee of one or two ministers plus several senior civil servants, and establish it by an administrative act without any legislation at all, under the precedent I have already cited.


William Daum Euler: My hon. friend was minister of this department and therefore was chairman of the committee of ministers which had to do with the research council.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Did he find any difficulty
in getting these ministers together and getting any actual service out of them? I did.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No. I had associated with me Doctor MacLaren, Doctor Sutherland and Mr. Gordon, and I have forgotten whom ' else. I think there were five ministers. I had no difficulty. I simply sent a notice out and they met in my office quite frequently.


William Daum Euler: The hon. member's experience is better than mine.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That may be. But we
had no difficulty. The committee functioned admirably.
There is another point which, at least in my view, should be cleared up. The minister has referred several times to the bureau as "technical." Certainly the bureau is technical, but I want to tell him and tell this committee that the bureau under its present direction has all the elements of vision which are necessary for the production and designing of films. I was amazed at the unusual skill which was present there for the designing and production of film subjects. All we have to do is go over the library of films. If hon. members are interested they could go to the bureau and have a few of them put on the screen. It might be a good idea for the minister to invite members to go to the bureau to see those films, because I believe they are excellent. The hon. member for Greenwood stated a minute ago that he has not seen any in the old country. I was in the old country and I saw a number of them.


Denton Massey: I said I happened not to
have seen them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I remember seeing a
number of excellent films. I saw some Russian films, and films from other countries exhibited at the same time. I would say that those from Canada were in every respect fMr. Stevens.]
equal to those from other countries. We have no reason, with our present organization -its efficiency, its skill, its science and its art-to take a back seat to any of them. It must not be permitted to go on the basis that, as we now have the technical requirements, we must set up a board and a commissioner to put into it the brains-or the science, or art, as the case may be-because we have that now.
I question very much whether, under the present scheme, we shall improve that phase of it one iota. I should like to see a committee of council, with the minister as chairman and with two or three other ministers associated with him who would have definite administrative instructions from the government. It would have to be one central film operation, and it would stop all this nonsense where individual departments may go off and buy films from the outside. The minister said a moment ago he was not quite sure, but I venture to say to him that every dollar of that $50,000 was spent outside the government service. I will venture to say further-and I challenge contradiction-that in addition to that it will be found there are little, miniature organizations in two or three other departments, organizations of semiskilled individuals who call themselves film experts, carrying on a sort of secondary or subsidiary film bureau in the different departments. All that is required is a bit of administrative action on the part of the government to stop this useless duplication and this senseless broadening out of these things, after this first coordination was effected some years ago. There is now a coordinated body. Instead of erecting a new coordination organization, the government should take a step backward and insist that the department observe the present arrangement, respect it, and call for their service through that body.
With all due regard to the minister and his intentions-which I believe are serious; he knows very well I am not reflecting upon him in any personal way-I warn him, I warn the government and I warn the committee that if we go ahead with this organization we are simply going to- superimpose on an existing excellent organization another one which will ultimately become very costly.
Let us turn to the next clause, which has already been discussed to some extent, and just visualize what it means. The minister is providing for a board to hold office for three years, one to retire each year for the first three years, and from then on they will hold office for three years-all outside members, as well as members of the privy council and the civil service. Once a board of

National Film Board
that kind, on which are outside persons appointed for terms of three years, is erected, they will start building up a little bureaucracy within the government; whereas, if a committee of council is appointed under the present authority, with no further legislation we would keep the administration under the control of the minister in charge.


William Daum Euler: It will be that way, because the minister will be the chairman; one colleague will sit with him, and three civil servants.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But you are erecting a board with outsiders on it. You can always call in an expert from any part of the country, and pay him for whatever advice you get. But in this way you are erecting a bureaucracy within the department, instead of maintaining ministerial control, which the hon. member for Temiscouata dilated upon so eloquently on Friday night.


John Charles Landeryou: There is a new and improved educational development in Alberta under the supervision of the minister of education. It has been declared by the minister in that province that they intend to a greater extent to U9e films throughout the schools of the province. Many of the schools, as well as churches and other institutions throughout Alberta, have facilities to make available to the public whatever national films may be produced by the department.
I find myself in accord with the bill. I should like to learn from the minister how many educational films we have which could be supplied to the schools.


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I cannot give the number now, but I could get the information for the hon. member. I should not like to give a definite figure.


John Charles Landeryou: What steps are being taken to inform the schools and churches as to the type and number of films they may have?


William Daum Euler: They merely have the knowledge that these films are in existence at the bureau, and when they write in for them the films are sent. I do not know that there is anything further done in connection with the matter.


John Charles Landeryou: The explanatory note refers to the government film distribution and public information service. I understand this is already provided.


William Daum Euler: What is the question?


John Charles Landeryou: The note says:
Its main concern will be the organization of a central government film distribution and public information service.
As I understand it, we already have the public information service, and this will effect no improvement.


William Daum Euler: It will just have the effect of intensifying the work now being done. I see my hon. friend the former minister has left the chamber, and what I am about to say is not said with the intention of criticizing, but I believe I could point out that in the past the work of distribution and production has been more or less haphazard. It is our desire to unify it and make it better than it was before.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-National Film Board.
Mr. HOMUTH:: Is there any theory of cooperation between the national board and the various boards in the provinces?


William Daum Euler: There are not any provincial boards.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Did not some of the provinces have their own motion picture bureaux?


William Daum Euler: Not now.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: None of them?


William Daum Euler: None at all. Ontario did have one, but it has been discontinued.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
On section 8-Government film commissioner.
Robert James Manion: Is there any intention of broadening out the duties of the government film commission in such a way as to effect or to have any influence upon anything connected with outside work, or films outside the government; or is this entirely for the purpose of broadening out the work presently done by the government?


William Daum Euler: Entirely government work.


Mr. BAKER:: If this added expense is to be incurred, will the outside purchasing of films, which apparently has been going on, be discontinued?


William Daum Euler: It all depends. If some department can convince the film board that its work could be better done by some outside organization it will be done, but it must first get the consent of the board.
National Film Board


Karl Kenneth Homuth: In connection with the visit of their majesties to Canada there will, of course, be moving pictures taken for the archives and as a matter of record. Would this department handle that?


William Daum Euler: All arrangements in connection with the royal visit are being handled by a government committee. I have no doubt the bureau will do some of the work; at least I hope so. Whether it will be confined to the bureau, I cannot say.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-Duties of commissioner.
Mr. GREEN:: Would the minister be
willing to add as the first clause of paragraph 9 something like the following:
advise upon the making and distribution of national films designed to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other parts.
The minister used the words earlier this evening, but as I read the bill there is no mention in it of national films. Yet the vision of what national films can mean seems to me the most important feature about this bill. I agree with the minister that national films could mean a great deal in building up the Canadian nation.


William Daum Euler: I think my hon. friend will find in the bill the term "national films."


Grote Stirling: It is in paragraph (a).


William Daum Euler: Yes, "coordinate national
and departmental film activities." I assure my hon. friend it is the intention of the government that national films shall be initiated.


Howard Charles Green: For the sake of the people who are administering this act in the future, it would be well to set that out clearly in this section. After all, the important idea behind this bill is that there should be national films developed, and I think that should be stressed more than it is in the bill as drawn.


William Daum Euler: If my hon. friend thinks that the phrase "coordinate national film activities" is not sufficient, we might say "coordinate and originate" or "coordinate and develop national film activities."


Howard Charles Green: I think that feature is worthy of a separate clause. I have one here that I shall send over to the minister.


Mr. HAYHURST:: Does the government at present do all its own film work?
	{


William Daum Euler: No; that is one of the reasons for this bill; some of the departments are having their film work done outside, and some may continue to do so; but it is hoped that, having a bureau that is as good as the best, the various departments will have their work done by this bureau; in fact they must, unless the board agrees to its being done otherwise.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: The other night
when we were discussing this matter I asked the minister if it was the intention of the department to put this film business on a more or less commercial basis. No doubt there will be commercial firms who would like to have these pictures taken and shown in various countries. Could not the government get some revenue out of this bureau?


William Daum Euler: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend any greater encouragement than I did the other evening. This is advertising, not a money-making concern. I have not a great deal of hope that when we supply these short films to theatres and other places we can collect much revenue for them. I am told that the British government issues some films out of which it makes a little money, but I should not like to say that we are going to make much out of this. We are running it for the purpose of doing our own advertising. If we can make a little profit it will be that much to the good, but I should not like to give much hope of making money out of the film bureau. We do not hope to make money out of supplying films to schools and institutions of that sort.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: It seems to me
there could be a source of revenue. We have our trade commissioners throughout the world looking for trade, and our manufacturers of one kind and another who are looking for business. I think it would be easy to develop a great source of revenue in connection with this bureau. If we start out on the basis that we are not going to make anything out of it, we certainly shall not. But I think the government should see that we do have one section of it that will handle this film business from the point of view of advertising Canadian products, and I think the various manufacturers in this country would be quite willing to pay for that service. At the present time they pay for the sendee they get from the national research council. As we all know, that council has developed into a profitable institution; at least it pays its way, and there is no reason why this bureau should not be put on the same basis.

National Film Board


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I move
the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green):
That section 9 be amended by inserting the following as subsection (a):
advise upon the making and distribution of national films designed to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other parts. .
And then the other subsections will be relettered.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Robert James Manion: In regard to expenditures by the various departments, might I ask the minister if there is any provision in this bill that would compel the other departments to have their films produced by this branch?


William Daum Euler: Section 11 deals with that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Departments to refer matters to commissioner.
Grote Stirling: Does not subsection 2 presuppose that the departments are going to endeavour to invest in apparatus themselves; and is that not contrary to the explanation the minister gave, that it was the hope of the government that the work of the department could be concentrated in this bureau?


William Daum Euler: According to a note I have here, it is estimated that the value of camera, projection and film servicing equipment at present in possession of all departments-that is, other than the motion picture bureau-is about 825,000, which has been purchased piecemeal from different sources. This equipment is not standardized to any extent, and in some instances is not the most suitable equipment for the purpose for which it was purchased. It is not intended, of course, that any department is to take the place of the bureau, but it may be that small purchases will have to be made, and that will be done under the supervision of the director.


Grote Stirling: So the various departments still will be permitted to maintain their own apparatus and make their own films?


William Daum Euler: They cannot do it without the consent of the director.


Mr. BARBER:: Who purchases the equipment provided for in subsection 3?


William Daum Euler: The body which has an
appropriation for the purpose, but it must be all under the supervision of the director.


Harry James Barber: Any department?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


Denton Massey: If the purchase of apparatus is to be made only with the consent of the board, I do not see anything in the bill which would similarly prevent any department from making its own pictures with such apparatus as it has now. It is not incumbent upon the department to turn over its apparatus to the motion picture bureau, so it can continue its own little parasitical bureau.


William Daum Euler: Yes, but it cannot produce any films. Section 11 provides that all processing and production of films must be undertaken by the bureau, except where the commissioner agrees that the work can be done through officers of other departments. They cannot make their own films without the consent of the commissioner.


Denton Massey: But on the other hand the departments now have a certain amount of apparatus of their own, and the temptation will be for the departments to continue the work they are now doing. They may be able to prevail upon the commissioner to give them permission to do so. Why not have the departments turn over all apparatus to the bureau?


William Daum Euler: That is probably what will happen. The possibility of any department going on with the production of its own films is rather remote, in view of the bill now being considered. They cannot do very much in the production of real films in any event. In the past they have either used the equipment of the bureau or had the work done by an outside firm. They can no longer do that without the consent of the board and the commissioner.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 11 agreed to.
On section 12-Employment of temporary staff.
Charles Grant MacNeil: Is there any good reason why we should not allow these appointments to be made under the civil service commission?


William Daum Euler: For the simple reason that in many instances, perhaps when certain films are being made, a great deal of temporary help will be required, perhaps specially qualified help. It would take too long to have these appointments made by the civil service commission; and I think perhaps it is no insult to the commission to say that possibly the officer of the board would be much better qualified to select these technical temporary employees than would the civil service commission. In point of the time

National Film Board

required, particularly, it would be quite out of place to utilize the services of the civil service commission.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Then what procedure will be followed in engaging temporary personnel?


William Daum Euler: The director of the bureau may employ temporary help.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would it not be possible, in anticipation of a demand of that kind, to have an eligible list established by the civil service commission from which the director could draw from time to time? We pass act after act in this house containing the expression "notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act," and at the same time the government has declared itself as being in favour of the merit system.


William Daum Euler: What my hon. friend says is true in a general way. But supposing the bureau has to produce a particularly important film, or a film of such a character that it became necessary to bring somebody even from Hollywood; I do not think anyone would expect the director to go to the civil service commission to obtain a person of that sort. This has to do with men of technical qualifications, engaged for very short periods.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 13 agreed to.
On section 14-Central government film distribution service.
Denton Massey: Would the minister explain to the committee what government film distribution service there is at the present time? Is this in addition, or is there any change?


William Daum Euler: It is really just an expansion of the present service. The bureau-is distributing films now, and it is perhaps to make it just a little more official. Assistance will be given by this departmental committee which is to be set up, and this is more or less to give it official standing.


Denton Massey: To incorporate it in the act?


William Daum Euler: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.	.
Section 15 agreed to.
Bill reported.

Mr. CRERAR:: To-morrow we shall take up the second reading of Bill No. 38, to establish a defence purchasing board, standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. [\Ir. Euler.]
Mackenzie); and also, in committee of ways and means, the trade agreement, as well as any other bill standing on the order paper if we dispose of those items.


Robert James Manion: About ten days ago, I
think, or perhaps a littler longer, I mentioned in the house that one of our members was going to move an amendment on going into supply. There has been no motion for some time to go into supply and, if possible, we should like to have that motion to-morrow. If we cannot have it to-morrow, possibly it could be done on Wednesday, but there is no motion for committee of supply on Thursday and Friday. In justice to hon. members I think the government should move to go into supply on such days as Monday or Tuesday, because that is the one opportunity when hon. members may deal with important subjects not on the order paper. If possible, I should like the minister to consider this matter. So far as I am concerned, he can advise me in the morning whether the government considers it possible to move to go into supply to-morrow in order to give an opportunity to one of our members to move an amendment, notice of which I gave from my place in the house I think ten or twelve days ago.


Thomas Alexander Crerar: I shall bring that suggestion to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I think the purpose is to move along with the bills under consideration in order to get them finished so that they may be sent across to the other house. In any event, I assume we would be moving to go into supply not later than Monday of next week. While the urgency of the matter suggested by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Manion) may be considerable, it probably could stand until the beginning of next week. However, I shall bring this to the attention of the Prime Minister in the morning and ask his office to advise the leader of the opposition.
At 11.05 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 14, 1939