1922-04-24

CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DONALD M. KENNEDY (West Edmonton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 54 to amend the Criminel Code. He said: This is a bill to repeal section 20 of Chapter 25, the statutes of 1921. This section of the Criminal Code was passed in June of last year, in the face of an insistent demand from a part of the West for an investigation into alleged frauds in connection with the transfer and location of half-breed scrip. Many frauds complained of are supposed to have been committed as far back as fifteen years ago, and the amendment, section 20, Chapter 25 of 1921, provides that prosecution cannot be taken after three years from the commission of the offence.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 55, an Act to revise and amend the Naturalization Act, 1914. He said: This is a bill to amend the Naturalization Act of 1914. By this act, a residence of five years, in the previous eight years, in His Majesty's Dominion was required, with one year, the last year, in Canada. When the war broke out an amendment was enacted which provided that the time spent overseas in the crown forces by those who enlisted would count as residence in Canada, but there was no provision for men who enlisted in the armies of the allied countries. The result is that if a Belgian, a Frenchman or an Italian who was a resident in Canada before the war, and who had spent four years in Canada, enlisted in the allied army, his time while he was overseas did not count, and when he came back to Canada, say in 1919, he had to reside in Canada five years more in order to obtain naturalization papers. I submit that this was an oversight causing a grave injustice, and the purpose of my bill is to remedy that injustice. I will explain the bill fully on second reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	What were the w7ar services of Captain Carty, the commissioner's representative on the Appeal Board of the chief architect's branch, Department of Public Works?
2.	What salary did he receive when appointed?
3.	Was he instructed or directed regarding those who were to lose or to win their appeals ?
4.	If so, by whom?
5.	Before hearing the appeals did he have interviews with officials of the branch regarding the decision to be rendered?
6.	If so, what are the names of said officials?
7.	Is he still on the staff of the commission?
8.	If not, where is he employed?
9.	What salary did he receive during the last year?
10.	Did he obtain his present position by competitive examinations?
11.	If not, why?
12.	What salary is he presently receiving?


Hon. Mr. COPP:: 1.	Captain Edward Godfrey Carty, Canadian Militia. Appointed prov. lieutenant, 23rd Battery, 8th Brigade, Canadian Militia, 18th December, 1915. Attended Royal School of Artillery, Kingston, 10th January, 1915, to March, 1915. Qualified for lieutenant, artillery. Appointed adjutant and paymaster, Signal Training Depot, C.E.F. (Ottawa), 13th March, 1916. Transferred to 2nd Depot Battalion, Eastern Ontario Regiment (Ottawa), as paymaster, with effect from 29th December, 1917. Struck off the strength of the Canadian Expeditionary Force on general demobilization, 10th September, 1919. This officer had no overseas war service.
2.	$1,800 per annum, plus bonus.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No, so far as the Civil Service Commission is aware.
6.	No information.
7.	No.
8.	Department of Railways and Canals.
9.	$2,400.
10.	No, the regulations did not require examination for those only temporarily employed.
11.	Answered by No. 10.
12.	Answered by No. 9.


GOVERNMENT SHOPS, SORED
Mr. BOUCHER:: 1.	How many persons from the county of Yamaska were given employment at the Government shops at Sorel shortly before and just after the by-election of May, 1921?
2.	What are the names, and the respective occupations and salaries of the said persons?
3.	Who recommended these persons?
4.	Did the superintendent of said shops give employment to many after having said there were no vacancies?

Questions


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	30 persons.


LIST OF MEN FROM THE COUNTY OF YAMASKA EMPLOYED IN SHIPYARD, IN 1921.
[Stage Direction]
No.	Name.	Duty	Wages per hour	Date of entry, year, 1921292 260 253 255 256 257 258 259 254 287 288 289	*45	26 May *[DOT]45	23 ""	[DOT]45	21 "ft	[DOT]45	23 "it	[DOT]45	23 "U	[DOT]45	23 ""	*45	23 "it	*45	23 "it	[DOT]45	20 "Caulker	*45	18 "[DOT]45	18 "Descheneaux, Sigefroid	" 	*45	18 "290 262 618	**	[DOT]45	18 "[DOT]45	18 "St. Germain, Robert	Yard Laborer...	*35	18 "629	St. Germain, Aime	" ..	[DOT]35	18 "243	Carpenter	*45	18 "245 251	[DOT]45	18 "[DOT]45	18 "252 217	[DOT]45	18 "Larose, Barthelemy	" 	*45	16 "221	[DOT]45	16 "222	tt	*45	16 "229	Descheneaux, Alf., fils Ludger	u	[DOT]45	16 "233 201	[DOT]45	16 "«	[DOT]45	16 "203 235	"	[DOT]45	16 ""	*45	16 "236	"	*45	16 "235	Desfosses, Etienne	*45	16 September3.	Mr. Oscar Lafreniere.4.	No.

Mr. CLARK:: Manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are included under the items (d) and (e).
In addition, businesses, including corporations, paid $32,970,061.81 under the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916.
1.	What was the total amount of income taxes collected in the years 1919, 1920 and 1921 in the Dominion of Canada?
2.	What was the total amount paid by (a) manufacturers, (b) wholesalers, (c) farmers,
(d)	retailers, and (e) professional men?
3.	What was the amount paid by each of the above classed according to provinces during the same period?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	Fiscal Year 1919, $9,343,419.03; fiscal year 1920, $20,264,419.43; fiscal year 1921, $46,381,806.64.
2.	Statistical classification of. taxpayers for fiscal years 1919, 1920 and 1921:
(a)	Farmers	$ 350,759 53(b)	Professionals	
596,100	87(c)	Mechanics	
41,337	46(d)	Business	
6,077,282	43(e)	Corporations	
1,376,829	47(f)	All others	
901,109	27(a)	Farmers	*. $ 525,836 74(b)	Professionals	
1,093,401	07(c)	Employees	
4,786,520	73(d)	Merchants	
4,450,375	34(e)	Manufacturers	
2,551,503	49(f)	All others	
6,856,782	06Total	$20,264,419	43
Wholesalers and retailers are included under Item (d).
In addition, businesses, including corporations, paid $44,145,184.48 under the Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916.
(a)	Farmers	$	611,736 64(b)	Professionals	
2,642,585	66(c)	Employees	
11,301,805	58(d)	Merchants	
7,689,521	23(e)	Manufacturers	
8,217,730	09(f)	All others	
11,823,563	05(g)	Not classified	
4,094,864	39$9,343,419 03
Total. . .
Total

Questions

Wholesalers and retailers are included porations, paid $40,841,401.25 under the under Item (d).	Business Profits War Tax Act, 1916.
In addition, businesses, including cor- 3.


STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATION OF TAXPAYERS AND AMOUNT PAID BY EACH CLASS ACCORDING TO PROVINCES DURING THE FISCAL YEARS 1919, 1920 AND 1921.
[Stage Direction]
, Province	Farmers (a)	Professionals (&)	Mechanics (c)	Business (d)	Corporations («)	All Others if)	Total$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	S cts.Prince Edward	Island and Nova	Scotia	647 60	19,536 72	1,891 61	137,885 63	49,484 16	39,647 52	249,093 24New Brunswick	204 30	10,988 07	277 24	111,986 79	38,291 82	31,280 69	193,028 91Quebec	2,169 40	147,720 84	11,541 77	1,594,464 12	434,997 14	353,003 55	2,543,896 82Ontario	28,079 88	277,600 27	17,564 89	3,311,324 45	550,412 67	274,957 44	4,459,939 60Manitoba	71,358 97	62,733 68	4,881 86	483,781 35	80.804 15	37,050 76	740.610 77Saskatchewan	62,938 94	14,004 01	123 84	77,119 93	12,331 08	5,319 01	171,836 81Alberta	179,389 28	30,987 17	720 35	130,733 64	83,950 04	32,180 11	457,960 59British Columbia....	5,961 16	31,318 50	4,099 53	227,690 05	126,558 41	124,989 87	520,617 52Yukon	10 00	1,211 61	236,37	2,296 47	2,680 32	6,434 77Totals	350,759 53	596,100 87	41,337 46	6,077,282 43	1,376,829 47	901,109 27	9,343,419 03
Manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are included under items (d) and (e).
Province	Farmers 00	Professional (&)	Employees 00	Mercha nts (d)	Manufacturers 00	All Others if)	Total$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.Nova Scotia and	Prince Edward	1,776 12	27,398 87	78,093 78	151,073 81	61,870 00	186,780 48	506,993 06New Brunswick	2,597 00	16,091 83	46,465 24	104,853 13	62,510 00	100,853 78	333,370 98Quebec	6,822 38	253,515 11	1,635,528 88	980,412 20	289,377 49	4,080,590 15	7,246,246 21Ontario	73,777 40	545,856 46	2,255,569 64 378,385 80	1,879,637 71	1,822,428 00	1,605,467 72	8,182,736 93Manitoba	61,827 20	91,862 16	753,366 66	140,045 00	445,901 04	1,871,387 86Saskatchewan	199,537 51	43,111 87	23,219 35	113,404 25	5,425 00	93,546 40	478,244 38Alberta	157,757 11	56,852 82	87,751 10	217,177 81	16,990 00	99,719 88	636,248 72British Columbia....	21,721 47	56,270 60	275,499 32	247,419 71	152,462 00	242,060 82	995,433 92Yukon	20 55	2,441 35	6,007 62	3,030 06	396 00	1,861 79	13,757 37Total	525,836 74	1,093,401 07	4,786,520 73	4,450,375 34	2,551,503 49	6,856,782 06	20,264,419 43
Wholesalers and retailers are included under item (d).
Province	Farmers (a)	Profes- sional (b)	Employees (c)	Merchants (d)	Manufac- turers (e)	All others (0	Unclas- sified (g)	TotalNova Scotia and P. E. Island	
New Brunswick	
Quebec	
[DOT]Ontario	
^Manitoba	
Saskatchewan	
Alberta	
British Columbia	
Yukon	
Total	S cts. 7,883 69 1,197 26 18,285 82 40,973 58 145,906 20 165,032 06 127,722 24 104,707 32 28 47	§ cts. 61,483 77 27,455 18 717,692 20 1,282,478 98 182,927 18 114,968 64 120,355 51 131,536 88 3,687 32	$ cts. 238,047 69 169,662 30 3,280,761 25 5,538,637 66 1,020,149 22 158,537 72 339,532 80 544,639 44 11,837 50	$ cts. 308,546 55 174,049 68 2,457,538 97 2,916,519 75 852,883 38 253,409 74 292,065 38 433,533 48 974 30	$ cts. 159,366 36 101,465 47 3,105,536 11 4,246,143 27 248,495 26 15,882 01 110,051 51 230,519 55 270 55	S cts. 310,874 59 129,104 81 4,535,829 67 4,409,496 99 1,024,222 60 390,409 41 369,915 53 649,261 56 4,447 89	$ cts. 108,142 46 98,528 83 1,542,330 05 1,579,546 63 488,151 04 95,297 05 39,355 35 143,512 98	S cts. 1,194,345 11 701,463 53 15,657,974 07 20,013,796 86 3,962,734 88 1,193,536 63 1,398,998 32 2,237,711 21 21,246 03611,736 64	2,642,585 66	11,301,805 58	7,689,521 23	8,217,730 09	11,823,563 05	4,094,864 39	46,381,806 64
Manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers are included under item (d)
Includes receipts from that part of the province of Quebec lying west of Argenteuil.
fFor 1919 and 1920 includes receipts from that part of the province of Ontario lying west of the District of Algoma.
[Stage Direction]
Questions
106b

Mr. DESLAURIERS:: 1.	Was the unexpired contract with the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of Canada, Limited, cancelled and a new contract entered into?
2.	If so, what are the terms and conditions of the old and new contracts?
3.	Was this contract entered Into prior to a change of Government?
4.	If so, what steps, If any, does the present Government propose to take to rescind it?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	The old contract has not been cancelled, but a supplementary contract has been entered into.
2.	The principal amendments to the old contract are as follows:
That for a period of five years, April 1, 1921, to April 1, 1926, the subsidy in respect of each of the stations remaining open be increased from an average of $2,081 per station per annum to $5,500 per station per annum.
That all Government messages which under old contract were free of charge be handled at half the rates charged on commercial messages.
3.	Amendments to contract authorized by Order in Council P.C. 1573 of the 31st August, 1921 and supplementary contract signed 15th December, 1921.
4.	The rescinding of the supplementary contract has not been given consideration.


GOOD ROADS
Mr. ANDERSON:: 1.	What part of Dundas street, in the county of Halton, has been completed by the provincial government of Ontario under the Federal Good Roads scheme?
2.	What amount of money has been paid to the provincial government by the Dominion Government on account of this road?
3.	What is the cost of the road to date and the cost per mile?


Hon. Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	Dundas street, in the county of Halton, is under construction, but no part of it has been completed under the Federal Highways Act.
2.	$1,874.94.
3.	Approximate expenditure on whole road from Toronto to Clappisons' Corners up to 31st December, 1921, is $580,000 or $18,972 per mile. The detailed audit to give expenditure in Halton county is not yet completed.


PRINCE OF WALES' ROYAL CANADIAN REGIMENT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the Government received an appeal from the 1st Battalion, Prince of Wales' Leinster Regiment (Royal Canadians) to the following effect?
"We beg Canada to help us to be retained in the British army as the Prince of Wales' Royal Canadian Regiment, and so to represent the Dominion just as the Irish Guards represent the Irish Free State, with his Royal Highness as our Colonel-in-Chief, as he is at present".
2.	If so, what action, if any, has been taken?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes, through the High Commissioner for Canada and also through the Colonial Office.
2.	The appeal was submitted to the Army Council who stated that-
"It is with very deep regret that they have felt compelled to recommend the disbandment of this Corps. Such action is rendered necessary by the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland, which contemplate the establishment of a military defence force by the Irish Free State.
. . .In view of the present need for economy, involving a general reduction of the Army it would be impossible to substitute reformation in another form for disbandment."


POST OFFICES-MONTREAL,
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	How many Post Offices are there in the city limits of Montreal?
2.	Where are they located?
3.	How many letters and parcels were received and forwarded from each of the said post offices during the year 1921?


Hon Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	89.
2.	_
Office	Location
Post Offices Within City Limits. Montreal (Head
Office)	St. James St.
Hochelaga	 1606 St.. Catherine St. E.
St. Henri	12 Place St. Henri
Postal Stations Within City Limits.
Postal Station A .... 571 St. James Postal Station B .... 324 St. Catherine W. Postal Station C .... 802 St. Catherine E. Postal Station D . . . . B17 Centre Postal Station E . . . . L832 St. Lawrence Postal Station F .... Cor. Notre Dame and Richmond
Postal Station H . . . . *>t. Catherine, Cor. Bishop Postal Station M .... 116 Letourneux Postal Station N .... 120 St. Catherine E. Postal Station R .... 1918 St. Denis Postal Station S .... 222 Blvd. Monk
Delorimier	1128 Mont Royal E.
Notre Dame de Grace. 5382 Sherbrooke W.
Sub Offices Within City Limits.
Ahuntsic	 6441 Lajeunesse
Beaudoin	 2097 Notre Dame W.
Bordeaux	 2202 Blvd. Gouin
Cartierville	123 Blvd. Gouin
Cote de Neiges 0...1869 Cote des Neiges
Cote St. Louis	1315 St. Denis
Cote Visitation	2132 Blvd. Rosemont

Questions

Office	Location
Sub Offices Within City Limits-Con.
Leduc	 1089 St. Catherine E.
Longue Pointe	 3973 Notre Dame E.
N. Dame des Victoires742 Montsable
Ontario Centre	441	Ontario E.Ontario East	
778	Ontario E.
Park Ave. Extension. .259 Beaumont
St. Catherine St. W. .854 St. Catherine W.
St. Denis St	282	St. Catherine E.
St. Jean Baptiste ....1324 St. Lawrence St. Jean de la Croix.. 2850 St. Lawrence St. Lawrence Centre .508 St. Lawrence St. Lawrence Square .544 St. Denis
Ste. Cunegonde	94 Vinet
St. Paul	L694 Church
Sault au Recollet . .. .B98 Blvd. Gouin E.
Tetraultville	 4341 Honfleur
Villeneuve	710 Mont Royal
Villeray	3814 Lajeunesse
Youville	1030	Ontario EastSub No.	15	271	St. LawrenceSub. No.	16	401 St. DenisSub No.	17	1911 MassonSub No.	18	1911 MasisonSub No.	19	
320 Notre Dame W.Sub No.	20	
2096 Ontario E.Sub No.	21	
2497 Ontario E.Sub No.	22	
892 LacombeSub No.	23	
1505 St. LawrenceSub No.	26	
658 St. AntoineSub No.	27	713 WellingtonSub. No.	31	
486 Roy St. E.Sub No.	33	449 Rachel E.Sub. No. 35	
3049 St. Catherine E.Sub No.	37	
321B Rachel St.Sub iNo.	38	
1420 Ontario E.Sub No.	39	
230 St. Catherine W.Sub No.	42	
2698 Notre Dame W.Sub No.	43	
481	GilfordSub No.	44	
2231 PapineauSub No.	46	
345 St. AntoineSub No.	47	
244 Laurier W.Sub No.	48	76 Rose de LimaSub No.	49	513	DelorimierSub No.	51	117	BernardSub No.	56	
301	ColbrookeSub No.	58	311 DefleurimontSub No.	66	119 St. DenisSub No.	68	1345 St. Catherine E.Sub No.	69	2>275 Jeanne d'ArcSub No.	72	433	AmherstSub No.	73	147	BeaubienSub No.	77	
137 Mont Royal E.Sub No.	85	
781 CharlevoixSub No.	86	
1158 DecastelneauSub No.	93	1185 'St. DenisSub No.	94	1387 Rachel E.Sub No.	95	
447 St. Catherine E.Sub No.	98	
988 St. Lawrence Blvd.Sub No.	101	39 Hector, Lge. Pte.Sub No.	103	1159 PapineauSub No.	104	2217 St. JamesSub No.	105	597 Lasalle Ave.Sub No.	106	Park	Ave. & St. ViateurSub No.	108	2501	St. Denis Str.Sub No. 109	342 Forsythe Str.Sub No. 112	
1445 St. Denis Str.
3.-No record.


OPIUM AND NARCOTIC DRUGS
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the International Conference on the Opium and Narcotic Drug question been held? If so, where, when and on what date?
2.	Has the Government on file any copy of the proceedings and findings of such conference?

3.	Did the conference discuss the subject of restriction and control of the production of opium?
Have any steps been taken by the British Government, or French Government or the Government of India towards controlling the production and export of opium?
5.	Will the Canadian Government make representations to the British, French and Indian Governments regarding control of production and export of opium?


Hon. Mr. BELAND:: 1.	Four International Opium Conferences have been held. The first was held at Shanghai, China, January-February, 1909; the second, at The Hague from 1st December, 1911, to 23rd January, 1912; the third, from 1st July to 9th July, 1913; the fourth, from 15th June to 25th June, 1914.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	As the countries concerned equally with Canada are parties to the International Opium Convention of the 23rd January, 1912 (ratified 10th October, 1919), by which they undertake to restrict and control the manufacture of and trade in opium and similar harmful drugs, and to bring about the suppression of their abuse, no such representations would appear to be necessary.


AERIAL FOREST PATROL-ALBERTA
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River) :: 1.	What sum of money has been expended by the government upon the air station and aerial forest patrol, southern Alberta, situated at High River, Alberta?
2.	Did the government purchase or build any permanent buildings which would be of no use for other purposes than those of an aerial station?
3.	If so, what was the cost of said building?
4.	Does the Government contemplate doing away with this air station?
5.	Does the Government intend to discontinue the aerial forest patrol in southern Alberta?
6.	If so, for what reasons?


Hon. Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	1920-21, $21,947.85; 1921-22, $147,621.26.
2.	The buildings at the air station were designed for that particular use. They could be used, if necessary, for other purposes, however.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4 and 5. Pending the reorganization of the air services following the formation of the Department of National Defence, it is difficult to make definite decisions as to the maintenance of any particular air station. The forest patrol in southern Alberta can be continued during the coming summer in any case.
6.	Answered by 4 and 5.

Questions


BRITISH EMPIRE STEEL CORPORATION
Mr. MARTELL:: 1.	Was the British Empire Steel Corporation assessed for, and did it pay any Business Profits Taxes during the last calendar year?
2.	If so, what was the amount of said taxes, and, when and in what manner were they paid?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	No, as the first accounting period of the corporation ended on 31st December, 1921.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-EMPLOYEES
Mr. FONTAINE:: How many employees (a) men (b) women and (c) returned soldiers, are there in the Post Office Department, either permanent or temporary, receiving a salary of $600 per year?


Hon. Mr. MURPHY:: Permanent, (a) 1, (b) 3, (c) Nil; Temporary, (a) 8, (b) 25, (c) 27.


ELECTION DEPOSITS
*Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Have all members of the House of Commons been refunded the deposit made by each of them to returning officers in accordance with the provisions of the Electoral law?
2.	If not, how many, and what are the names of the members still expecting the refund of said deposit?
3.	What are the reasons for delay in returning said deposits?


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	No. All deposits received by the Auditor General under Section 40, subsection 9 of the Dominion Elections Act have been returned to the candidates, as provided by section 72, sub-section 5 of the Dominion Elections Act.
2.	One member and one candidate are still expecting refunds of deposits made by them, these being Mr. George Parent, M.P., and Pierre Bertrand, defeated candidate, electoral district of Quebec West.
3.	The delay is caused by the returning officer failing to forward the deposits to the Auditor General of Canada as provided by section 40, sub-section 9 of the Dominion Elections Act.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

Mr. VIEN:: 1.	Was an inventory taken of all war material furnished to the British Government by Canada, when the late war was declared?
2.	What was the nature of such shipments, and on what date were they shipped?
3.	Was this war material paid for in kind or was it paid for in money?
4.	What were the dates of these payments and of what nature were they?


Mr. VIEN:: 1.	Has the Canadian Government received from the Imperial Government, shipments of munitions of war, arms or equipment, during the years 1921 and 1922?
2.	If so, on what dates, and what were the nature and values of these shipments?
3.	Under what agreement have these shipments been made?
4.	Were they written agreements? If so, what is the name of the official who signed them for Canada and what are the dates of said agreements?
5.	Does the Government expect other shipments of the same nature?
6.	If so, of what nature and value?
7.	Were arms, accoutrements and munitions received by the Canadian Government from the British Government, in the autumn of 1921?
8.	If so, what was their value?
9.	Were the said arms, accoutrements and munitions out of service or in bad condition, and will the Canadian Government be obliged to spend large amounts on repairs?
10.	Will a great quantity of this munition be unfit for use after 1924, and thus have to be destroyed?
11.	Where was this material disposed of?


Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	What are the names, positions and salary of the employees of the Chief Architect's branch, Public Works Department, who worked on the three classifications which were posted in the branch?
2.	Which of the three classifications was approved by the deputy minister and recommended to the commission.
3.	On what date, month and year were reports or cards for classification from Chief Architect's branch received by the commission?
4.	After such reports or cards for classification were received by the commission, were there any other special ones issued?
5.	If so, on what date, month and year were they issued?
6.	By whom were they requested?
7.	What are the names, positions and salary of the persons to whom they were issued?
8.	Were all the employees informed? If not, why?
9.	What were the duties of those who received these cards?
10.	For what position and salary were each of them requested to fill in these cards?
11.	To what positions and salaries were they classified?
12.	What was the position and salary of each when the first and second classifications were posted?
13.	What is the amount of back pay each
received?
14.	What was their position and salary, also the year they were appointed in the service?



DRAWBACKS

Mr. JOHN EVANS (Saskatoon) moved:: For a return showing a list of the raw materials, with the quantity and value thereof, on which a refund of the duty under the Drawback Act was paid, together with a list of the firms to whom such money was returned. Also a list of the finished articles manufactured from such material and the countries to which they were exported.

Prime Ministers' Conference


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: For what period?


Hon. Mr. BUREAU:: Before this motion is adopted, it would be well for the hon. gentleman to state from what time he wants this return made.


John Evans: For the last year that the report was made-1921.


Mr. CALDWELL:: The period between 1920 and 1921 would be very brief unless it includes one year or the other.


John Evans: It is for the year ending March 31, 1922.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.



PRIME MINISTERS' CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition, moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the British and Canadian Governments, leading up to and concerning the conference of Prime Ministers in 1921.
Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: As my right hon. friend will be aware, most of this correspondence is marked "secret and confidential". I presume it will be the wish of my right hon. friend that I should ask the permission of the British Government, to bring down such correspondence as is marked "secret and confidential" and obtain that permission in advance before placing the correspondence on the Table of the House.


Mr. MEIGHEN:: I know that some correspondence is so marked, and personally I do not ask that any be secret or confidential. I leave the Government, however, to decide what, in the interest of the country, should be preserved as secret and confidential.


Mr. SPEAKER:: 


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, subject to this limitation.

Mr. STEVENS:: For a Return showing a list of the names of persons from Poland, Roumania or Russia, who were allowed to enter Canada under bond to go farming, and who have been found, on investigation, to have violated terms of the said bond.


Mr. PARENT:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, applications, petitions and other documents exchanged between the Government and individuals or companies, referring to conditions imposed on various railway companies intending to use the Quebec Bridge for the purpose of reaching the city of Quebec.


Georges Parent: For a copy of contracts, correspondence, agreements and other documents, during the period from the year 1911 to date, between the Government directly, or through any commission, and the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway, referring to the construction and the use of the Union Station at Palais, city of Quebec.


Georges Parent: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents regarding the appointment of one or more appraisers for Paris and London, made by the Civil Sevice Commission.


Mr. ARCHAMBAULT:: For a return showing a list of the names of the names of the persons who were employed as newspaper censors during the war, the name and location of the newspapers which were censured, the date of censorships and a copy of the articles censored. Also a copy of the regulations of the said censorship.


Arthur Meighen: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Canadian and the British Governments, respecting an Address passed by the Canadian Parliament on the subject of extra territoriality rights of the Dominion.


Mr. McMURRAY:: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, orders, instructions and other docu-mentsv exchanged between the Minister of Labour or any member of his department and Alfred J. Andrews, in connection with the strike in Winnipeg in the year 1919.


Edward James McMurray: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, orders, instructions and other documents, exchanged between the Solicitor General or any member of his department, and Alfred J. Andrews, relative to the strike in Winnipeg during the year 1919.


Edward James McMurray: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, orders, instructions and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of the Interior or any member of his department and Alfred J. Andrews, relative to the strike in Winnipeg during the year 1919.


Edward James McMurray: For a copy of all letters, correspondence, telegrams, orders, instructions and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Labour, the Solicitor General, the Minister of the Interior, or any person connected with these departments, and General Kitchen, relative to the strike in Winnipeg during the year 1919.



ALFRED J. ANDREWS-APPOINTMENT AS DEPUTY MINISTER OF JUSTICE.

Edward James McMurray: For a copy of the Order in Council appointing Alfred J. Andrews a Deputy Minister of Justice, during the year 1919. Also a copy of all letters, telegrams, instructions, orders and

Unemployment
other documents exchanged between the Minister of Justice or any official of the department of Justice, and the said Alfred J. Andrews, pertaining to the strike in Winnipeg, Manitoba, during the year 1919.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of
the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: I really cannot understand how the Government can permit this motion to carry in its present form. It asks for a copy of the Order in Council appointing Alfred J. Andrews a Deputy Minister of Justice during the year 1919. As hon. members well know, it was not within the power of the Government to appoint another deputy minister while we had one, and for that reason, if not for many others, Alfred J. Andrews was never appointed Deputy Minister of Justice. This motion asserts as a fact something which is manifestly and palpably untrue.


Jacques Bureau: The motion merely asks for a certain Order in Council.


Arthur Meighen: But it asserts as a
fact something which is untrue, and it is against the rules of the House that such an assertion shall pass.


Jacques Bureau: There is no assertion
of fact in the motion; it merely asks for a particular Order in Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Centre Winnipeg) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, in view of the widespread unemployment with which the Municipalities and Provinces find themselves unable to cope, it is desirable that the federal Government should devise some means of dealing effectively with the situation.
He said:	This resolution deals with a
question that is of vital importance to Canada at the present time. It was a matter of regret to a great many of us that in the Speech from the Throne there was no suggestion that the Government would deal effectively with the great question of unemployment. The paragraph in the Speech relating to that matter read:
Whilst of the opinion that unemployment relief is fundamentally a municipal and provincial responsibility, my Government has felt that as conditions have arisen in a measure out of the laite war, they would be justified in continuing for the period of the winter months the expedient of supplementing by grants from the federal treasury the relief contributions of provinces and municipalities for the purpose of alleviating actual distress.
I take it that the solution of the problem of unemployment should go a great deal further than the giving of unemployment relief, and that the problem is already of such vast importance that it cannot he dealt with satisfactorily by either provincial or municipal bodies. I have a resolution passed at the joint conference of trades unions, returned men's organizations, and representatives of other public bodies, held on February 6, 1922, at Vancouver, which embodies fairly well the position taken by a large number of unemployed people and labour organizations throughout the entire Canadian West. This resolution is as follows:
Whereas the unemployed situation is of a national character, and is one that cannot be handled satisfactorily by municipal bodies ; and whereas, the extremely low scale of relief now being given is tending to lower the standard of living of the entire wage working population; be it resolved, that we call upon the federal Government to assume the management of the unemployment situation on a national scale, and that the basis of relief be work at trade union rates or full maintenance on the scale laid down in the Labour Gazette.
In my own province of Manitoba there was held, in September, 1921, a conference on the question of unemployment. This conference was called at the invitation of the government of the province, and I have before me a series of resolutions which were drawn up at that time. It will be borne in mind that these resolutions represent the municipal and provincial aspects of the case. Among clauses dealing with the causes of unemployment I would read the following:
Fluctuations in industry are caused by market changes brought on by world conditions and social habits.
Lack of relations between system of education and the labour market, in order that the youth will be trained in occupations in which workers are in demand.
Allowing men and families to immigrate into Canada, who are not equipped, either physically or financially, to take up farm work, and who are not desirous of taking up this work, but who wish to take up other industrial activities wherein there is no demand.
The lack of organization of productive industry with a view to continuous employment.
Having laid down some of the causes of unemployment, the report proceeds with suggested measures for relief:
Undoubtedly, the unemployment problem is a national one, and must be studied from a national point of view.
I agree absolutely with the finding of the provincial conference on unemployment, that this matter cannot be dealt with satisfactorily except from a national standpoint.
Unemployment

I think this position is well taken, when we consider the action of the Peace Conference at Versailles. In the draft convention and recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference at its first meeting in Washington during November, 1919, there occurs the following recommendation with regard to the unemployed:
As to No. 3, the minister observes that the experience of other countries has demonstrated that a system of unemployment insurance, in order to be effective and successful, must be made ancillary or complementary to a system of labour exchanges, the whole being adapted to the principal function of finding work for unemployed insured workmen. In this view, unemployed insurance has a pronounced federal aspect, and on the whole the minister thinks the establishment of a system of unemployment insurance is competent to the Dominion in the exercise of its residuary legislative powers with regard to the peace, order and good government of Canada.
Here, then, we have it admitted on the highest authority that there is a place for federal action with regard to this great question.
Now, further, may I suggest that the government has already committed itself on this question. I have a document here with this heading:
Liberals and labour. The Liberal party's record of achievement on behalf of labour, issued by the National Liberal Committee, 115 Sparks street, Ottawa. Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, M.P., Liberal leader, etc.
In this document we find the following statement:
And further resolved: (2) That insofar as may be practicable, having regard to Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability, which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal government in conjunction with the governments of the several provinces: and that on matters pertaining to industrial and social legislation, an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the provinces by effective co-operation between the several governments.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it would seem clear from this resolution that not only is it acknowledged that the federal government has responsibilities in this matter, but also that the party in power is committed to take action along these lines.
Very little need be said here with regard to the serious situation which exists to-day. The Minister of Labour admitted in a speech, made several months ago, that there were something like 200,000 unemployed men in Canada. I presume that that would mean in the vicinity of
1,000,000 people-men, women and children

-directly affected by unemployment. That is a very, very large proportion indeed of a population of eight or nine million. I know perfectly well that in the West we have had the most serious unemployment for the last two or three years, particularly in the cities of Vancouver and Winnipeg, and to a smaller extent in nearly all the other cities, including Edmonton, Calgary and Saskatoon. And we have unemployment in the central part; I have resolutions from Toronto, Hamilton and other cities here in the East. During the recess I was down in Nova Scotia, and not only are large numbers of miners unemployed or underemployed, but there are in Sydney something like two thousand unemployed steel workers, who have absolutely no prospect of securing work in the near future and do not know where to turn to get a livelihood. It seems to me that we cannot let this session go by without taking some action to relieve the distress in which so many of our people now find themselves.
There are a few points which I should like to mention very briefly as to the position which it is necessary for us to take. There was a time in the history of Canada when, if a man were unemployed, it was his own fault. There were free lands, easily accessible, and good markets, and if a man could not succeed in one place he could go to another; and if he could not make good in one particular kind of work he could try his hand at another. That time has passed and with the system of large-scale industry that we have today a few large corporations control the greater part of the work that is available. I take that example of the steel workers at Sydney; there are several thousand of them in connection with the one great corporation there. If for any reason that corporation closes down its plant, the men are helpless. There was a time when steel working was confined to small local foundries and blacksmith shops, and in those days a man could open a little shop of his own. So far as Nova Scotia is concerned, the farms cannot absorb very many of the surplus unemployed, and they tell me there that fishing is about the only means of livelihood left, and that under present conditions it takes a considerable amount of equipment to carry on fishing successfully. A great many of the men out of work in Winnipeg are employed in railway shops and kindred work. There again I would point out that if for any reason at all the railway is not able to

Unemployment
carry on its work to the full extent, thousands of mechanics find themselves in a helpless position, for it is simply impossible for them to start up any new kind of work; they are on the street. The same thing is true in our larger mining and logging activities on the coast. I submit that to-day with large-scale industry as it is, the individual unemployed workman is not to blame. Notwithstanding that, we treat him still almost as if he were a criminal. We take it for granted almost that he is shiftless or lazy, or he would not be in such a helpless position. In any case we allow a certain maladjustment in industry to bear very heavily indeed on the unfortunate individual and his still more unfortunate family. Now, that state of affairs ought to be absolutely changed.
Another point that needs to be emphasized is that hitherto the municipalities, helped out by the provincial and Dominion governments, have been expending large sums simply for unemployment relief, and at the end of the year there is nothing to show for the expenditure. Surely, it would seem as if in Canada we had sufficient development work to do that for every hour's work there ought to be some return. This practice of putting men simply at work tests, to break stone when great crushing machines are by their side, is absolute folly. The whole trouble seems to be that we have not at the present time the necessary credit to go on with the new works we feel ought to be undertaken, and which if proceeded with would start the industrial machinery moving again. Now, there is not the slightest doubt that in this respect we are being held up, more or less, by certain interested bodies. A few weeks ago in Vancouver I was talking to an alderman who is chairman of the unemployment committee as well as of the finance committee of the council. He pointed out that much as the city would like to give some constructive work to the unemployed in Vancouver, they could not do so because they could not obtain credit from the bank-in this case, the Bank of Montreal. Upon turning to the annual statement issued by the Bank of Montreal, I find that the general manager of that institution takes .the position that unemployment is a very necessary evil; that only through unemployment can we drive down the wages to the point they should be,-or, to use the words of the report, that unemployment is a "natural corrective." Mr. Speaker, I think of some of the scenes which I have witnessed in
the homes of labouring men during the last few weeks: men out of work; their wives almost desperate; their children, in some instances, kept home from school through lack of shoes or clothing; in some cases not only physical privation, but absolute discouragement with regard to life itself. A large number of people are in that position; yet we are told by one of the leading financial institutions of Canada that unemployment is a "natural corrective". I submit that it is for the Government to defend the people of Canada against an institution of this character.
Why should we ask that the whole burden of unemployment be borne by the provinces or by the municipalities? According to our constitution, this Parliament has to deal with such great matters as immigration, fiscal policy, and so on. I submit that questions of immigration have a great deal to do with the question of unemployment. Thousands and tens of thousands of immigrants came to my own city of Winnipeg last year direct from Great Britain. Ostensibly they were to go on the land, and I believe in the first instance they did so; but the immigration officials told me at the time that there was nothing whatever to prevent these people from drifting into the city when the work of the summer was over. A number of them did drift back into the city, with the result that the municipality is loaded up with the care of them. Their presence in this country, however, is directly due to the action of this Government under its immigration policy. The same is true with regard to a good many of our large fiscal policies: we decide here what those policies shall be, but we shoulder off upon the provinces and municipalities, themselves already overloaded with debt, the responsibility of caring for the unemployed. I take it, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot do otherwise in this body than assume responsibility.
It may be said by members of the Government that it is impossible to establish a full-fledged system of unemployment insurance at this particular time. Perhaps that is a reasonable position to take, yet I would say this: until such a system can be established the least we can do is to adopt the principle underlying unemployment insurance, namely, that industry should bear the burdens entailed by industry. If we have brought more people to this country than we need, or if we have placed more people in a particular industry than we need, then the least we can do is to see that that bur-
Unemployment

den is spread out over the community, not borne by the few unfortunate individuals upon whom it now presses so heavily.
Now, without going further into this matter, I would urge that the problem is such a serious one that we should not allow many more weeks to pass before taking definite action. You may say that the spring is opening up, and that with the spring there comes agricultural work and more activity in various lines. That may be true, but we are going to have another winter, and there is no prospect that the next winter will be any better than the one which has just passed. If we are to have effective action, therefore, it must be taken at this session of Parliament. I hope hon. members will realize that while we in this House deal very largely merely with statistics and general principles, there are loyal Canadian men and women in every one of our cities to-day who are in almost desperate straits. I take it that our administrative bodies exist in order to provide for the primary needs of the people. I have said to labour audiences, and I venture to repeat it in this House, that any administrative body, in a country capable of producing as Canada can produce, which fails to provide for the primary needs of its people, even to the extent of food and clothing and shelter, ceases to command the loyalty of those people. On all sides the people in this country are calling upon us for relief, and we face a serious situation if we do not lend an ear at this time and do our utmost to solve what is not only a national but a world problem.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Before the
hon. member finally takes his seat, I would like to ask whether he has any concrete suggestion to make to the House as to means whereby the federal government could deal with the problem?


James Shaver Woodsworth: My concrete suggestion would be that at this session the Government should go into the matter and establish a system of unemployment insurance. Not that such a system would provide work, but it would give immediate and definite relief to those who are out of work, and in the effort to provide for their immediate needs we would find ourselves driven to do something along constructive lines. Most decidedly there are a number of things that could be done. Almost all our unemployment conferences have suggested lines of work which could be pursued. For example, there is a shortage of houses all

over Canada; in all our cities rentals are very high, and there is no reason why a great many more houses should not be built. On the western coast there are large areas of land which still have to be cleared; why should men be going around the cities idle when they might be engaged in the clearing of those lands? As I have said, large numbers of people lack the prime necessities of life, even of clothes; we have factories and mills standing idle which are capable of producing these things, and if these various industrial organizations cannot carry on, I do not see why the Government should not do so, and under those circumstances, put these idle men at work and see that the needs of the people are provided for. Down in Cape Breton some of the coal miners are recognizing that principle; they say that if these great corporations, some of whom have leases from the provincial government, can not see their way to make dividends and carry on, then the Government itself should step in and operate the industry in the interests of the people. There is not much doubt that there is work to do. I would venture to repeat to the Prime Minister what I said, I think, in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, that there were three factors, and three factors only, necessary in order to enable us to produce all that we require for the material welfare of the people of Canada, and those are, the natural resources of the country, the equipment and labour. I submit that we have all these three at the present time in Canada. We have natural resources in abundance. At all our Canadian Clubs we have been told of the vast extent of our natural resources. We have the equipment: factories are idle, mills and railways are not working to capacity; we have an abundance of equipment already in this country. One trouble, it seems to me, is that we have been so long adding equipment that the only possible thing we can conceive of now is to add still more equipment. We already have equipment enough; and we have labour idle. What seems to be lacking is a certain courage, and imagination that would enable us to bring these three factors into effective working connection. I cannot see why we should allow things to drift from bad to worse until some of the labour people are driven to desperation. Surely we have the brains and ability here in this House to devise some method for giving the unemployed work. If not the poor individual workman is himself surely helpless.

Unemployment


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Let me say at the outset that I am in entire sympathy with my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) in his desire to find some means of helping to solve the problem of unemployment where it exists. I agree with him, too, in believing that the problem of unemployment has a national significance, as well as a provincial and a municipal significance; but I think it is all important that this Parliament should very carefully consider whether the obligation of looking after men who are unemployed should become a federal obligation, rather than it should be understood to be primarily a matter for individuals in the first instance, between municipalities and the people living within their bounds, in the second instance, next, between the provinces and the citizens of the respective provinces, and only finally a matter of concern in the federal arena.
If it were admitted for one moment that it was not primarily a municipal obligation to look after the individuals who are unemployed within their bounds where would we ultimately land in the solution of this question? Should the resolution pass in the form in which I understand my hon. friend to wish it to pass, namely, as meaning that the obligation is upon the federal government to look after the unemployed, every municipality that had unemployed would immediately send its communications to Ottawa and say: The Ottawa Government, in view of the resolution that has passed this House, is obligated to look after the unemployed in this area.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Might I call attention to the fact that the resolution merely suggests that it is desirable that the federal government should devise some means of dealing effectively with the situation? That might involve taking the matter up with other agencies as well.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I want to make perfectly clear is this: I do not think the Government can admit that it is primarily a federal obligation to look after the unemployed. I think that there is a national significance to the problem of unemployed, but the problem primarily is one which concerns municipalities, and secondarily, the provinces affected. It only becomes a federal problem when both the municipalities and the provinces have found it impossible to cope with a situation that is completely beyond their control. That condition has arisen, to a certain extent, as a consequence of conditions growing out
of the war, and the federal government has recognized its obligation there by promising to co-operate with the municipalities and with the provinces in the relief of their unemployed. There is a standing offer at the present time to the 4 p.m. municipalities and the provinces -a policy that was adopted by the late government, and one which has been followed by the present administration -to help them meet cases of distress where they are unable to look after their own unemployed. I am told by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) that from two or three, possibly four of the provinces of this Dominion, no request has come to the federal government for assistance. Does my hon. friend think, that the provinces which have made no request for assistance in helping to solve the unemployment problem within their boundaries would be agreeable to being taxed to assist other provinces in the matter of their unemployment as a national obligation? I am afraid that if we began to work out the question on a basis of that kind, we would find it impossible in any way to carry out such a policy. I believe with my hon. friend, as I said at the outset, that the matter is one in which there is a national interest, as well as provincial and municipal interest, but that it can only be met by co-operation between the provinces and the federal government.
The hon. member has suggested that the step that should be taken at once is for this Parliament to pass an enactment in the nature of unemployment insurance. I question very much whether, if we attempted to pass such legislation at the present time, we would find that it comes wholly within the jurisdiction of this federal Parliament. The provinces may have the right to pass such a law; we may have the right to pass such a law; but one thing is certain, that between the two of us we ought to be able to find a way to pass such an enactment if it is in the public interest. It is in that spirit that the Liberal party adopted as one of the planks in its platform the resolution which my hon. friend has quoted, and which I shall quote now, and which, let me say, expresses the policy of the Government on this question:
That in so tar as may be practicable, having regard for Canada's financial position, an adequate system of insurance against unemployment, sickness, dependence in old age, and other disability, which would include old age pensions, widows' pensions, and maternity benefits, should be instituted by the federal Government in conjunction with the Governments of
Unemployment

the several Provinces; and that on matters pertaining to Industrial and Social legislation an effort should be made to overcome any question of jurisdiction between the Dominion and the Provinces by effective co-operation between the several Governments.
That policy is one which recognizes the obligations of t)he federal government to cooperate with the provincial governments in working out a system of insurance against unemployment. That is an entirely different attitude, however, from the federal Government's admitting that the obligation is upon it to solve this question independently altogether of the municipalities and the provinces.
I would say to my hon. friend and to the House that the Minister of Labour and myself, have already been in communication with representatives of some of the provincial governments with a view to having a conference on this very subject during the course of the present year, and I think before the year is out that conference will take place; but I would like to make it perfectly plain that so far as the Government is concerned, we regard all these matters of unemployment and the like as questions primarily of concern to municipalities and to provinces, but in so far as the national interest may also be concerned we are prepared to co-operate with the municipalities and the provinces in seeking a solution.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William and Rainy River):: I shall take up the time
of the House only for a few moments in any remarks I have to make on this question. There is no doubt that this is a very important question from the standpoint of any country in the world. I believe that any man who looks at this question in a fair light must decide that no class of men should be permitted to be without work and to go hungry.
We have, unfortunately, in most countries of the world been in the habit of taking better care of our animals-that is the lower animals-than, perhaps, of human animals, and I believe that, from that standpoint, the question my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has brought up is one of importance. There is no doubt every hon. member of the House desires to see some solution, if at all possible, of the unemployment situation, which exists not only in Canada, but unfortunately is world-wide at the present time. My hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg mentioned unemployment insurance. He has been more of a student of affairs of this

kind than I have, and I presume he knows much better than I do that that type of insurance has been tried out in various parts of the world, and I think probably he knows the conclusion that I draw from my reading, namely that it has not been altogether a success. It has been tried out in a number of different countries, in various cities in Germany, in a number of cities in France, in some cities in Italy, and various other cities, and I believe in some countries almost as a whole. But there has been a great deal of abuse of this system of insurance in the different countries of the world. It has not been found an unmixed good. However, I personally wish to express my entire sympathy, as the leader of the Government (Mr. Mackenzie King) did, with the problem, but before any system of unemployment insurance could be adopted, I think it would be desirable to go into the question much more thoroughly than this House has ever done since I have been a member of it.
My hon. friend, the Prime Minister, pointed out that the Government of to-day is carrying on the programme as outlined by the government which went out of office in December, 1921. It is rather gratifying to us on this side of the House to have our hon. friends on the other side back up our programme which they did not support before the election. I have noticed that this pledge of the Liberal platform which he read must go into the discard, with a number of other pledges which were in the Liberal platform before the election, and I am pleased to hear the leader of the Government to-day commend what was condemned so vociferously before the election by a number of the members of the present Government. It is certainly gratifying to us on this side of the House, and it should certainly prove to the people of this country that a cure in office is a good deal more difficult than condemnation out of office.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour) :: I want to first state, Mr. Speaker, that I am altogether sympathetic with what I believe to be the views of my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg, in so far as we can, in an appropriate way, co-operate in dealing with this very important question of unemployment. But I fear that my hon. friend is undertaking to place an undue burden upon this federal government when he proposes to hold this Government alone responsible for dealing with the question of unemployment. My hon. friend referred

Unemployment
to certain communications on this question received by him from Vancouver. I have received some fourteen or more communications as the result of a meeting held in Vancouver on 6th February last, indicating that it was the view of an unemployed conference there that the federal government should assume charge over the conditions of unemployment, to the extent of obtaining full wages, at trades union rates, for all persons in Vancouver who were not at that time employed. I must firmly take the position that I do not see how this federal government could assume any such obligation as that, because it would be adopting a plan that might not be in the best interests of the unemployed in Canada, and would certainly place a burden upon this Dominion which would indeed be hard to carry. My hon. friend referred to unemployment being common in the Dominion, which is, I think, substantially correct; but, as indicated by the Prime Minister, we are placed in the peculiar position of having at least several of the provinces through their proper representatives, indicate to us, in a very courteous way, that they are quite competent to deal with the unemployment situation in their particular provinces. As a matter of fact, in connection with the unemployment we find orders which have been in effect since this Government took office as to the handling of this question. We have found four provinces that have not believed it was necessary or essential that they should take advantage of the offers made by the federal government in those two employment orders that have been issued.


Mr. CARROLL:: Can the hon. minister tell me which provinces those were?


James Murdock: Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec have generally indicated that they were amply sufficient unto themselves to deal with this question; and we, of course, are glad to understand that that is the position. My hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) referred to the statement that there were 200,000 unemployed in Canada. I am glad to tell my hon. friend that the latest advices are that that particular situation is being considerably relieved recently, and that the conditions in which he is particularly interested, in Vancouver and on the Pacific Coast, are not, or should not be, the normal condition on that coast. I am told by a gentleman in close touch with the situation that many of the unemployed in Vancouver and places adjacent are men
who were unemployed or could not find employment in the prairie province, and, on account of the climatic condition, merely went out to Vancouver and joined the all-too-large army of unemployed there. The result is-and this may be interesting to my hon. friend-that during the past fiscal year this Government has paid, as its share for unemployment in Vancouver, $102,432.36, which indicates that the various municipalities and the provincial governments have borne an equal share of the expenses in dealing with the unemployment situation at Vancouver and adjacent cities. I desire to assure my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg and this House that I am entirely in sympathy with the undertaking to devise some means of dealing with this situation. But I hold that if, as has been said in years gone by, charity begins at home, it can be just as truthfully and forcefully stated that assistance and co-operation begins at home; and I believe that the assistance and co-operation which we need in dealing with this unemployment question, should commence in the municipalities and provinces. My hon. friend might be interested in knowing too that the present Orders in Council, under which this Government undertakes to assist in the relief of unemployment, expire on the 30th day of this month, we have, so far as I know, no requests at this time from municipalities or provinces for an extension of the provisions of those measures. It seems to me that, if there was a marked necessity at this particular time for an extension of those provisions, we would have heard something about the matter from the authorities in the various municipalities and provinces. Therefore, I would again suggest that this matter should, and I hope will, be dealt with in the way that I have indicated. I shall be glad to permit my hon. friend to have access to all the files of the Labour Department in order that he may ascertain if, with the records before him, he can devise some means whereby we can or should do something more in connection with this matter than has been done since this Government took office.


Mr. SIMPSON:: Is the department over which the minister presides carrying on an investigation with reference to unemployment insurance? In his opinion, would that be an effective method of dealing with the unemployment situation?


James Murdock: The Department of Labour has given some consideration to
Unemployment

that question, for I find, on referring to the report of my predecessor, that he deals with a portion of the Speech from the Throne of February, 1921, and I assume that that portion of the Speech from the Throne meant exactly what it says, and that the Labour Department did undertake to investigate the matter to which my hon. friend refers. The report reads:
The following sentences from the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General at the opening of Parliament in February indicate the attitude of the Dominion Government on the subject:
" Unemployment, the world-wide result of the conditions to which I have referred, though less widespread in Canada than elsewhere, has received most anxious consideration. Of the charges for the relief of general unemployment, measures have been taken to bear a substantial share, and special measures have been taken to assist disabled and partially disabled exservice men. These will be submitted to you for approval.
" An investigation is being conducted by the Department of Labour into systems of unemployment insurance and old age pensions."
That is the quoted portion of the Speech from the Throne, and, therefore, I am sure my hon. friend will realize that the Labour Department, in fulfilment of its promises thus made to the people of Canada dealt with and undertook to investigate the question of unemployment insurance and old age pensions. The subject matter which is the result of those investigations is, I feel quite sure on file in the Department of Labour, although I might say that I have not yet had an opportunity of analyzing it and of ascertaining just what it may be.


William F. Carroll: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in any way in the discussion of this resolution, and I would not have said anything, were it not for the fact that the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth), who moved the resolution, made some mention of conditions in the city of Winnipeg. Conditions in that city are far from good, and the hon. member is well within the mark when he says that 2,000 steel workers in Sydney, who are anxious and willing to work, are out of employment at the present time and, I believe, are well nigh on the verge of starvation. Did I hear an hon. member say "strikers"? They are not even able to "strike on the job," because they have no job to strike on. Nova Scotia is a province which has not applied to this Government under the various Orders in Council which have been passed for the purpose of aid being

rendered by this Government to municipalities. That does not mean that there is not to-day dire want in Nova Scotia. As I have stated, there are in the city of Sydney 2,000 people who are only too anxious to work if they can get employment. They are not looking for charity, and they have not gone to the provincial government to ask for aid, because if they did that and received aid under present regulations in that province, they would become paupers and would cease to be citizens of this country. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why they have not gone to the Nova Scotia government to ask for aid under present legislation in that province.
I want to be quite frank. I have brought this matter to the attention of certain members of this Government, and I am going to interview members of the Government again, because last week I received communications from several clergymen in Sydney, wise men who brought this matter to my attention in a way in which it was not brought before, and I am bound to say that it is a most serious condition,

in a city of 27,000 people or thereabouts, to have 2,000 bread-winners walking the streets in idleness because there is no occupation for them. When I brought this matter to the attention of certain members of the Government, they did not say: "We will not act;" but I am bringing it to their attention to-day publicly, and I am going to interview them again. When I do so, I shall be reinforced by every private member from Nova Scotia, and I am going to draw to their attention the fact that there is a way out of this difficulty as regards the 2,000 steel workers in the city of Sydney. That is, the problem can be solved in that city without adding one dollar to the public debt of this country, because a way can be devised whereby the steel mills in the city of Sydney may be put into operation by this Government, if they see fit to have them put into operation, and for every dollar which will be spent by this Government in putting those mills into operation, this Government will receive a return in the shape of the product of those mills. If this Government are not able to use this product now, they will be able to use it in a very short time. I would not have spoken about this matter; but I felt, the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg having made reference to the situation in the city of Sydney, that my people down there, if I may say so, would think I was derelict in the duty in which

Unemployment
I feel I owe them-and which, I believe, the Government of this country owes them -if I did not speak on their behalf. My hon. friend said that there was a possibility of the steel workers of Sydney going on the farms or fishing. In the first place, that is not their occupation, and, as in any other occupation, success

requires years of service.
That is the first difficulty. The second difficulty is the fact that these 2,000 steel workers in the city of Sydney have not the means to procure the necessary equipment for fishing. It is true that it does not cost very much-between $200 and $400 being required. But this is altogether beyond these people. And in Nova Scotia these workmen could not go in for farming, even if they were adapted to this calling which they certainly are not. We are not a great farming community, and there are no farms that could be available for these men. Furthermore, there is an insurmountable obstacle in the lack of capital. In spite of all the circumstances that have conspired against them, however, these 2,000 men of whom my hon. friend has spoken have not gone to the government of Nova Scotia to seek one dollar of public charity, and I commend that indomitable, manly spirit on their part. At the same time they are, to my knowledge, in dire need to-day, many of their families facing actual starvation.
There is a way out of this unfortunate situation, and I trust that before the Government decide whether or not they will anticipate an order of steel rails for the city of Sydney they will take my word for it when I tell them that there is the direst necessity at this moment for some effective action. The problem is not only local; it is one of national concern. There is not a province in the entire Dominion, if my information is correct, where it is not necessary at the present time for some steps to be taken, either by the local authorities or by the Dominion government to provide relief; and I am one of those who believe that the federal government might be called upon to render more assistance to the people of the country than has been given, either by past governments or, so far, by this Government. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) has stated that $102,000 has been spent in the last two or three months in the city of Vancouver. I can tell him that in order to provide adequate relief in the present situation in Sydney, not $100,000 or $200,000, but $500,000 is necessary. What is $10,000 or $50,-
000 when distributed among 2,000 families? It is nothing. It may tide them over for a week or so, but whatever assistance it may give is fleeting. So that the time may come, if the present condition of affairs develops as in the last two months, when the federal government will have to make greater efforts than have been made in the past to alleviate the sufferings of the people. I know for a fact that the municipalities in Nova Scotia, which are not in any very different position from those of other parts of the country, are to-day financially embarrassed. At any rate, those with which I am familiar have overdrawn their accounts at the banks and have not the wherewithal to furnish relief to those who are in need. And, what is more, I doubt very much whether the provincial government, if it were called upon, would be in a position to lend any assistance. The federal government may possibly say, "Well, we are in the same position ourselves; we have not the funds." Well, Sir, let there be more co-operation. Take the municipality of the county of Cape Breton, for example. The county council of Cape Breton meets once a year, in the month of January, and if any parts of the municipality were in need of relief it would take a considerable length of time to convene the council and adopt measures cooperative with the province, or with this Government, for that matter. The Order in Council which was passed some months ago offering relief to soldiers embraced only certain classes of men, those who were getting pensions and those who were receiving vocational training, and it therefore did not meet the requirements of the municipalities, and the various districts generally, in the province from which I come.
Now, sir, I wish to inform this House that the people of the province of Nova Scotia are neither thriftless nor lazy, but are desirous, nay more, anxious, to work. They are not a class who would evade the responsibility which they owe their families, their friends, or the public at large. The labouring classes in that province, I say, are anxious and eager to get employment that they may earn a livelihood, because they have not looked for charity and are not doing so now. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, many of them would starve rather than go looking for charity. I hope, therefore, that the Government will believe me when I repeat that there is the most urgent necessity for some effective action in the city of Sydney and its vicinity. In regard to the
Unemployment

miners, there is the question of wages; and I do not think my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) will say that at the present time there is any large amount of unemployment in the coal industry in Nova Scotia. The question of wages is entirely another matter, and I hope that in a very short time the question will be settled when it comes before the conciliation board, which is now being reconvened. At this particular stage, where promptness of action is imperative, I do not think that an investigation into the matter of insurance against unemployment is going to help the situation. No investigations of any kind will relieve the distress that exists; immediate action is necessary. When, however, the question of insurance against unemployment, the question of old age pensions, and other social questions which have been more or less engaging the public mind for some time, are brought to the forefront, I can assure my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg that they will find a staunch supporter and an ardent friend in myself.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend's motion is capable of two interpretations. I shall be prepared to vote for it on one interpretation, but not on the other. If he means that the federal government must assume an obligation, in the matter of solving the unemployment question, apart altogether from the obligation on the part of the municipalities and provinces, I shall feel obliged to oppose his motion. On the other hand, if he means that it is the duty of the federal government to co-operate with the municipalities and provinces in a solution of the question and in trying to devise effective means towards that end, then I shall be prepared to support it. I should like him to indicate which view he wishes us to take of his motion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly-


Hewitt Bostock: I wish to inform the House that the mover closes the debate. If any other hon. member wishes to speak on the motion he should do so now.


Right Hon ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: I think the Government ought to be able, as the motion reads, to determine its	meaning and to
decide its position with regard thereto. For myself,	I do not want
to be understood as voting in any atmosphere of doubt when I record my judgment

on this resolution. I have no trouble whatever in determining my position.
The resolution implies that in so far as relief is concerned the principle we have followed is inadequate and does not get us far enough, and that some new principle, some new scheme should be sought out and adopted, placing upon the federal authorities the initial and primary burden for relief from distress. So far as that is concerned, whether as leader of the Government, or as leader of the Opposition, or as a private member, I have no doubt as to where I ought to stand-none whatever.
I agree wholly with the principle that when it comes to the handing out of relief to those in want and distress, the obligation is primarily municipal; if it passes the municipality, the next obligation is on the province; and lastly, and only lastly, on the federal authority. I believe that if we depart from the principle of primary municipal responsibility, we land ourselves in a Serbonian bog from which we will not emerge, and this House should not countenance departing from that principle for any reason whatsoever. Consequently I oppose the resolution.
I oppose it because I believe it seeks to put this House on a false basis with regard to unemployment relief. I do not for a moment say that we have no responsibility with regard to unemployment; not at all. The primary duty of the federal parliament is to adopt such measures of high public policy as will bring to a minimum unemployment, and spread to the utter most limits employment amongst our people.
May I compliment the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll)? I know not what he has in mind in suggesting that there are things which may be done in the way of legislation which will conduce to employment among those out of work. That is something for this House to consider. If he has something practical, something which will really bring about that result, I would be disposed to favorably consider it. As I say, I do not know what he has in mind, but consideration of the subject he mentions is the primary duty of the federal parliament. When it comes to actually relieving those in distress, that is the primary duty of the municipalities and the provinces.
Now, is the Government following the proper course as regards both of these responsibilities?-first, to so dispose public

Unemployment
policy as to make employment general and remunerative, which is the initial and major responsibility?-second, to take care to the extent of its last, not initial, responsibility of such residuum of distress as may remain? As to the first, we will know better when the programme of the Government comes down. The Order Paper as yet is absurdly barren,-the most anaemic indeed that I ever have witnessed. But there are still some weeks ahead and there are those who have some hope left. Consequently the time for the discussion of that phase has not yet come. As to the second, as the Prime Minister has stated, the Government is following the principle laid down by the late administration,- the principle of placing the task of actually taking care of the unemployed upon the local authorities. Follow any other course, and what results? Not relief to the people generally, but only the encouragement of unemployment locally due to the knowledge that locally they would not have to bear the strain.
Now, there is one thing in the statement of the Prime Minister that really I do not understand. I hope that he only made a mistake. He stated there were four provinces which had not asked for assistance in the matter of relieving unemployment, and that those four provinces should not be called upon to give any assistance in the way of general relief. Let us inquire into that declaration. Under the late administration the municipalities were asked to put in the machinery to provide relief, where relief could not be avoided and was called for by all the claims of mercy and decency, and then to call on the provincial authorities to provide one-third of the actual disbursements,-not of the disbursements for the machinery at all; we did not propose that we or the provinces pay any of the expenses of organization-but only one-third of the actual amount that reached the unemployed. If the province and the municipality did so we would pay a third. That placed upon the general federal taxpayer the obligation to pay one-third of the residuum of actual relief.
We went further. We said1: In so far as the disabled returned soldier is concerned, he is the special charge of the Government. He has suffered in the war, and it may be that because of his suffering he particularly comes in contact with the distress incident to unemployment because often he is the first to be discharged. Therefore, as respects the disabled returned man, we
said we could and did take care of him altogether. That is the extent to which we went, and I think we spent something over one million dollars last year in taking care specially of these disabled returned men. I do not know just what the expenditure was in the general relief, one-third of which we bore.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my right hon. friend? I assume that he has in mind that I was referring to the system of relief now being administered when I made the remark that the other provinces would probably take exception to spending further money on unemployment relief. I was not referring to the present method of relief at all. I was speaking of the broad question of the federal government assuming the obligation of giving relief to unemployment generally, and I said that under the circumstances the four provinces, not having requested any relief from the federal government, did the House think that those provinces would be indifferent to the federal government assuming the general obligation of relieving unemployment throughout the Dominion?


Arthur Meighen: What the Prime Minister said was: Would it be fair to expect these four provinces, which were not asking for anything themselves, to contribute to the relief of unemployment in the other provinces. He said it would not be fair. Whether he referred to the present method or any method is perfectly immaterial. If it is a false principle to call upon a province which does not ask for relief itself to contribute to unemployment relief in another province that does ask it, then that applies to anything which invokes that principle. In other words, if you use a principle that is false, you are doing wrong. Let me repeat. If it is wrong to call upon a province that itself takes care of its own obligations to assist a province that does not, then that is a good principle and you should not invade it. You invade it by the system now in vogue. Consequently I say it is either not a good principle or we should depart from the system now in vogue.
I think it is not a good principle I think that you can fairly ask the whole Dominion to assist on certain conditions in the relief of unemployment. But you must not go too far, you must go only a short distance in that regard; and the reason we came to that opinion was this: The conditions which resulted from the war were such that un-
Unemployment

employment was to some extent-in what measure it was impossible exactly to say

 the direct result of the war itself. Therefore, because of the returned soldier obligation we felt in justice bound to assume and spread over the whole of Canada some share of the unemployment burden. That reason seemed to me good. If I did not believe it I would have to oppose the Government's policy, and I could not justify the policy that the late government adopted.
Now, the present Government, while following precisely the principle that we applied, not departing in any way whatever from it, did alter the proportions; but instead of altering them along the line of the principle suggested by the leader of the Government to-day, it altered them exactly the opposite way. It said to the municipality: Your responsibility is primary, but the share you pay will be the least of all. We will pay half, you will pay only one-sixth, and the province one-third; that makes the whole, whereas before the municipality paid a third, the province a third and the Dominion a third. Consequently over the whole of Canada he spreads now half-more than ever-making the very provinces that asked for nothing contribute more than they ever contributed before to the relief of provinces that asked for federal help. In a word, his policy is a direct antitheses to his expression of sentiment. However,'it is not the first time that that incident has occurred.
Now, the Prime Minister, in regard to the unemployment insurance question, reads from the Liberal platform. You will be delighted, Mr. Speaker, and we all are, to hear at last a reference to the Liberal platform from the lips of the Prime Minister. I am sure all are in accord with me when I say that this is the first time that platform has been brought into the realm of this House since he reached his present exalted post; this is the first time he has read from its provisions. But, may I ask, Mr. Speaker, what is this resolution that he says his Government actually binds itself to fulfil? It is a pretty safe resolution. He says that if it is in the public interest-these are words that my hon. friend placed in it as he read-and if the public finances will permit, and when they permit, and if it is within our powers, then we ought to find some way of co-operating with the provinces in order to introduce unemployment insurance. If one can improve on that for a resolution that by a circuitous excursion finally ends
[Mr. Meighen.1
by saying nothing, that at least he has exceeded my powers of circumlocution. The Prime Minister having seized on this lone declaration of the Liberal platform and declared his fidelity to it, I conclude that the plan of the Government is this: only to give heed to the programme of the Liberal convention when the resolution in question is surrounded at all four points of the compass with a wide-open "if" and when there is nothing but swinging doors in between.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (South York):: Mr. Speaker, just for a moment I would like to bring to the attention of the House the condition of affairs in our own province of Ontario, where a certain dispute has arisen between the Hydro-Electric Commission and the provincial government. Bonds have been issued and the money is in the bank for the construction of certain radial lines and other public improvements which, if proceeded with, would go a long way toward relieving unemployment in Ontario. I can only say it is the wish of a large number of the people of Ontario that that dispute should be settled, or this misunderstanding cleared up. The purchase of the Toronto street railway, though it is still the subject of arbitration, has resulted in the payment out of large sums for the reconstruction of the system, and that has given much relief to the unemployed. The same thing could be done in connection with these radials. In most respects the different parties have agreed, but for some reason the legislation governing the matter is subject to some changes. If that matter could be settled several millions of dollars now available in Toronto could immediately be devoted to the purpose for which the money was appropriated, thus giving employment in connection with the works for which the bonds were issued.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary) :: Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting to note that all hon. members who have spoken on this question agree as to its importance and its urgency. I want to make a few practical suggestions, seeing that hon. members on the Government side have not made any, and that the hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has not made any. It has been stated that the member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) has not made any. So perhaps I may be pardoned if I attempt at least to make one or two. If the suggestions I make are not of any value, we simply ask that the

Unemployment
Government take this matter into consideration and themselves make suggestions that will be of value.
There is no idea on our part to charge the present employment situation to this Government. We understand that they have no more to do with it than we have. We are simply urging that it is a question of national importance, and that, therefore, it is a question that cannot be passed by as merely something for the municipalities or for the provinces. Those who have been connected with labour for some years know that the municipalities take precisely the same attitude -that this Government has taken. They say: "This is not a matter for us; we have no authority." And the provincial governments say the very same thing. But when we come to this House we find the federal government saying that the municipalities or the provinces are responsible. I think it is reasonable to suggest -that the Government should in the first place find out who is responsible. It would be well for labour, it would be well for the members of this House and of other legislative bodies, to know who has authority in these matters. The question seems at present to be undecided, for both the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the Opposition-for once in the same camp-have stated very definitely that this is a matter for the municipalities and must not be taken out of their hands. I am not suggesting that it should be taken out of their hands, but I want to know whether it is actually in their hands now. It seems to me that matters of unemployment or anything else pertaining to labour are pretty much of a football that is kicked around from one authority to the other. It is necessary that we should know where the authority lies.
Now, the unemployment situation is not a new thing, nor is it going to be settled permanently with the coming of summer; it is a problem that has arisen out of the economic system that prevails. I do not think, nor do I believe that the other representative of labour thinks, that the question can be ultimately settled in this House. But we do think that something of a practical nature can be put forward. The Prime Minister challenged the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg to offer a practical suggestion. That is only fair, but I would like to remipd the Prime Minister that he already has had a very practical suggestion from the organized labour movement of Canada: I refer to the case as presented to his Government by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada. The Trades and Labour Congress have put forward a solution which seems to them to be good; it is the only one, or the best one, they have been able to think of. As I say, it has been placed in the hands of the Government. I do not know what the Government are going to do with it, but I want to put upon Hansard what the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada request of the Government with regard to unemployment:
We recommend the enactment ot unemployment insurance embodying the following principles t-
(a)	Creation of a federal fund, from which payments may be made to unemployed, and under employed persons.
(b)	This fund to be raise-d by assessment on the pay rolls of undertakings whose workers are covered by such insurance and added to by Dominion and, if possible, provincial public funds.
(c)	Payments to be made to workers during actual unemployment or when employed for fixed periods for less than 75 per cent of thedr regular working hours.
(d)	No employer to be allowed to discharge numbers of his workers without due notice to the Employment Service of Canada, so as to give them an opportunity to provide for their redistribution.
(e)	The Government to have power to investigate as to the real need of discharge of workers, and consequent limitation of production.
(f)	No employers to be allowed to discharge workers for lack of work, until the hours of such industry have been reduced to at least half of the normal working hours.
(g)	"Workers in this way underemployed to have their wages supplemented from the federal fund up to not less than 75 per cent of their normal earnings.
(h)	This Act to apply -to workers under pub-lie bodies as well as to private employers.
(i)	Use of the advisory councils of the employment services should be made for the carry-mg out of the act, and power given them to deal with matters relating to the co-ordinating of public works, and perhaps their partial financing from the fund, in order to avoid unemployment. These suggestions are by no means complete but would provide a starting point for this much needed legislation.
That is the starting point which the organized labour movement of Canada has suggested to this Government, and I repeat, if that is not considered to be a feasible proposition, let the Government provide a more feasible one. Inasmuch as they have admitted that this is a question of grave importance which they are willing to see settled, have they a better solution than the one suggested, and if so, what is it? I think the Labour representatives in this House will be only too glad to suprevised EDITION
Unemployment

port the Government if they have a solution that they consider better than the one I have just mentioned.
I want to offer another suggestion. If unemployment insurance is not considered to be practicable at the present time, and if the Government has no other substitute proposal, I want to read just a clause from the proposal put forward by the Trades and Labour Council of Calgary. This is merely a palliative, as they call it, but it might be worthy of consideration. I simply offer it to the Government at its face value:
That the Dominion, provincial governments and municipalities prepare estimates for all public works that can he possibly carried out during the winter months, and that tenders for same be prepared and submitted early in the fall to eliminate any unnecessary waiting to start the work when needed.
That the Dominion Government take under consideration the further construction of the national highways with a view that same be eventually completed from coast to coast.
These are the two principal palliatives.
I do not know whether the Government will adopt them, but at all events I have submitted them for consideration.
In conclusion, the Government has already committed itself on this question. It has already paid out doles to the unemployed in Canada. It has accepted partial responsibility, at least, in conjunction with provincial and municipal governments for aiding the unemployed. That is an assumption at least of partial responsibility. Furthermore, the Government, I understand, has assumed responsibilities for losses which may have been incurred by large corporations who were engaged in producing munitions and other war material. If I am not mistaken, the British Empire Steel Corporation in Nova Scotia actually received subsidies-perhaps that is not the exact term-because when the war ceased they were left with a great plant on their hands and seemingly could not make anticipated profits. The Government, I understand, reimbursed them to the extent of their probable losses. Surely, if the Government can undertake to reimburse a company for probable losses, it ought to assume some responsibility for the men who are thrown out of work by 5 p.m. that company. That is not asking too much; in my opinion, it is a reasonable proposition. I believe that the Government is just as sincere in trying to solve the unemployment problem as I am, and I have no hesitation in saying so. I believe that the leader of the Opposition 
(Mr. Meighen) is also sincere. But it seems that while we all think it is a great and serious problem which we would all wish to see partially or completely solved, nobody seems to know what to do about it. Does that mean that we must drop the matter there, bury it and leave it; that we will not continue to make a study of this question? Would it not be possible for the Government to have a Standing Committee appointed to study this question and continue to make proposals? Because I can assure the House that unemployment is going to be with us much longer than this summer. Next winter is likely to be as bad if not worse than the last, and now is the time to take precautionary measures and do everything possible to prevent unemployment being as prevalent throughout Canada as it was last winter. If the suggestions put forward by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada are not practicable, and if the hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and myself have not contributed anything of value, let not the effort stop there; let us find some body who can give us something of value.
I have another suggestion, and it is that this Government take steps towards calling a national conference at which municipal and provincial governments and the Dominion Government will be represented, for the purpose of taking into consideration the proposals of the Peace Conference and seeing what action shall be taken regarding them.
There is one other thing I would urge, and it is that the Government immediately start to put into effect the resolution that was read by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to-day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: First, one or two remarks on the suggestions that have been put forward in this discussion by hon. members who have spoken.
It was suggested by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), I think, that a certain number of the unemployed in Vancouver were there because they were unwilling to go out on the prairies. A great many of them last spring did go out on the prairies, but were sent back because there was no work for them to do. There were advertisements, I believe, placed in some of the papers on the prairies protesting against any more men being brought over the mountains from the West. Then, as is very well known, owing to the seasonal character of agriculture, after the thresh-

Unemployment
ing is over on the prairies large numbers of men have no further work to do on the farms; that is, there are more men needed on the farms just at threshing time than during the winter months, and those unemployed drift back into the cities, and, of course, a considerable number of them drift back over the mountains to Vancouver. But this situation is no fault of the men who are found out of work during the winter time. It arises as I said before because of certain mal-adjustments in our industrial system itself.
Again, we are told that charity ought to begin at home, and that the municipalities ought to take action in this matter. A very large number of municipalities, at least in the West, have taken action in this matter, and it is only after they have found themselves unable to cope with the situation that they have referred the matter to the provincial governments. In turn, it is only after the provincial governments have found that the question was altogether too big for them, that the federal government has been appealed to. In the resolution of the conference called by the Manitoba Government, which I read it was distinctly urged that the problem was on such a large scale that it could not be solved short of being treated as a national problem.
One hon. gentleman from the East suggested that I had thought that possibly the steel workers might go fishing. He did not catch my point at all. I stated that some people had suggested: Why not go into other classes of work?-why should they not go fishing? And my position was precisely that which the hon. member took, that it would be impossible for them to go fishing or engage in any other occupation which required considerable equipment.
I have no great hope that the problem of unemployment will be solved simply by introducing a policy of unemployment insurance. I frankly admit that unemployment insurance has not been a full success in places where it has been tried. But it has accomplished something. We are faced with a world condition today. Some believe that our economic problems can be solved only by the most radical and far-reaching changes in our whole economic system. I am one of those. But I may be mistaken. If the present system of organization is capable of carrying on, give it a chance. If it is capable of providing for the wants of the people, give it every opportunity, but, in the meantime, do not let us permit the men and G9i
women, and especially the little children to suffer. If the existing system can take care of the people, that may show that some of us are wrong when, as we try to analyse the situation, we conclude that other and more radical changes are necessary. Some of us have been fairly closely associated with what is known as radical labour throughout western Canada and I should like this House to know there is a very strong impression among quite large groups of labour that it is next to impossible to accomplish anything through the action of Parliamment. They have almost given up hope. Some of us have stated that we ought to use parliamentary power to the full extent. Others reply that such a course would be useless. Really I do not know but that they are right. If we come here asking for so simple a thing as that this Government should undertake measures to provide for the men that are confessedly on the verge of starvation, and who have had to be fed by the municipalities during the winter months, and if this Government refuses to take action to provide, even for primary needs of that kind, I am sure it gives force to the contention it is hopeless to secure any reforms of far-reaching character through our parliamentary machinery. The Prime Minister speaks of being willing to co-operate with the provinces and municipalities. "Co-operate" is a good word, but I would like to have a little bit more definiteness in regard to it. There has been up to the present co-operation in the giving of relief. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) says the way is still open for cooperation in the giving of more relief. My resolution looks to some action more far-reaching than the simple giving of doles. It looks at least in the direction of a permanent solution of this problem, or, if not a permanent solution, then more adequate care for the people who at present are being crushed under our present system. The Prime Minister says he would be quite favourable to the resolution if it were understood that it does not mean that the federal government assumes exclusive jurisdiction in this matter, and that it does not mean that it would take responsibility from the provinces or municipalities. I have no desire, whatever, to remove responsibility from the provinces or municipalities. I have, as a matter of fact, very little interest in these purely jurisdictional affairs. I want to secure definite construction action. If the Premier can assure us that the Government
Unemployment

will go forward in the near future and give us some definite action that is all that any of us require at this particular time. My resolution reads:
That in the opinion of this House, in view of the widespread unemployment with which the municipalities and provinces find themselves unable to cope-*
That is, I think substantiated by the resolutions which have come forward to the Government, copies of which resolutions have been furnished to all of us.
-it is desirable that the federal Government should devise some means of dealing effectively with the situation.
That is intended to place upon the Government the responsibility of finding the best means of meeting the situation. In this resolution we are not even urging unemployment insurance. That is thrown out merely as a constructive suggestion. We are urging upon the Government definite action, so that the people who are now suffering shall not have to go through another winter such as that through which they have just passed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by Mr. Mc-Master, seconded by Mr. Lanctot:
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable in the public interest that all ministers of the Crown, on their appointment as such should resign all directorships held by them in banks, trust companies, insurance companies, transportation companies or large public utility corporations; and that should Ministers of the Crown retain their directorships in companies other than 'those hereinabove mentioned, such companies should have no business dealings with the Government of the Dominion of Canada, or with any department thereof or with any railway or ship owned or controlled by said Government; i't being understood that such prohibition should not affect the use by such company of the public services afforded by the said Government, or any department, or by any such railway or ship.



Mr. LANCTOT (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I beg to draw your attention to the fact that I am not the seconder of this motion.


Mr. McMASTER (Translation) :: That is the case, Mr. Speaker, the seconder is the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould).
The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) will second my resolution.


Hewitt Bostock: The fault is all mine. The member sitting next to the hon. gentleman from Brome (Mr. McMaster) is 
the member for Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot), and I gave his name as seconder. The hon. member from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) is the seconder of the motion.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I ask the attention of hon. members of this House to what this motion proposes to do, and what it proposes not to do. It does not propose that members of the Government who are directors in companies carrying on what I might call private businesses should resign their directorships. If a member is carrying on the business, let us say, of a wholesale grocer in corporate form, I do not propose that he should, on becoming a member of the Cabinet, resign his directorship in such company. I propose that his company should be put exactly in the same position as if it were owned by him in non-corporate form, and that the company should not have the privilege of doing any business with the Government. What I claim for this resolution is that it proposes to prevent a possible conflict of fiduciary interests and that it is framed for the purpose of asking the opinion of this House as to the undesirability of members of the Government being at the same time directors in great public corporations, such as the banks, trust companies, transportation companies and great public utility corporations. I trust that I shall be able to place before the House such arguments as will lead it to the belief that what I am endeavouring to do now is in the public interest. I may say, what I said in introducing this matter last year, that I desire to discuss it on the plane of principle and not on that of personality; that I attack, not an individual, but a practice.
This is not the first time that I have brought such matters before the House. Last session, I introduced a bill providing that within fifteen days of accepting office, all ministers of the Crown who were directors in companies-and at that time I made no differentiation between large companies and small companies-should resign their directorships. I have changed that attitude; this session I have not gone so far as I did last year. I have not gone so far, largely because arguments were advanced last year which showed me that it was unwise to go so far as I went on that occasion. What were the arguments used against my bill last year? There was, first of all, the argument that it was unwise, improper. I will deal with that criticism

Ministers and Directorships
in a moment. There were other criticisms; there was the criticism that the bill went too far in that it tried to crystallize into legislation what should be rather left to the feelings of ministers themselves. There was also the argument that it went too far; that it was unfair to ask a man who was say, carrying on a business individual to himself, in corporate form, to resign a directorship in such business. I have met those two last criticisms. I am not asking for legislation on this occasion; I am not asking that men who are carrying on their private business or their partnership business in corporate form should, on assuming office, have to resign their directorships in such companies. But I am returning to the charge in respect of the holding of directorships in banks, trust companies and transportation companies, and the first point that I wish to make is that everything which has happened in this country in respect of the holding, by ministers of the Crown, of directorships in banks, trust companies and such other organizations since the introduction of my bill of last year, has ratified, confirmed and approved everything that I said in that connection on that occasion.
I do not wish to delay the House unduly with this matter, for it seems to me that what I have to say is of primordial, primary soundness. I think I shall have the general agreement of hon. gentlemen who sit on both the front benches of this House, when I say that, in this country, the life of a minister is one of unremitting toil. Our practice in this country imposes upon ministers vast amounts of routine business, and it is only with difficulty that a minister is able to obtain the time required to study policies. I say that we have the very best of authority that no man can serve two masters. There is nothing that one can do better in connection with such a matter as this than to give an example. There is no stronger argument, I humbly submit, as to the soundness of the position which I am assuming on this occasion, then what happened in connection with the Merchants Bank of Canada. On the 31st of November last, the Merchants Bank of Canada possessed, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, some hundreds of branches. It claimed to have a capital stock of about $10,500,000 and a reserve of about $9,000,000. For some months prior to the 7th day of December, it had been paying to its shareholders, by way of bonus or dividends, a
profit at the rate of about 13 per cent. On the latter date the people of Canada were astounded to learn that the bank was in a very bad way. It was reported that the reserve had been practically wiped out. It was found that great losses had occurred through advances to a stock-broking firm and also to a manufacturing concern of which a representative of the bank had been in charge, or in charge, to a certain extent, of the finances for many months. That was the situation which confronted the Canadian people on that occasion.
The ex-Minister of Marine and Fisheries was a director of the Merchants Bank of Canada. The Merchants Bank of Canada, as the House knows, was sold out to the Bank of Montreal. I make no complaint of the sale; it may have been the very best thing that could have happened, in view of the situation in which that bank found itself on the 7th of December, 1921. But the minister in question was also a director of the Royal Trust Company, which is considered to be and which is, I think, in fact the side-door of the Bank of Montreal, and it is a matter, difficult for any outsider to the transaction, to state whether, in this transaction, the minister in question represented the interests of the Merchants Bank of Canada, which was the vendor, or the interests of the Bank of Montreal, which Was the vendee, or the general interests of the Canadian people. I am charging no wrongdoing against any one; but I say that it is an unwholesome position for a man to find himself in, that people cannot tell which side of the bargain he is supposed to be looking after. To my proposed legislation of last year, the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries was an outspoken opponent. Although, when I address the House, I seldom weary it by reading extracts, may I be allowed to read a little of the debate which took place last year in connection with this matter? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the last administration said:
I have no hesitation in stating that I am a director of banks and trust companies. I ask how could it be otherwise? A man who enters business early in life, achieves a success, and becomes associated not only with a large industrial concern-of which he may happen to be the president, vice-president or managing director-but with other commercial undertakings in the city or town in which he resides, and who amasses wealth, will find himself invited to become a director of other large corporations, banks or trust companies. If a man is not successful in business, and if he is not possessed of good Judgment he will not find himself on any of these various directorates.

Ministers and Directorships
Now, suppose a business man is called to serve bis country? It is a well-known fact that business men have no desire to become members of Parliament, great as the honour is, or to become members of a government, although they appreciate to the full what that honour means. Judging from the political history of Canada and other countries it is a rare thing to find a business man, who has succeeded in commerce or in finance, either a member of the (popular chamber or a member of any particular Cabinet. But, Sir, if the State does call that man, there is only one thing for him to do. He must place the duties of his public office, the duty of serving his country, before his business interests, and henceforward devote all his time and all his attention to the administration of those public affairs to which he has been called. If I may be permitted to make a personal reference for a moment my position as a member of the Government and a member of the House is no different from the position which would be taken by any other business man. I had, of course, to drop all my business connections as far as giving them any personal attention was -concerned; I have not been able to attend to the duties of the various boards to which I belong. But, Mr. Speaker, is At fair for the hon. member (Mr. MeMaster) to expect a business man identified with large interests in this country to at once resign from those boards upon his entering the Government ?
In closing the debate, I made this reply to the Hon. Mr. Ballantyne:
Now, I come to the argument made by the Minister of Marine (Mr. Ballantyne). I may say-and I would call all members of this House to witness who heard me the other day -that in introducing this measure I studiously refrained from imputing any wrong-doing to any minister, and I refrained absolutely from making a personal attack upon any one. But the Minister of Marine has endeavoured to attract the lightning upon himself; his doing so has been no fault of mine. The minister has been frank, if he has been anything. He said: I am a director in many large industrial companies, in banks and in trust companies. He seems to think that his holding of these positions is perfectly compatible with his being a minister of the Crown,-and he now nods his head in token of assent. But, Mr. Speaker, he goes on to say this: The energy and the skill required in the administration of a large department of the Government is such that I have not been able to give any attention to my company matters; -and he nods his head again. Well, in all kindness I ask him, is it fair to the shareholders of the Royal Trust Company that he should remain a director of that company, that he should give his name to the institution and the prestige that his name carries with it, while he gives no attention at all to the affairs of the Company? Is it fair, is it right, for a man to hold himself out as a guardian of the interests of the shareholders and of the depositors, if there are any, of the Royal Trust Company, and yet give no attention to the affairs of the Company? My hon. friend is a director, if I mistake not-and he will correct me if I make any mistake-of the Merchants Bank of Canada. Is it fair or right that the working men of this country should be invited to place their hard-earned savings in the care of the Merchants Bank of Canada, relying upon my hon. friend being a director of that institution, when as a matter of fact he tells us that he can give no attention

to the matter? I do not think it is right, and I think that on further consideraition, my hon. friend will come to the same conclusion.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada who have seen what (happened in connection with this bank have come to the conclusion which the member for Brome formed last session in respect of this matter. I need not stress this point. But for a minister of the Crown to hold positions in which he is a trustee for other people's money, when the work entailed in his office as minister precludes him from giving any attention to the affairs of the institution which is taking care of that money, is, I respectfully say, unfair to the minister himself, unfair to the cabinet of which he is a member, unfair to the party to which he belongs, and unfair to the people of the country of which he is supposed to be one of the governors in charge of affairs. A man comes to occupy a great position in connection with business matters if he allows his name to be used as a director. He gives notice to the world that, so far as concerns the policy of the institution in question, he takes his share of responsibility; and although he does not pretend to look after the details himself, he will see that they are properly looked after.
Now let us pass to another phase of the question. The world has been struggling for years past for political equality, for social equality, and now for economic equality. In this struggle men see, with a considerable amount of uneasiness, the fact that in this country, as in others, the money power is becoming centralized in fewer and fewer hands. That is a matter on which we might have a long and interesting discussion. Interlocking directorates tie together a large number of the great financial and industrial institutions of the country. I am not going to discuss that question to-day, but the point I shall make before the House, and perhaps in some degree before the country, is that interlocking directorates should not get past the door that guards the entrance to the executive council of the nation. A friend of mine Who is conversant with business matters has prepared a graph for me in which he^ has put, in most striking form, the connection existing between the great financial, industrial and transportation interests of this country. On one side of the page I hold in my hand there appear the names of fifteen leading men of this country who are directors in large institutions. On the other side of the page, there are the names of sixteen great financial, in-

Ministers and Directorships
dustrial and transportation concerns. Fifteen of them are Canadian institutions, and one an American corporation which has been playing no inconsiderable part in financial affairs in Canada during the last few months or years. The amount of assets credited to these corporations total's $4,-
295,000,000, or considerably more than the whole national debt of Canada. The names of these great institutions are:
The Montreal City and District Savings Bank, The Sun Lite Assurance Company,
The Cockshutt Plow Company,
The Dominion Bank,
The Dominion Textile Company,
The Canadian Bank of Commerce,
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company,
The Bank of Montreal,
The National City Bond Company,

which is apparently a subsidiary of the National City Bank, New York.
The Royal Trust Company-
-which I have characterized, I think with perfect correctness as being a side-door to the Bank of Montreal.
The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company,
The Shawinigan Water & Power Company, The Laurentide Company,
The Royal Bank,
The Montreal Trust Companywhich is really a side-door to the Royal Bank.
-and The Montreal Cottons Limited.
Now, of these sixteen great companies there are fifteen men in Canada who are directors of one, or two, or three, or four, or five, or six. As I desire to discuss this matter on a plane not of personality but of principle, I will refer to these directors as No. 1, No. 2, etc.
Director No. 1 is a director in the Cockshutt Plow Company, the Dominion Bank, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the National City Bond Company.
Director No. 2 is a director in the Canadian Bank of Commerce and in the National City Bond Company.
Director No. 3 is a director in the Dominion Bank and in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Director No. 4 is a director in the Cockshutt Plow Company and the Bank of Montreal.'
Director No. 5 is a director in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Trust Company.
Director No. 6 is a director in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Trust Company.
Director No. 7 is a director in the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Bank of Montreal, the National City Bond Company and the Royal Trust Company.
Director No. 8 is a director in the Montreal City and District Savings- Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the National City Bond Company, the Royal Trust Company, the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company, the Shawinigan Water and Power Company and the Laurentide Paper Company.
Director No. 9 is a director in the Dominion Textile Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company; in the Shawinigan Water and Power Company; in the Royal Bank; in the Montreal Trust Company and in the Montreal Cottons Limited.
Director No. 10 is a director in the Dominion Textile Company, the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Trust Company and in the Montreal Cottons Limited.
Director No. 11 is a director in the Dominion Textile Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Trust Company, the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company and the Laurentide Paper Company.
Director No. 12 is a director in the Montreal City and District Savings Bank; in the Sun Life Assurance Company; in the Montreal Trust Company and in the Montreal Cottons Limited.
Director No. 13 is a director in the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company; in the Shawinigan Water and Power Company; in the Laurentide Paper Company and in the Montreal Trust Company.
Director No. 15 is a director in the National City Bond Company, the Royal Bank and the Montreal Trust Company.
To make the proof of the interlocking still more complete, I will take five of the chief of these great corporations and will show how closely allied the boards of these are to each other.
Thus, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has on its board of directors Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 11.
The Bank of Montreal has on its directorate, directors Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11.
There are five directors of the Bank of Montreal who are also directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; and of the executive committee of the Canadian Pacific Railway consisting of five directors three are also directors of the Bank of Montreal.
The National City Bond Company has on its directorate, directors Nos. 1, 2, 7, 8 and 15.

Ministers and Directorships
The Royal Trust Company has on its directorate directors Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and
The Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company has on its directorate, directors Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 13.
Now, as the Scotch say, what is the difference? Well, this is what I object to. We have great questions to discuss. We have followed I think a false economic system known as protection. The leader of the party situated angularly opposite will not agree with this part of my discourse.


Arthur Meighen: Why does the hon. gentleman confine his selection of leaders to myself?


Andrew Ross McMaster: There are others. I was looking at the right hon. gentleman when I spoke, as he often looks at me while he speaks, so I thought it just as well to bring him before the House as an example. It is suggested to me that I call my right hon. friend leader No. 2. Well, leader No. 2 will not agree with me when I say that the Canadian people have since 1878 followed a false economic system,- the policy of protection. That has caused to be built up in this country great corporations which have oftentimes an interest contrary to that of the mass of the people; and therefore I say it is highly undesirable that these special interests should have special representation in a Cabinet. That is one of the reasons why I believe it is unwise to have cabinet ministers who are directors in any company; there is the possibility of public prejudice. I need not stress that point. As I stated before, I am imputing wrong-doing to no one; but I do not think that is sufficient. We should have such a carrying on of our public life that there will not be room for suspicion. Let me take an extreme case for the purpose of making my argument. Suppose we find that in a Cabinet-and I do not care from what party that Cabinet was drawn -every member was a director in a cotton company, and we saw the duties on cottons raised, would we not have ground for suspicion? Of course we would. That is all I wish to say upon that point.


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend permit a question? Following that argu-iment, why has he not included) cotton companies in his resolution?


Andrew Ross McMaster: I suppose that is a fair question. I wished, if possible, to keep companies within a certain class, and that class covered great companies which were 
of a semi-public nature. I can easily imagine that an argument could be made out that no director whose company was the supposed beneficiary of the protective system should have a seat in the Cabinet; but to do that I would have to shut out the directors of perhaps half of the industrial life of this country, and I thought that would be going too far. In connection with any reform it is always easy to put forward the stereotyped criticism, that it goes too far, or does not go far enough. If I have the co-operation and enthusiastic support of Leader No. 2 to this resolution I will be satisfied so far as this afternoon is concerned.
Now, the next point I wish to make is that the position I am assuming now, as I assumed last year, is in conformity with present legislation on the subject-the House of Commons and Senate Act, R.S.C., 1906, chapter 10. section 14 provides:
No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the Government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons or shall sit or vote in the said House.
And section 21 provides:
No member of the Senate or of the House of Commons shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, for services rendered, or to be rendered, either by himself or another, in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claim, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons, or before a committee of either House, or in order to influence or -to attempt to influence any member of either House.
I do not think the passing of such a law was any reflection upon the judiciary, any more than the introduction of his resolution is intended to be or is, if properly considered, any reflection upon the members of this or any past government. Section 33 of the Judges Act reads:
No judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or of the Exchequer Court of Canada or of any superior or county court in Canada, shall, either directly or indirectly, as director or manager of any corporation, company or firm, or in any other manner whatever, for himself or others, engage in any occupation or business other than his judicial duties; but every such judge shall devote himself exclusively to such judicial duties.
Then my resolution is in line with the provisions of the law respecting the Board of Railway Commissioners. This statute is known as the Board of Railway Com-

Ministers and Directorships
missioners Act, 9-10, George V, and section 14, subsection I, reads as follows:
14. (1) No commissioner or officer of the board shall, directly or indirectly,-
(a)	hold, purchase, take or become interested in any stock, share, bond, debenture or other security, of any company subject to this Act; or
(b)	have any interest in any device, appliance, machine, patented process or article or any part thereof, which may be required or used as a part of the equipment of railways or of any rolling stock to be used thereon, or of any work or undertaking subject to this Act.
16. The commissioners shall devote the whole of their time to the performance of their duties under this Act, and shall not accept or hold any office or employment inconsistent with this section.
Of course, if they cannot be shareholders in companies making these devices, they cannot be directors in such companies; therefore my resolution is in line with that legislation concerning the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Cabinet is a court of appeal to which the findings of the Railway Commission may be taken; therefore my resolution merely asks that the personnel of that court of appeal should be subject to the same limitation as the court of first instance, the Railway Commissioners of Canada.
Then, the next point, which to me is a very important one, is that the resolution follows the best practice in Canada. I have been told, and I believe it to be a fact, that when Sir Robert Borden became Prime Minister of Canada he resigned all his directorships. I am told on the authority of the Leader of the official Opposition that the former Minister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, gave up all his directorships when he became Finance Minister of Canada. And the attitude of the members of the party sitting to your right, Mr. Speaker, is in line with my resolution. I wish it were possible for the Speaker of this House to descend upon the Floor this afternoon and give me the valuable help of his eloquent voice as he did when I introduced my bill on a former occasion. On that occasion the present Speaker said:
Some years ago this Parliament amended the Judicature Act to provide that judges who had been appointed directors and were drawing directors' fees in joint stock companies or in any other company must resign. I may be told at once that no judge was ever accused of being partial in his decisions because he was a director of a company. That may be the case, but there is a great principle involved in this matter, and it is that the public must have absolute confidence in the integrity and probity of those who administer the law. It was for that purpose-that the public might respect the more the Bench of Canada-that this Parliament decided that judges should not be directors of any company. The legislation evoked
considerable discussion at the time, and some of the judges protested against what they called this hardship fieing imposed upon them; yet public opinion ratified the action of Parliament. Every litigant approved of it because, as we say in common parlance, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.
At the end of his interesting remarks, he said:
But I say that it is in the interests of the ministers of the Crown, and of good government and of the good reputation of Parliament, that public opinion should be satisfied that there are no conflicting interests between ministers as such and any directors of private concerns. Why, it is obvious that any day of the month a minister of the Crown who has charge of a large sipending department-let us take, for example, the Public Works Department, the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or the Department of the Interior-might be put in a very awkward position as between his fiduciary interests as member of a board and his public duties on the other hand. It may happen any day, and therefore I think, without having gone very deeply into the matter, that my Hon. friend is living up to British custom, to precedent, and tradition in advocating this legislation.
I do not believe I need go further in pointing out that when this matter came before the House last year, in the consideration of my hill, the party to which I have the honour to belong was very strongly in favour of the measure-not unanimously; there were some who did not like to go as far as I have gone. For instance, the member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Robb) felt that my motion went too far. I have largely met his objections; therefore I can recall to his attention and to the attention of others who were in the House when I made my speech last year, these words of his:
If my hon. friend were to introduce legislation that would prevent incorporated companies that had on their directorate a Minister of the Crown from doing business with the Government, I submit that he would be upon sound ground, but I fear the measure now before the House will be misunderstood, will do no good, and will not attain the object which my hon. friend desires. I am sure he had nothing personal in his mind when he introduced this measure. I am not going to offer him advice, because he is better posted upon these questions than I am, but it does seem to me that if he wishes to create such conditions as will prevent incorporated companies from abusing their privileges he might very well introduce such a measure as will put an incorporated company, with a director in the ministry, upon the same basis as a private man doing business.
That is precisely what my resolution tries to do.
Now, let us turn from Canada to Great Britain. I am not one of those who wish to see this country a pale reflection of any other country, even one so great as Great


Andrew Ross McMaster: I endeavoured this afternoon to present this resolution in a manner which, I trust, respected the sensibilities of all who did not agree with me, for it is not my intention to wound or offend. I tried to point out the undesirability of ministers of the Crown being at the same time directors of great financial corporations. I showed that there was an inevitability of conflict of fiduciary interests. I showed the possibility of public prejudice. I showed that the attitude which I assumed was in line, not only with my attitude of last session, but also in line with the present legislation a$

Ministers and Directorships
Tespects senators and members of this House, as respects judges, and also as respects members of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I also showed that it was in line with the best practice in this country, in Great Britain, in the United States and in France. It is also, Mr. Speaker, I submit, in line with the attitude and practice of the banks themselves. If hon. gentlemen examine the boards of directors of four or five of the great leading banks of this country, they will find that, as far as commercial banks are concerned, practically no man is a director in more than one of these banks. I remember noticing with what alacrity a friend of mine, who had been a director in the Bank of Commerce, when elected to the Bank of Montreal, retired from the Bank of Commerce. Apparently, the banks will not submit to any possibility of divided allegiance in respect to their directors. There is another argument which I might cite, derived from the history of our country. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, with your knowledge of Canadian history, of which no one has a greater mastery, that after Confederation it was possible, for some time, for members of this House to be, at the same time, members of the local legislature of Quebec. There was what is called the "double mandats," or the double agency.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: It is quite changed now.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Yes, because the
Liberal party insisted that it should not be so. The Liberal party took the position that there should not be any division of fiduciary interest or responsibility in a man who represented the province and at the same time represented the Dominion, who was forced to make up his mind whether he would serve his country in the pro-' vincial or in the federal field.


Mr. JACOBS:: Is the hon. gentleman
aware that a member of the local legislature was appointed to the Senate by the Government which preceded this one?


Andrew Ross McMaster: That is true, I understand, but it does not affect the validity of my argument. The law at one time was that a man could be a member of the legislative assembly of Quebec and also a member of this House. The law was changed by reason of the application of the principle for which I am struggling to-day. But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say something more. John Morley, in his Reminiscences, tells us
that in writing to Lord Minto, when Governor General of India, he stated that whether they liked it or not, the master both of himself and of the Viceroy in India was the British House of Commons. Then I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the master of this House is the public opinion of this country-
There is on earth a yet Diviner thing,
Veiled though it be, than Parliament or King.
And that thing is what we know as public opinion. Public opinion, no doubt, is divided upon this question, as it is upon other questions, but I submit, with great confidence, that the informed and disinterested public opinion of this country points the way in the direction of the acceptance by this House of the resolution which I have submitted this afternoon. Public opinion is sometimes wrong. It is then the duty of public men to combat it. We have seen a William Lloyd Garrison mobbed in the streets of Boston, because he withstood the public opinion of his time. We have seen a John Bright losing the seat which he had represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain because he opposed the Crimean War. We have seen a Lloyd George escape from the town hall in Birmingham in disguise because he opposed another war. But where public opinion points the way to better and purer laws, I submit it is the part of wisdom, the part of prudence, aye, the part of patriotism, for individuals and political parties to place themselves in conformity thereto.
Mr. 0. R. GOULD (Assiniboia):	In
rising, I wish, first of all, to refer to what I deem a compliment paid me by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in asking me to second his resolution. Perhaps, looking at it from a personal point of view, I take the credit to myself, simply because I believe the hon. member has learned, in the short time in which I have been in this House, that I, at least, am consistent with respect to the policy I advocate and believe in. The policies I have endeavoured, though in a feeble manner, to further, since I have been here, represent my beliefs. As I look back one year and recollect that this resolution, or a resolution very similar in its nature, was before this House, I know that by my vote I approved of it on that occasion. Likewise I know that the people at home, who are watching and paying attention to the votes as they are recorded in this House,


Mr. VIEN:: In what way is the advance of money to directors by hanking institutions connected with the motion before the House?


Mr. GOULD:: I was arguing that if, in the ordinary business world, an individual, who may be a director of a bank, can influence that banking institution to do business with the organizations with which he is a member, we can likewise conceive of the same individual, as a member of any government, exercising a similar influence. Possibly the hon. member was not in his seat; hut I argued a few minutes ago from that premise that, as unrest is prevalent throughout Canada at the present time because of that fact, the unrest might be mitigated or lessened if the principle contained in the resolution is adopted. That is the only point that I wish to make by the citation of these figures. The hon. member for Brome this afternoon gave citations concerning conditions in England and France, and he also cited ex-Ministers of Finance of the Dominion. I wish to point out that those hon. gentlemen, to
whom reference was made in those citations, recognized the underlying principle of this resolution. They recognized the possibility, at least, of an evil in the body politic or in the business world by the retention of their positions on directorates while they occupied seats on the treasury benches, and, consequently, they voluntarily resigned their directorships. I might state that some years ago I had the honour for some years of holding a position on one of the rural councils in the West, and that was a principle that was enunciated in that council at that time. I also believe the provincial law, in many provinces in this Dominion, demands that a man, upon taking office as a member of any municipal board, shall retire or resign from directorships that he may hold in any companies.
I do not think one would have to delve very far into this matter to be able to justify one in coming to these conclusions; but, without making specific references, I may state that the people know what they are talking about, and when they make resolutions of -this nature, they are perfectly warranted and justified in the attitude they have taken.
The necessity for the retention of positions as directors cannot be argued from a financial point of view because, I recollect, as other hon. members will also recollect, that two years ago a resolution was introduced by Sir Robert Borden increasing the salary of the Ministers of the Crown. One of the reasons given in support of that resolution was the fact that as ministers of the Crown gave, or were supposed to give, all their time and attention to the public business, it was therefore only right that they should receive a remuneration commensurate with the services they rendered the country. In the face of that contention, the measure was adopted practically without debate, no dissenting voices being raised against it. Every hon. member seemed to recognize, at that time, that the labourer was worthy of his hire, and a minister of the Crown worthy of the compensation it was proposed to give him, and consequently the resolution was carried.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have no desire to dwell on this point, but I might make a slight reference to the hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville (Mr. Lanctot), who, this afternoon, declined, in favour of myself, the honour of seconding the resolution now under consideration. Adverting for a moment to the resolution introduced by the Right Hon. Sir Robert
109'1	. .	COMMONS
Ministers and Directorships
Borden on the occasion to which I have referred, I might say that, immediately succeeding it, another resolution was introduced to increase the indemnities of private members. That resolution came in for a little discussion in the House, and I do recollect that the hon. member for Laprairie and Napierville-


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Order. What has
that to do with the motion before the House? Leave the question of indemnities out of it.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was about to say this,
Mr. Speaker, that the member for Laprairie and Napierville has taken a slightly different attitude this year from the position by which he stood last year. At least, that is my interpretation of the hon. member's attitude, and I can only utter, in the words of the old adage: Consistency.-


Hewitt Bostock: In justice to the hon.
member for Laprairie and Napierville, I said this afternoon that the fault was entirely mine in naming him as seconder of the motion. I presumed that he was seconding the motion of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) because he sat next that hon. member; but the moment he dissented I immediately mentioned the name of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould). The fault, I repeat, was mine.


Oliver Robert Gould: I was not seeking to
attach any blame to anyone in the matter, Mr. Speaker; and certainly I am not blaming the member for Laprairie and Napierville. Indeed, I took it as a compliment that the opportunity of seconding the resolution should have come to me by the circumstance that my hon. friend declined the honour himself. However, the refusal of the hon. member to second the motion did bring to my mind the fact that last year he supported a similar resolution.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How did you vote on
this resolution last year?


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: What about you too?


Oliver Robert Gould: Did my hon. friend
address the question to me? I voted in favour of the resolution last year, and I am consistent this year.


James Dew Chaplin: I cannot find the hon.
member's name in the division list.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Oliver Robert Gould: The hon. member is evidently very much concerned about what I did. However, I have a distinct recollection of the matter, as no doubt the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) also has; and knowing my attitude towards this question he had no hesitancy, I take it, in accepting me as seconder of the resolution. I shall not discuss the question further, if arguments are to be adduced they should be in rebuttal; and I am sure that hon. gentlemen who may endeavour to refute the conclusions of the hon. member for Brome, as disclosed in his speech this afternoon, will do naught but strengthen that hon. member's position.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: I desire to address a few remarks to the House upon the principle of the motion, which, in my judgment, is of sufficient importance to invite a fairly general discussion, and, I think, is certainly of sufficient importance to call for a fixed and definite decision before the matter is finally concluded. In the first place, (I think it is due to my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster) to say that he has placed his case before (the House, this afternoon and evening, in a manner entirely creditable to himself. I think his argument to-day has been much more convincing than that which he presented to the House just about twelve months ago, when he introduced a bill embodying to a large extent the same principle which is embodied in his motion on the present occasion. I congratulate my hon. friend that he has made an argument to the House on a high -plane entirely free from any element of personalities, but rather has discussed the question solely on its merits. I might also pay him tribute for his courage in the matter. He certainly has the courage of his convictions. It must have been noticeable to the hon. member for Brome, as he spoke this afternoon, that his own political friends in this Chamber were not in the same enthusiastic or receptive mood on this occasion as they displayed in this House twelve months ago when the same subject was under discussion. The ominous silence which prevailed upon the Government benches this afternoon and evening spoke very eloquently of some radical change which has taken place in the views of Government members in the intervening twelve months. Certain it is that last year when the hon. member proposed a measure far more radical and drastic, far more sweeping and compre-

Ministers and Directorships
hensive than is embodied in the motion he has made to-day, he received a very decided and enthusiastic support from those members of his own political party who now sit on the Treasury benches and who to-day remained absolutely silent during his able speech. I did not happen to be in the House last year when this question was discussed, and I did not have the privilege of voting upon it. And just here let me say that I do not believe my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) had that privilege either. If he did vote on the question, all I can say is that the records of the House are strangely in error, because, on looking over the division list, I fail to find the name of my hon. friend from Assiniboia among those who voted either for or against the motion at that time. But the hon. members who now support the Government were certainly in favour of my hon. friend's sweeping proposal of last year. What was that proposal? I have before me a copy of the bill which the hon. member then proposed. That bill, in brief, was this:
No person accepting or holding the office of first minister-
Then follows an enumeration of other ministers in the Cabinet-
-shall hold the office of, or act as, director of any incorporated company.
Provided, however, that the provisions of this section shall not apply to holding office of or acting as a director of any company incorporated for purely religious, charitable, philanthropic, or educational purposes.
With that trifling exception which I have just read, no man could be a director of any company and hold office in the Government of Canada as a minister thereof. Such was the proposal which was acclaimed and enthusiastically supported just a short twelve month ago by hon. members who now occupy the Treasury benches. Some of them who are before me to-night made glowing speeches on that occasion, stating in eloquent terms their reasons for supporting the drastic and sweeping proposal then put forward by the hon. member for Brome. But the hon. member who went further than any one else in that respect was my hon. friend who now occupies the high position of Prime Minister. It is true that he did not on that occasion deliver what one might call a speech upon the bill, but he interjected a few remarks that showed very very clearly what his position was in regard to it. He was prepared to go even further than the bill went; he was
prepared to out-Herod Herod-or perhaps I should say out-McMaster McMaster, if the rules of the House will permit of such an expression. If, Mr. Speaker, you will turn to page 589 of Hansard you will_ see exactly what was said by my hon. friend the Prime Minister, then the leader of the Opposition. Let me give this quotation in the language of Hansard:
Mr. Meighen:	(During Mr. McMaster's
Speech) : Does the hon. member not think that if his bill is to be accepted it should, under our present practice, apply as well to the leader of the Opposition ?
Mr. Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.
Mr. McMaster: I would have not the slightest objection to its applying to the leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Meighen: And to the leaders of both Oppositions?
Mr. Mackenzie King: Certainly.
Mr. McMaster: I know my own leader and can speak for him; I am sure he would not have the slightest objection to having it apply to him. As regards the leader of the Opposition sitting angularly opposite, I cannot speak for him.
Mr. Doherty: But does the principle apply?
Mr. McMaster: There is, of course, the consideration, as the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) remarks, that there is no salary attached to the position of the leader of the other Opposition.
Mr. Meighen: That is not the point.
Mr. McMaster: That is not the great point,
I admit. If that is the only thing standing in the way of the Government's acceptance of my bill, I would be willing to go one step further and have it apply to the leader of the Opposition as well.
Mr. Meighen: It would be of no use to have the one without the other.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Perhaps I should say right at the moment that I should feel it distinctly in the public interest to have the provision apply to the leader of the Opposition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend now says, "hear, hear." I assume from that " hear, hear " that he has not changed his views during the intervening twelve months, and that he still applauds the same principle to-night. So I suppose we are going to find him in hearty accord and sympathy with the motion which my hon. friend from Brome has moved on this occasion.
But my hon. friend, the Prime Minister, has acted very strangely in the interval. In the meantime we had a general election, and my hon. friend was called upon to form a new government. In the few months that intervened he cannot have forgotten that debate which took place in March last year. That debate and his vote on that bill must have been present to his mind when His Excellency called upon him to form an administration. If these were his principles and his convictions then-and as he
. .	COMMONS
Ministers and Directorships
" hear hears " them to-night when I refer to them, I assume they are still-then why did he so utterly disregard them when he undertook to form his administration? I turn to the division list on that bill, and I find no less than six ministers of the Crown sitting to-day on the Treasury benches, all of whom voted for that measure, that sweeping proposal introduced by my hon. friend from Brome in March, 1921; I find there my hon. friend, the Minister of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment (Mr. Beland), voting for that measure; I find my hon. friend, the Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau), among the names of those who voted for the bill; I find the name of my hon. friend, the Secretary of State (Mr. Copp), among those who voted for the measure; I find the name of my hon. friend, the Prime Minister, among the supporters of the measure; also my hon. friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), and my hon. friend, the Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie). All of them, solidly, upon that occasion, with great acclaim and enthusiasm declared to the House and the country their support of that radical and sweeping enactment which proposed that no man who was a director of any incorporated company could sit in the Cabinet. A few months afterwards a new government was formed, and I believe I am within the mark when I say that several members of that government are at this moment directors of incorporated companies. And not only that-that relates to the bill of last year-but they would likewise come within the narrower language of the motion this year, namely,
'that all ministers of the Crown, on their appointment as such, should resign afll directorships held by them in banks, trust companies, insurance companies, transportation companies or large public utility corporations;
It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that in one short year after a solemn pronouncement of that character-because a vote in this House, I take it, is about the most solemn pronouncement a man can make-my hon. friend, the leader of the Government should, at the very first opportunity, seek to violate and repudiate the principle which he then solemnly affirmed.
Now, for myself, I am not inclined to agree with my hon. friend from Brome in the proposal which he has so eloquently placed before the House this afternoon.
I believe he is making a mistake in his motion, that he is assuming too much in connection with our public life, and he has not in my opinion made out any case at all for action such as that contemplated 
in his motion. I cast my view back over the last fifty or sixty years of our political history since the day when Canada became a Confederation, and I fail to recall a single instance where injury has resulted to the public service, to the government of the country, by reason of the fact that a minister of the Crown was likewise a director of an incorporated company. There may be an instance of the kind, but I have failed to recall it, and certain it is that my hon. friend from Brome did not cite such an instance, unless in the case of the Merchants Bank, which I will refer to in a moment. Coming from 1867 down to the present day, Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall a single instance where public injury has resulted from the fact that a minister of the Crown was also a director of an incorporated company. If after fifty or sixty years' experience we find there has been no lapse, no wrong, no public injury, then am I not within the mark when I say that my hon. friend from Brome is seeking to provide a remedy where there is no ailment?
What is the disease in the body politic which my hon. friend from Brome is seeking to cure? He has not explained to the House what the particular ailment or disease or wrong is; he has cited no instance at all. Therefore I submit he is dealing too much in the realm of possibilities rather than of probabilities. I do not believe wrong or injury has ensued, and I do not believe that wrong or injury will ensue to the public service or to the people of this country by reason of our continuing under the present law, which it seems to me affords every reasonable safeguard. The present law on the subject is in the House of Commons Act, which was quoted this afternoon by my hon. friend from Brome. That law has been in existence practically since Confederation. It applies not only to ministers, but to every hon. member of the House, and that law has up to the present, I submit, been sufficient. My hon. friend has failed to show that there is any rule on the subject, either in this Dominion or in Great Britain. There is some practice to be found in the Imperial Parliamentary reports, I admit, but the practice appears to be as much one way as it is the other. Purely from curiosity I have looked a little into the history of our Canadian Parliament in this respect, and I find that in every administration whether Conservative or Liberal, prominent members of the ministry have been closely identified with

Ministers and Directorships
great business undertakings in Canada. But I have found no lapse on that account. I take for example the government of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier; when I first came into this House over twenty years ago, Sir Wilfrid Laurier himself, then Prime Minister, was director of one of the great life insurance companies of this country, the Mutual Life of Canada. No one would suggest that this circumstance proved detrimental to the public service or to the people of Canada; quite the reverse, I can assure you. That particular company came to this Parliament for legislation during that period, but nobody ever suggested that the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a director of it had anything to do with the matter. I take the case of the late Mr. Sutherland, whom I knew very well. I turn to the Parliamentary Companion in regard to Mr. Sutherland, because I know that while members do not write the notices in that book, they have the opportunity of revising them, and, as a rule, statements found there are fairly accurate. I find that the late Mr. Sutherland, who was Minister of Public Works in the cabinet of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier was "a director of several trading and commercial companies." I turn to the name of the late Mr. Prefon-taine, Minister of Marine and Fisheries in that cabinet, and I find identically the same language: that he likewise was "a director of several trading and commercial companies." I turn to the name of Sir Richard Cartwright, and I find the following language in regard to him: "He is president, director or trustee of several commercial and financial corporations." We all remember Mr. Charles Hyman, at one time Minister of Public Works in that same administration, a man connected with a number of commercial companies and likewise a director of the Bank of Toronto. And so with the preceding Conservative administration:	I take the name of Sir John Carling, connected with half a dozen joint stock companies and with one bank. I take the name of the late Sir Frank Smith, vicepresident of the Dominion Bank and president of transportation companies in Canada. You will find that the same thing applies practically to every government that has held office since confederation. But the point that I want to urge upon, the House is that so far as we know, so far as experience goes, so far as history goes, no harm has resulted from the practice, no wrong has been done by it. There has been no weakness in the system; no public injury has resulted from the system.
Now, I believe in many cases it would be a very great hardship to ask a man, as the price of his admission into the government of this country-a man who is wanted in that capacity-that he forego his right to sit on a board of directors in any of the companies enumerated in this motion, and in which his whole fortune may be wrapped up. It may be his whole investment; his life's work may be represented in the capital stock of that company of which he is a director. His presence may be urgently required in the government of Canada, and it would be a hardship-to my mind it would be an absurdity-to ask him to come in and assist in the government of the country and at the same time to say to him: If you do, you must jeopardize your private fortune and resign your directorship. That, simply, is the proposal of the present resolution.
I said at the outset that I believed my hon. friend from Brome had distinctly failed to make out a case for changing the law. If he were able to make out such a case, then I might revise my opinion, but up to the present, I am satisfied, he has failed to make out a case. He seeks to produce a remedy for a disease which is non-existent in the history of the government of Canada and has been from confederation up to the present time. However, I am satisfied that what the House and the country most desire to know at the moment is what view the Prime Minister of Canada takes on this question. I know there is great expectation in the galleries; I know there is great expectation in the country-one has only to read the daily press and to see the names there mentioned and the views there expressed to realize that-and there is a general subdued excitement and curiosity to know just what the Prime Minister intends to do in regard to this matter. I can tell the hon. member for Brome that if this resolution were to pass it might have one very unfortunate application in regard to this Government and this country. True, it would not be in the nature of an enactment upon our statute book, but it would be a resolution of the House of Commons, tantamount to a plain direction of this body which any government is bound to obey. If the resolution passed this House, the Government would be expected to obey it, and we might be placed in the position of being called upon to sacrifice an hon. member of the Government whom we on this side of the House look upon, and whom a great many of the people in this country look upon, as about the only real guarantee



Ministers and Directorships
of stability which the Government contains. I refer of course to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin). If the passage of this motion as it stands to-day were to put the Minister of Justice to an election in the matter; if it were to call upon him to decide whether he should resign his position in the Government or his position as director of the various banks or companies of which he now is director, and if he should decide to resign his position in the Government, I will be candid enough to say that I believe it would be nothing short of a calamity in the country at the present critical juncture of our national affairs. It would be a most unfortunate thing for the country, to say the least, but for the Government itself it would be a positive catastrophe. It is no wonder that there is considerable expectation in the House and in the country as to just what the leader of the Government intends to do in regard to this motion, and perhaps the easiest way to find that out is for me to conclude my remarks and allow him to inform us.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I must thank
my hon. friend (Mr. Guthrie) who has just taken his seat for the compliment he has paid me in saying that the views which I have to express with regard to this motion are of more than exceptional interest to himself and to other members of the House, and possibly also to the country generally. I shall endeavour to leave no doubt in the mind of my hon. friend or of any person in this country as to where I stand with regard to the resolution now before the House.
Let me say first of all that I conceive the purpose of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in introducing his motion, to be that of helping to bring about in the mind of the public generally, a greater sense of security in the administration of public affairs, irrespective of the government that may be carrying on the business of the country. So far as his motion is calculated to have that effect-to give to the public a sense of greater security in the administration of the day-I am certainly in hearty accord with my hon friend. But so far as his motion is calculated, to create in the minds of the people a distrust in or suspicion of the Government, when there is no just cause or good reason for such distrust or suspicion, I am entirely opposed to the motion.

My hon. friend has said, and I think very wisely, that in a matter of great importance such as this we may well be guided by British practice and British procedure. He has stated that we need not slavisly follow all that is done by the Mother of Parliaments on the other side of the water. Nevertheless, he has wisely affirmed that the British Parliament affords to parliamentary assemblies possibly the safest guide of any institution in the world as to what is best in maintaining the highest and noblest traditions. Having this in mind, with such assistance as I have been able to get from recognized constitutional authorities, from books, and from students of this question, I have gone to some pains to endeavour to see what attitude the British Parliament has taken on this all important question. I shall seek to compress into a very few paragraphs the essence of the situation as it has been of recent years.
May I say first of all, that when this question has come up for discussion in the British Parliament it has generally been viewed from a much broader point of view than the restricted one of the present motion, which is limited to the question of directors relinquishing their directorships upon entering the Government. The question has generally heen discussed from the broad point of view of the right of members to vote where they are believed to have a personal interest in the subject matter which is before the House. That question has been debated over and over again in the British Parliament. It has been the subject of special parliamentary inquiries. My hon. friend this afternoon quoted some illustrious names in support of a contention which he was making. I hold in my hand a report of the Select Committee of the British Parliament on this personal interest matter, together with the proceedings of the committee, etc. The report was made in the year 1890, and I find in the membership of the committee such illustrious names as Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Lloyd George, and several others. This committee, having examined carefully the rules of the House to discover whether it was advisable to extend them in any way for the purpose of affording greater security in the public mind as to votes cast in the House of Commons, came to the conclusion that the rules as they stood at the time were to all intents and purposes sufficient.

Ministers and Directorships
May I say that judging from the records of the British House of Commons, it would appear that while at all times it has been admitted that members of the House have a right to question the right of any other member to vote on a particular matter in which he is supposed to have a personal interest, yet whenever that vote has been taken, with the exception of possibly one or two cases out of a very large number, the House of Commons of Great Britain has invariably decided that the matter should be regarded as one of honour and conscience on the part of the member who is casting his vote, and has refused to deny him the right of voting.
I contend Sir, that that is the right point of view from which to view this question, but coming to the more restricted view, that namely of the duty of members of a government to relinquish their directorships, I find that there have been, broadly speaking, four different attitudes. The first I might describe as an attitude of indifference towards this subject; no question whatever being raised on the subject. I take it that this attitude is not entirely a matter of chance or of accident. I think there are good and sufficient reasons why the British House of Commons has for the most part assumed it. A good and sufficient reason, to my mind, is that every minister of the Crown has in the first instance been elected to Parliament by the people of his constituency. His associations, financial and commercial, are known to his electors, and if they are of a character to arouse suspicion or distrust, then they may become a matter of discussion on the public platform, and, indeed, are certain to be if they are likely to be in any serious way a matter of grave concern.
I would point out further, that
9 p.m. a member of Parliament once he becomes a minister of the Crown, is obliged to resign his seat and to return to his constituency for re-election. He has to go through the process of twice appealing to the electors. The electors know when they are choosing him in the first place whether he is a director of financial concerns or not; when he goes back for re-election as a cabinet minister they also know whether he is a director or not. If his associations are likely to prove detrimental to the discharge of his public duties, that is the time when protest should be made. That is the time when public opinion, which is the last resort in all these matters, should make itself felt.
70J
Let me mention next an attitude at the opposite extreme. I have spoken of the attitude of indifference. There is also the attitude of statutory prohibition, very much the attitude of my hon. friend who has moved this resolution, because I take it that a resolution of the House of Commons to all intents and purposes is expected to have the effect of legislation. My hon. friend referred this afternoon to an hon. member of the British Parliament, Mr. Swift MacNeil, who introduced into the House of Commons in England a measure very much along the line of his own resolution. Not only did Mr. Swift MacNeil introduce such a measure on one occasion, but he introduced it, I think, at least a dozen times, and on every occasion the House of Commons of Great Britain refused to pass that resolution. That is the attitude which the English Parliament has taken towards the extreme of statutory prohibition with respect to ministers of the Crown holding directorates.
The third attitude is the one which has been taken by Mr. Balfour, Lord Salisbury, and other Conservative leaders when this matter came up for discussion. They have contended that these questions should be regarded as matters of conscience and honour, that it should be left to every public man to be guided in his actions as a cabinet minister and as a member of Parliament by the dictates of his conscience and as his own sense of honour would seem to render proper. In the long run we will gain more in virility in our public life by leaving some matters to conscience and honour rather than by seeking to enforce prohibitions that may be too severe and too drastic, and in the end only have the effect of bestowing harsh moral judgments upon some of our fellowmen.
The fourth attitude is the one which I might describe as the Gladstone-Camp-bell-Bannerman-Asquith attitude, which has been to adopt, not as a written rule, not as a matter of legislation, but as a matter of unwritten policy, subject always to exceptions where exceptions seem to be justifiable, the attitude that ministers of the Crown should not retain directorships. That has been the attitude which has been taken by most of the English Liberal statesmen. That attitude is one on which I shall say a few more words a little later on. It is not, as I have mentioned, the enforcement by resolution of the House of Commons, but rather leaving it to the Prime Minister to exercise his judgment in the formation of his Cabinet as to what
Ministers and Directorships

may be most in the public interest and what is best for the nation under the existing circumstances.
So much, then, for the attitude which the British House of Commons has taken. I think if we are to follow British practice in any particular, we would be justified also in following British procedure in the manner of putting that practice into play. If we are to make prevail in this country an opinion such as is suggested in the motion of my hon. friend, I think it is much better that it should be left to a prime minister, in consultation with his colleagues, to take the course which the public interest seems to dictate as wisest and best, all circumstances being considered, rather than to tie the hands of a prime minister and to fetter his government by restrictions which do not take account of circumstances which in the public interest should be taken account of.
My hon. friend this afternoon gave several reasons in support of his motion, and with them I should like to deal. First of all, let me say, I can conceive of cases where it would be very much against the interests of the public for certain individuals to hold cabinet positions and at the same time retain directorships in certain companies. My hon. friend has cited an example this afternoon that I think might well be put forward as a case in point. There are times when certain measures are under consideration, as was cited to-day, where ministers might well feel it the part of propriety, to resign their directorships or else resign from the ministry. But I think these cases have to be treated on their merits, and I submit that nothing has arisen in connection with the present administration which gives any ground to any one for believing that such circumstance exists in this country at this time.
My hon. friend has spoken about a possible conflict of fiduciary interests. He has pointed out that ministers of the Crown have to give most of their time to the business of government, and, I think, last year he said that he believed, where there was a conflict between an hon. member's time as devoted to public affairs and given to private affairs, private, not public, affairs were likely to suffer. That may be a good reason why companies might find it in their interests, perhaps, to prohibit their directors from taking positions in governments, but I do not think it is an equally strong reason why the country should be denied the service of men who have risen high

in financial and commercial confidence, if the companies with which they are associated are prepared to allow these gentlemen to give their services to the country in dealing with great national, financial and commercial affairs.
Similarly, my hon. friend spoke about the danger of interlocking directorates. There may be an evil in interlocking directorates, but I contend that the way to meet and cure that evil is not to pass an enactment which will prevent a director of any public company coming into a government without resigning his directorship. Let us deal with the evil of interlocking directorates, as such.
My hon. friend said that he was only following existing legislation. I should like for a moment to invite the attention of the House to the existing legislation, because I can well believe that there are members in this House to-day who may think that there is not adequate legislation to protect the public interests where an hon. member who has to do with affairs of government is connected also with a business which may have direct or indirect dealings with the Government in a manner which will be furthering special interests rather than public interests. I contend that if we read carefully the legislation that at present exists in the Act respecting the Senate and the House of Commons referring more particularly to the independence of members of Parliament we will find that the interests of the public, as respects members of Parliament who are directors and members of a government, is pretty well taken care of in that legislation as my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has already said. Let me read section 14 of the act, and ask hon. gentlemen to recollect that, inasmuch as it applies to every member of Parliament, it applies equally to every minister of the Crown, since every minister of the Crown is already a member of Parliament. The section reads:
No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the Government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is to be paid, shall be eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.
Can legislation be more emphatic than that? If we live up to that legislation, what

Ministers and Directorships
likelihood is there of any director of a company, through his position in the cabinet, doing anything unfair or unjust which could be prevented by legislation such as my hon. friend has suggested. Then take the next section, No. 15-
If any member of the House of Commons accepts any office or commission, or is concerned or interested in any contract, agreement, service or work which, by this Act, renders a person incapable of being elected to, or of sitting or voting in the House of Commons, or knowingly sells any goods, wares or merchandise to, or performs any service for the Government of Canada, or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Canada is paid or to be paid, whether such contract, agreement or sale is expressed or implied, and whether the transaction is single or continuous, the seat of such member shall thereby be vacated, and his election shall be thenceforth null and void.
But let me direct attention specially to section 21, which, I think, is even more important-
No member of the Senate or of the House of Commons shall receive or agree to receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, fdr services rendered, or to be rendered, to any person, either by himself or another, in relation to any bill, proceeding, contract, claims, controversy, charge, accusation, arrest, or other matter before the Senate or the House of Commons, or before a Committee of either House, or in order to influence or to attempt to influence any member of either House.
Subsection 2 reads:-
Every member of the Senate offending against this section shall be liable to a fine of not less than one thousand dollars and not more than four thousand dollars, and every member of the House of Commons offending against this section shall be liable to a fine of not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars, and shall for five years after conviction of such offence be disqualified from being a member of the House of Commons, and from holding any office in the public service of Canada.
Subsection 3 reads:
Any person who gives, offers or promises to any such member any compensation for such services as aforesaid, rendered or to be rendered, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to one year's imprisonment and to a fine of not less than five hundred dollars and not more than two thousand dollars.	.
May I not ask members of this House, is it possible to conceive of any hon. gentleman, being a director and using his position in a government in a manner to further the interests of a company with which he is concerned, who would not become liable to lose his seat in the House of Commons under this legislation? And would not the companies with which he was concerned, if they sought to influence him through payment of director's fees or in any other manner, be violating the law of this country as it stands at the present time?
May I say a further word in regard to one or two other references of my hon. friend? He spoke of the judges of the country and said that the law requires that the judges must give their whole time to the work in which they are engaged and, in the discharge of their judicial duties; must not accept directorships. May I remind my hon. friend that judges are appointed for life; they are given a life tenure of office. They hold their positions at good salaries, with the expectation that their time will be given for the remainder of their days to the discharge of judicial duties. No such undertaking can be given with respect to members of a government.
I only need to look opposite to see half a dozen gentlemen who entered the cabinet of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) shortly before the last general election. They were in office for about three months, and, that is all they will ever see of office in the course of their lives. How unfair it would have been to these gentlemen to say "You shall not enter the Government without giving up your directorships in any companies you belong to," and then for them to find, at the end of the few weeks they had served their country in the capacity of cabinet ministers, that they had not only ceased to be cabinet ministers, but had severed any connection they had ever had with any company. The comparison of my hon. friend in regard to judges is not a true parallel by a very long degree.
My hon. friend spoke of the members of the Railway Commission. There again, we have a definite position that is fixed in tenure for a period of years. But if my hon. friend will look at the references to the Railway Commissioners, he will find that they are not precluded from being directors of all public companies. They are precluded from being directors of railway companies, or any companies with which railways are likely to have business dealings-a very proper and right thing in every way. But this is not any such sweeping, wholesale, self-denying ordinance as my hon. friend seeks to impose upon individuals who may enter a government as cabinet ministers.
The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) spoke of the Secretary of the Treasury in the United States and said that he noticed, following the best practice in the United States, that Mr. Secre-
Ministers and Directorships

tary Mellon had resigned directorships that he held in companies. I do not know whether my hon. friend is aware of the fact or not; but I am informed that in the United States there is a special law applicable to the Secretary of the Treasury alone, not to any other minister, and that under that law the Secretary of the Treasury has resigned such positions as he has held on boards of directors. I am inclined to think the example of our country in that respect is even better than that of the United States. The Minister of Finance is necessarily brought into very close relation with many industrial concerns. My hon. friend said that the exMinister of Finance, Sir Thomas White, resigned his directorships when he became Minister of Finance. That was taking a view of his obligations as Minister of Finance voluntarily, not in view of any statute, and that is a much finer attitude for any hon. gentleman to take than to be obliged to do something by compulsion. The House well knows that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in the present Administration holds no directorships in any companies having anything to do with the business of this country. But I venture to say that there is not in this country a man who would have any less confidence in the minister if he held directorships in twenty companies. Public confidence is a matter of belief in the integrity and honesty of a man and not of the position that he may hold. You may have a man without any position who is thoroughly dishonourable; you may have another man holding a dozen positions who, for the very reason that he has a greater responsibility, feels that his integrity must be so much the more circumspectly guarded.
There is this aspect also which is worthy of consideration. The motion of my hon. friend does not go so far as to say that shareholders, if they enter a government as cabinet ministers, must give up their shares in companies. I will leave it to the judgment of the House, from the point of view of public interest as to which is the better-to have a gentleman in a cabinet who is a shareholder in a company, but who is also a director and known to the world as a director, or to have a gentleman in a cabinet having large shareholdings in one of these public companies of which the public knows nothing because of his not being a director? I contend that the mere fact that a gentleman is known to be a director of a particular

corporation places upon him a special obligation to be particularly careful when any matter affecting the business of the corporation with which he is associated comes up for consideration in the Cabinet.
'[DOT] Men of a high sense of honour will take good care, to see that when matters concerning companies with which they are concerned come up for consideration in Cabinet or Parliament, when there is the slightest possibility of their integrity or honesty being challenged, to vacate or withdraw while the discussion is going on and the matter is being settled.
The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) quoted from Hansard of last year as to my position in the discussion which took place at that time. With respect to what I said in the debate of last year, I have not a single word to withdraw. I wish to reiterate at the present moment every word that I said on that occasion. At that time I was leader of the Opposition.


Arthur Meighen: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Those words seem to belong to the position of leader of the Opposition, because they are exactly the ones I used last year at the particular time:
Mr. Meighen: Does the hon. member not think that it his bill is to be accepted, it should, under our present practise, apiply as well to the leader of the Opposition?
Mr. Mackenzie King: Hear, hear.
Just what my right hon. friend has said, sitting in exactly the same spot. Further:
Mr. Meighen: And members leaders ot both oppositions.
Mr. Mackenzie King: Certainly.
I made one other reference in the debate, and it was this:
Perhaps I should say right at the moment that I should feel it distinctly in the public interest to have the provision apply to the leader of the Opposition.
I stated that, when I was leader of the Opposition. I thought it would be in the public interest that a leader of a political party should not have any associations with corporations by way of directorships and I take that position now. I think my right hon. friend opposite to me takes the same position; I think both he and I hold similar views on these matters. I think each of us has refrained from accepting directorships in any companies. Why? Not because we thought it was wrong that we should accept or that other men should accept directorships, or because we

Ministers and Directorships
thought men should not accept positions as ministers of the Crown while holding directorships, but because as leaders of parties, officially so recognized by the law of the country, we regarded our position as perhaps the more secure in the minds of our following as well as of the country, in taking that particular attitude. I wish to repeat that I think it is in the public interest that leaders of great political parties should in every way possible seek to give their entire time and thought to their public duties, and to put their position as far as possible beyond any possibility of question by their own following or by the public generally.
The hon. member for South Wellington went one step further. He said:	Why
did I forget all about the position that I took in the debate when I came to form the new administration? I did not forget the position that I had taken at that time. I remembered it very distinctly and I remembered also the vote which was registered in this House at that time and which was to the effect that that bill should not carry. The House of Commons, when this subject was up for debate before, decided against the principle that it was not advisable that hon. members holding positions as directors should be admitted as ministers of the Crown. I repeat, I can conceive of cases where it would not be in the public interest for certain gentlemen holding directorships to be simultaneously ministers of the Crown. I believe a situation of that character will make itself apparent, and become quickly apparent, to any one accustomed to dealing with public affairs. But I can also see where the passing of a resolution such as is proposed by my hon. friend to-night, might deprive the country of the services of some of the ablest business men in Canada and this at a time when special knowledge of financial and commercial conditions is most needed in the management of public affairs. I am free to admit that I was confronted with that very problem when called upon to form the present administration. The member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has spoken of the hon. the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin). May I tell the House exactly what took place between the Minister of Justice and myself when I asked that hon. gentleman if he would become a member of the cabinet? When I approached him with the invitation to join the cabinet he said, in reply, that he had been a long time in public life, and had left it with the intention of retiring for
good; that he had had no thought of going back into Parliament and resuming the burdens which cabinet responsibility places upon one who has rendered many years of public service; that, having regard to the vicissitudes of public life, its uncertainties and its obligations, he would hesitate to enter the Government if it meant severing his financial and commercial associations.
I told him I thought the country appreciated the distinguished service which he had rendered not only to his own province, in the position of Prime Minister, for fifteen years, but to the whole Dominion of Canada as well; that he was everywhere recognized as outstanding in the country's affairs. I said that the people of Canada wanted and needed his services, and that I would not think of pressing an individual opinion in matters of this kind as against the judgment of himself or any of my colleagues in the present administration. Had I, regardless of their distinction and public service, sought to impose upon hon gentlemen coming into the cabinet restrictions of various kinds, I might have succeeded in effecting a mediocre administration; I certainly would not have had the privilege of being surrounded to-day by the gentlemen of distinction and eminence whc sit in the cabinet. There are times and places for everything. I have spoken of the Gladstone, the Campbell-Bannerman, and, if you will, the Asquith tradition. May I remind my hon. friend that it was 1868 when Mr. Gladstone first became Prime Minister of England. He was then 59 years of age, and had had a long parliamentary experience. It was not until 1892, a quarter of a century afterwards, when he was past 80 years of age, that Mr. Gladstone sought to impose any self-denying ordinances upon his colleagues. If my hon. friend will give me time, and the occasion demands it, I shall be glad to follow the Gladstonian tradition. I think it would come with much better grace from an older to younger men, than from a young man to men who have long served the country with distinction, and with great honour and credit to themselves and to their nation, to lay down rules in the nature of self-denying ordinances which after all might serve only to indicate a lack of confidence in their fidelity and integrity. As between myself and my colleagues, and between the Government and the country, the relationship I wish to have maintained is that of "Trust me all in all, or not at all." That is the attitude I hold towards
Ministers and Directorships

every member of the Government, and it is the attitude I believe which every member of the Government holds towards myself. While we began with confidence in each other's integrity and ability, I may say that at this moment that confidence has ripened into implicit trust. Inasmuch as the support of my hon. friend's motion would seem to make it necessary for me to reflect upon the honour and the integrity of any hon. gentlemen associated with me in the cabinet, I must decline absolutely to vote for it.


Arthur Meighen: If the experience of the last two months had not rendered me utterly impervious to all sentiments of amazement, it would require at least the space of a few half hours to recover sufficiently from the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in order to address this House. I thought that the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) was rendering a service when, in speaking on the motion, he invited, even prodded, the leader of the Government to make a statement on behalf of the administration, and to seek to harmonize opposition to this resolution with his vote of a year ago. Well, my hon. friend in so doing may have contributed a service to the country, but he contributed none to the Government and in all respect I suggest that the reputation of the Prime Minister would have been infinitely better if he had declined to yield to the invitation of the member for Wellington and had maintained a discreet if not a dignified silence.
What is the resolution that we are asked now to vote upon? The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) moves that legislation should be enacted providing that no member of a government of Canada shaTl be a director of any of four classes of companies: first, banks, second, trust companies, third, insurance companies, and fourth, transportation companies to which is added in general words a fifth, large public utility corporations; and that, should a member of a government be a director of any company other than those recited, that company should be debarred from all business with the country. Now, the resolution, admits of discussion from two phases: first, as to its intrinsic merits;-should it be supported or be defeated? Secondly, the resolution is important to the House as bearing upon the public honour of the country, as impersonated in the government in 
office, I shall commence by discussing the question from the first standpoint.
A year ago the same hon. member, in a speech ranking, perhaps, not equal in fullness of treatment, but ranking equal in fairness and dignity, with that delivered today, introduced and urged to second reading, not a resolution merely, but a bill, a statute, providing that no member of the government should under any consideration be a director of any company whatever. That resolution was pressed in this House, supported by several hon. members, and resisted by several, including myself; and, on its coming to a decision, a majority vote against it was recorded. I took the stand then that this was a question that could not be adequately or fairly decided by statutory enactment; that is to say, that it would not be possible for this House to enact legislation which would deal fairly with the situation, which would be practical on the one hand and beneficial on the other. I argued that for the House to enact that a member of a government should not be a director of any company was in effect to debar from the public service many of the business community who could render distinct, indeed conspicuous, service to the state; and, further, that such an enactment would secure no commensurate result. I contended that, to pass the bill which the hon. member moved would, while debarring directors of companies, at the same time admit to the public service as members of the government those who could be influenced by exactly the same considerations, but who might not be directors of companies. On several grounds, by myself and others, it was urged that you could not deal with this evil-if, indeed, it was an evil at all-by statutory enactment, but that, in the words of the then hon. member for Red Deer, Mr. Clark, who delivered a speech that I commend to the consideration of hon. members, it was fundamentally, historically and necessarily a matter for the conscience and honour of the minister himself. That is the stand I took then; that is the stand I take to-day.
I pointed out at that time that if you legislated to debar an hon. member from being a director of a company and also a minister of the crown, you would put it out of the power of a man who had made some money, incorporated a company, and required to exercise some little supervision over the competence that he had gathered for the taking care of his family after his death by being director of his company-

Ministers and Directorships
you would, I said, put it absolutely out of the* power of that man to be admitted to a share in government, while at the same time the man who did exactly the same thing, who had his company not incorporated but a mere personal concern, could be a member of the government and could as well devote such time as he thought fit to the affairs of his company.
That result in the first place would be unfair. I remember it being urged very strongly by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Robb) - who, let me say, is the sole conspicuous example of anything approaching consistency on this question among hon. members of the government-that to refuse a director admission to the Government would merely put a premium upon the practice of a director of a company in which he was largely interested appointing a mere dummy, his stenographer for instance, to be a director in his place, who in effect would be nothing but the mouthpiece of her principal and, consequently doing the will of the real director; his interest being concealed behind his dummy while he, the principal, took his place in the government. Many other objections were urged as well. It was instanced that you might have a man a director of a company who had a very minor interest in it, while some other man, not a director, might be interested to a very great extent. The first man is a director because of his acceptability, because of his business probity, because he is known and honoured of men; the other man is not a director, because although he is very rich he does not enjoy the confidence of the other shareholders, he does not enjoy the same reputation in the community. Under the law then suggested by the hon. member for Brome the second man, the unworthy man, could be a member of the government; but the man of honour, the man who stood out and made known to the world his position, was denied admission to the service of the state.
On other grounds the incongruity, the anomaly, the unfairness of the bill was clearly demonstrated to this House, but all to no effect. To no effect upon hon. members now sitting on the Treasury benches it was urged that in Great Britain from time immemorial it had never been the practice to deal with this matter by statutory enactment at all; that the British practice had been to leave the decision in each individual case to the honour, to the conscience, to the sense of public duty of
the minister himself, and that to this day there is no enactment in Great Britain along the lines of the bill of the hon. member for Brome introduced last session, or along the lines of his resolution to-night. All in vain it was urged-even urged by myself-that throughout the history of our provinces in not one of them had it ever been seen fit to enact legislation such as that proposed by the hon. member for Brome. There is just as much, yea, there is even more need for this legislation-if need exists at all-in our provincial legislatures than in this House, for our provincial legislatures have to do with those questions of property and civil rights that concern the welfare of companies, corporations, and individuals more directly than has this House. None of our legislatures, I say, has seen fit to follow this example. The idea sounds well, it perhaps makes some appeal to certain people. But it has been considered unsound historically in Great Britain, it has been considered unsound historically in this Dominion, and none of our provinces, whether under Liberal rule, whether under Conservative rule,-yes, though under Progressive rule, has ever seen fit to propose such legislation. These were the arguments urged against the measure. Those arguments appealed to me; many of them I advanced myself. All these arguments I stand by to-night as leader of the Opposition just as I stood by them as leader of the Government.
Now, the resolution before the House is much milder, it is true, than the bill of a year ago. The hon. member for Brome, influenced, he says, by the arguments then advanced, has reduced the scope of his proposal. He says: "I won't object any longer to a member of the Government being a director of an industrial corporation; I won't object any longer to a member of the Government being a director even of a loan company; I won't object any more to a member of the Government being a director of a great manufacturing enterprise, the arguments of last year have put those ideas out of my head and behind me; but I say that after this, if I have my way, no member of the Government shall be a director of a bank, nor of a trust company, nor of a transportation company, nor of an insurance company, nor of a public utility corporation."
Now, that I may be perfectly clear, let me say before commencing my argument on this resolution, that I am equally op-

Ministers and Directorships
posed to it as I was to his bill last year. The hon. member's resolution indeed illustrates, as nothing could illustrate better, the inherent unsoundness and fatuousness of the bill of last year, and as well of the method he is adopting now to gain the end he seeks. For what is going to be the result if legislation is introduced confirmatory of this resolution? A director of the British Empire Steel Corporation could still be a member of the government-that would be perfectly all right; a director of the Massey-Harris Company could be a member of the government-that would be all right; a director of the Dominion Textile Company

instead of representing us at an economic conference-could be a member of the government; indeed, we might have, as the hon. member frankly admitted, sixteen presidents of textile companies composing the government if his resolution passed and a bill confirmatory of it was enacted. But if a man is a director of the Street Railway Company of the town of Guelph, he could not be a member of the government; if he is a director of an old corporation, that is all but dead save in name, that once proposed to build a street railway in Portage La Prairie, his interest would be such that the door must be shut against his admission to high place in public life; a director of any little transportation concern, though it be half dead and half alive, anywhere in this Dominion, could not for the life of him get into the government. But a man may be president of British Empire Steel; he may be president of the Dominion Coal Company; he may be president of Dominion Textiles; he may be president of Massey-Harris; he may be president or director of the Cockshutt Company, and he still will be all right and quite fit for admission to the Administration. Now, I know the difficulty the hon. member confronted. He concluded-the argument was such he could not help it

that you could not shut the door to public life and admission to the ministry to those engaged in industrial enterprises. He knew that a man would thereby be debarred from exercising openly, which is always far better than secretly, such supervision of the money as he has managed to make in his life, that he owes to his family, owes to his descendants; and that if you debar public men of that right you cannot expect men of consequence to enter public life. It is just because of this difficulty which the hon. member eon-tMr Metehen.l
fronted, and which is reflected in this reduced and wholly illogical resolution that he introduces to-day-it is just for that reason that it has been found impossible in all countries to take care of this evil, if it is evil at all, by statutory enactment. Therefore the argument on this point by the Prime Minister to-night had some appeal to me. I almost congratulated myself that if what I said a year ago passed then like cold water from his breast, if all my arguments had fallen at that time upon barren soil, at least I could see that there had been a fertilizing process in the interval and that what I had sowed in good season was maturing into harvest now.
Let us for a moment, in all seriousness, refer to that phase of the question that has to do with the public honour of our country as embodied and illustrated in the ministry of the day. A year ago a sweeping, all-embracing bill is put before this Parliament for final decision. Arguments are adduced pro and con, just as have been adduced to-night. The government of the day opposes the measure. The government of the day gains a little, but very little, support in its negation from the Opposition of that time, also from the Progressive party of that time. There may have been others, but I recall the leader of the Progressive party, the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Crerar) and the hon. member for Red Deer supporting the government in its opposition. But against' the course the government took, the leader of the present Government stood and voted, and every indication of opinion that he made was to the effect that he not only favoured the bill but would go further than the bill went and would include within its sweep the leader of the Progressive party and the leader of the Opposition as well. That was the declaration of principle and of faith that the present leader of the Government made to this Dominion, and upon which among other things he appealed to the electorate for support. "Oh," he often declared, "I put the Government on its record," Very well; the Government stood on its record

did he stand on his? Is he standing on it tonight? I am afraid my resources of ridicule would be entirely insufficient if I came to examine the reasons that the leader of the Government advances. He says: "Yes, it is true I supported this bill a year ago." He did all right-he did more; he supported a bill that was sweeping, drastic and complete, going a great deal further than this

Ministers and Directorships
resolution goes. He declared that he wanted it to go even further. "Oh, yes," he says, *"I voted for it, but I have kept in mind ever since the fact that the House voted it down." "I remember well how I voted, I have never forgotten that," he assures the hon. member for Wellington, "but I am not forgetting that the House voted it down. I declared my principles; I declared my belief; I submitted to this nation where I stood upon the question, but-save the mark-I cannot stand there any longer, because the House voted it down." Well, this will come surely with a thud of despair to those hon. members of this House, if any are left, who expect the present administration under the present Prime Minister to adhere to anything they have declared for in the last five years. Did not the House vote them all down? There have been tariff resolutions proposed on the faith of which hon. gentlemen to my left have on many a platform proclaimed that the Liberal party were practically the same as they, and upon the faith of which hon. gentlemen opposite, with still more emphasis, have declared to the people that there was no need at all for the Progressive party because its principles were identical with their own. Tariff resolution after tariff resolution has been defeated by this House, proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in opposition, proposed by the present Prime Minister himself. Now, what are we to expect? When the Budget comes down and the vote of the hon. Prime Minister is held before his face, and the vote of his colleagues around him are shown all in black and white-when resolutions are called to his memory declaring for reductions on this thing and on that thing, all to cure unemployment and bring relief to a wearied and oppressed people

when all this is done, the Prime Minister will rise and say: "Yes, I remember all these resolutions; I remember that I proposed them; I remember that I voted for them; I remember too, that I believed in them, but all is so different now, because those resolutions were voted down." But more: "Now," he says, "I stand on British precedent." May I ask what precedent he stood on a year ago? He has spent a lot of time on the subject; he has analysed the argument presented by the hon. member for Brome. Back centuries he has gone, and he divides into four categories all of those who have ever discussed this question in the British House. Some Who have discussed it, he says, are indifferent to it altogether-do not care anything about it. Others who have discussed it believe it should be left to conscience and to honour. Others, on the contrary, believe that there can be nothing done about it, even though they are not indifferent. And the fourth class, the Gladstone-in-his-prime class and the Campbell-Bannerman class-they believe that the decision should be left to the Prime Minister of the country; and of course my hon. friend, now that he is Prime Minister of the country, is right step in step with the Bannermans and the Gladstones, believing it should all be left to himself. I really admired the skill; rather I admired the plenitude of verbosity with which the hon. Prime Minister contrived to have this question lost in the fogs of the past, to have it buried in the recesses of history. How much better his memory was of what Gladstone said, of what Campbell-Bannerman said or of what Balfour said, than of What he said himself. How much better his memory was of the decisions of the British House and of debates in the House of Lords in the time of Pitt and Walpole than of the debate last March in the Commons of Canada and of his own vote on that occasion.
"Oh," he said, "when I came to form my Government I found out that my individual opinion should not prevail." Why, he had told us before that he had abandoned his opinion in deference to the decision of this House. Which of his two statements is right. I am inclined to think the conclusion is that he has no opinion, and never had any real opinion; inded, I think those words apply to him as respects almost every subject of public policy in this country. "I found," he says, "that if I stood by that resolution I would have only a mediocre government; I could not form an administration of the conspicuous abilities of the hon. members who sit around me now."
I might have had a government of Sinclairs and of Motherwells, if I may abandon the rule for a moment, but I could not have had for example the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Bureau), I could not have had the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), and I could not have had the Solicitor General (Mr. McKenzie). I could not have had such men as the hon. minister without portfolio from Quebec (Mr. Dan-durand), I could not have had the minister without portfolio from Renfrew (Mr. Low), nor could I have had my distinguished friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Kennedy). All these great men, six or seven
Ministers and Directorships

or eight, perhaps more, directors of companies and members of his government today he would have had to leave out of his cabinet, and because he had to decide between their superhuman capacities and his principles, without a moment's hesitation he abandoned his principles.
Now I stated a year ago that this is essentially a question to be left to the sense of self-respect and public respect of the member of the government himself. I stated a year ago that the matter had no personal reference to myself nor to the then leader of the Opposition, who is now Prime Minister, that neither of us had any directorships at all; but I stated as well that one could conceive of conditions where the intimacy of relationship between a membership of the governmnt and a directorship would be such that such directorship should not be held. I ask hon. members of the Government opposite simply to reflect whether there are not examples within their own household, rather remarkable examples that could be cured by the application of that sense of public respect and of public duty. I leave it to their own sense of honour and to their own conscience, just as I was prepared to leave it to the same in the case of the colleagues of whom I had the honour to be the head. But while I do so, is there anyone who as a Canadian can think quite the same of the Government of his country, yea, even of his country, when he finds today in that Government are members who are directors of companies and voted a year ago that it was a cardinal principle that no member of his government should be a director of a company. Six or seven or eight of those ministers I say are today directors of companies. The leader of the Government voted that it was in his judgment an evil to be immediately cured by legislation that a member of the Government should be the director of a company, and then immediately takes into his government six or seven or eight men and never asks one of them to surrender a directorship that he holds. Oh, he said, that was my opinion then and something like that was once the opinion of Gladstone, but poor old Gladstone was eighty years of age when he came to the conviction that a director of a company should not be a member of a government. That was, he suggests, the opinion of Gladstone in his senility. Well, the hon. member was not eighty years of age when a year ago he came to the same conclusion.

In process of time he is fleeing the other way. Where is he going to be when he is eighty years of age?
The matter has a more serious aspect than would appear from the really absurd character of the course which has been pursued by the Government and by the Prime Minister to-day. What is to be thought of public honour in this country if leaders of political parties are with impunity to be permitted to declare their faith to a nation, receive the votes of a nation and then with scorn, yea, with self-satisfied contempt, aban-10 p.m. don it immediately the responsibility of office is upon them? I know this is not the first instance. I also am pretty firmly convinced it will not be the last. I intend to hold myself in a position to complain if this wretched example is repeated, I purpose to be in a position to indict the administration. But there are many hon members of this House who will not be on very strong ground in that regard, who have already voted to absolve the ministry from obligations entered into with the people of this country. I am not in that position. And where is public honour to be in Canada if the people of this country when they come to exercise the sacred duty of voting are to have no knowledge at all of what are to be the principles that are to govern the administration when those they vote for are returned to power? I ask, are the people of this country after to-night to have any way in the world of judging as to what this Government may do upon any question whatever? If they are, by what talisman are they to be guided? Is there anybody in this country who can rest upon anything in the whole record of the administration and seize on that as a reason for saying that in his belief the Government will take any certain course upon any subject at all? I affirm that there is not. The Government has contemptuously and cynically turned its back upon every pledge made by its leader. On every one that has yet come before this House for discussion, it has cynically and contemptuously turned away, even when reminded of that pledge by one of its own most faithful supporters. That is the position in which Canada finds herself to-day, and is it any wonder, Mr. Speaker, that notwithstanding every opportunity given by the people, yea, and given by hon. members of this House, for the Government to establish itself by carrying out	the

Ministers and Directorships
task it undertook, by carrying out the programme it laid before the people-is it any wonder I ask that inches are coming off daily from the stature of the Government of this country, that it is going down in public estimation? The only explanation of the course they are taking now and have been taking ever since they ascended to office is that if they swerve from the course pursued by the late government to the right or to the left in the ruin they would precipitate the wrong they would inflict, they would bring the inches off their own stature faster than if they defied and entirely ignored their principles and declarations of the past. When hon. gentlemen opposite pursued lightly and without any regard to conviction, without any regard to argument, but merely for the sake of embarrassing the administration, as they thought, and of gaining a temporary advantage dear to the heart of the office seeker or the demagogue when hon. gentlemen opposite pursued lightly the lines of conduct they pursued a year ago, they could not but know that Nemesis surely would come. Doubtless hon. gentlemen opposite instigated the hon. member for Brome to bring in that bill of 1921, at least encouraged him to do so-


Andrew Ross McMaster: No instigation.


Arthur Meighen: Encouragement anyway, came very shortly after he brought in the bill, and he does not deny that there was encouragement before. When they pursued that line of conduct, they must have expected that Nemesis was certain to follow.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I would like to interrupt my right hon. friend with his permission. There was no encouragement before. I brought in the bill on my own responsibility, as I brought in this resolution.


Arthur Meighen: I venture to say that though there may have been no encouragement and no instigation before the hon. member introduced his bill, he gained very considerable of both from the discussion, and still more from the vote. I would venture to suggest as well that before he brought his resolution in this year he met with very considerable in the way of discouragement and non-instigation, and that it required all his pluck and all his sense of self-respect to declare by the course he was to take that his own honour was just as sacred to him as the honour of the administration. Yes, when hon. gentlemen
in this House as leaders of parties abandon the course they pursued as leaders when in opposition they may count that public contempt and ultimately public vengeance will come, but I venture to say that as yet these visitations have only in part arrived. Where is the hon. member going to stand in the respect of this country when it is known throughout the length and breadth of Canada that a year ago he stood four square and definitely for a fixed principle and to-day he stands definitely and defiantly against it. He merely declares that a year ago he was leader of the Op position.
"Oh yes," he says and this was perhapf the best of all. "I believe in leaders of a party not being directors, but 1 would not apply that restraint at all to members of >
the administration." Well, I wonder how those words appeal to hon. gentlemen to my left. Their leader is the leader of a party-a very considerable party-in this country. He is a director, not only of one, but, I am informed, of at least six companies. Do they approve of the doctrine that their leader must resign either his directorships or his leadership, while five, six, seven or eight members of the Government retain their portfolios and do not resign their directorship? But such is the specious reasoning by which the leader of the Government supports his stand to-night.
The best thing that from my own standpoint, and I think, from the standpoint of the permanent interests of the country, I can desire is just to leave the leader of the Government where by his conduct he is impelled; to let his action of a year, and his action to-night, his conduct in forming his Government, and the labored explanation he grinds out now in his defence,-let these things speak for themselves, and be an indication to this Dominion of his loyalty to principle and of his sense of public duty and honour.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Minister of Militia and Defence) : I have listened, Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of pleasure to the speeches in this debate. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) was intent and logical to a degree, but, to my mind, he dwelt in the upper regions of theory and did not get down to earth, where men are practical. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has made a speech convincing and logical, and one, I believe, that will appeal to the common sense of all classes in this coun-
Ministers and Directorships

try. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) has remarked that he does not know where the Prime Minister is going to land. . Well, he knows where he has landed, after the case of the past and the present was put plainly before the people of this country. We, on this side of the House believe-and I believe the country will substantiate that belief-that where he has landed he is going to remain. My right hon. friend has expressed amazement. Well, he is a wonderful actor, and he can simulate amazement or, as the actors say, register disgust, register anger, or register surprise. No person can do it more ably than himself, but I will suggest that the amazement of April 24 was not in it with the amazement of December 6. I have sympathy with him because I had the same kind of amazement in' 1911, and no person can tell me that a man of the disposition of the right hon. leader of the Opposition was not amazed beyond degree on the night of December 6. I am not here to discuss what people said, or how they voted, a year ago. The country has spoken since a year ago, and has said to the leader of the Government: "We want you to form the best government you can find in the Dominion of Canada, according to your judgment; that is your job." Whether he has done that or not the people of Canada will in time declare. At the present moment, I would suggest to the right hon. leader of the Opposition that instead of inches being cut off from the esteem in which the Prime Minister is held, he has been adding to his stature daily through his conduct since the election. I do not know that I will gain anything in enlightenment,either for myself, the House or for the country, by following my right hon. friend. I will submit, however, that for the last twenty minutes of his speech he said nothing about the subject before the House at all. The country is not anxious now to know what happened a year ago, or what happened-


Arthur Meighen: Oh, oh.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Well, it was anxious
on December 6. The right hon. gentlemen seems to be sitting with his back to the engine, always looking at the scenery after he has passed it, but he will have to face the motive power of the machinery of this country, and look at things that we are approaching, and not at things we have passed. What we are called upon to do in this country, as a Parliament and Gov-

eminent, is what interests the people of Canada at the present time. During the campaign some of us made somewhat heated declarations. I think on this side of the House we are no exception to any of the hon. gentlemen on the other side in that regard. But now that Parliament has assembled, this Government is endeavouring to manage the affairs with the advice of members of this Parliament. The people are reading the papers every day, not so much to know what we say to each other across the floor of the House, but to know what is being done to bring order out of the chaos which this Government found when it came to office.
The question before the House is one simply of practical business. I ask hon. gentlemen, if they were endeavouring to select men to conduct their business, and there were large financial matters of paramount importance to be discussed and dealt with, would they not seek for the men who had experience in those things? Every business man will say that is the correct policy. What is applied to our private business should be applied to our public affairs. The discussion to-day has been woven around the question of whether men who were able enough in a company to become directors of it might not do something wrong in a government. The fact that they have risen to become directors of a company, as my right hon. friend says, is something in their favour, because the men who know them best have entrusted to them their money to manage. That being the case, I take it, sir, that the people of the country do not make any mistake in passing the same kind of judgment. It is all very well for us to discuss a theory, and many theories that are not practicable are absolutely impregnable in discussion. I could name some of them, but will not. This is a question of practical every day business, and we should apply the best business intelligence we have to it.
Take, for instance, the resolution before us. How many hon. gentlemen in this House are shareholders in local rural telephone companies? A great many of them. Let me point out that the attempt to make this apply to directors who are ministers is merely drawing a herring across the trail. What applies to a minister of the Crown, applies to every member of the House and ought to apply, because a private member in this House, if he have interests in any company, is in a better position to do business for that company quietly,

Ministers cntd Directorships
than if he were a member of the Government, and I point out to hon. gentlemen that when an attempt is made to say that one law shall apply to members of the Government, and that another law shall apply to members of the House of Commons who are not members of the Government, they are making a distinction which neither the law nor the independence of Parliament ever contemplated. If this resolution were to become law, then, in its spirit and in its reality, no member of a rural telephone company could become a member of the Government.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Would the hon. member consider that a rural telephone company fell under the classification of a large public utility corporation?


George Perry Graham: Many of them do, and they are growing larger and of more importance every day. I repeat that, under the literal reading of this resolution, any director of a rural telephone company would be debarred from becoming a member of a government and if he has no right to become a member of a government, he has no right to become a member of this House or of the Senate. Business is not conducted as it was many years ago. At that time individual men conducted businesses; to-day, for the sake of convenience, of better organisation, nearly every business of importance is organised into a company, and in many townships, in every village, every town and every city, we find the men who take interest in public affairs in those small organisations for the sake of helping their own locality and giving courage to those who are endeavouring to make things better in the vicinity in which they live. Does any sane person, who has given this subject thought, mean to tell the country that a man who takes that interest, in his locality, in his municipality, in his province, is to be debarred from taking a larger interest in public life? He has shown, by his interest in those affairs, that he is not only public-minded with a broad view of public affairs but more competent to deal with the affairs of this country on a larger scale, than a man who does not take that interest in things closely around him.
I want to say just one other word, and it is this:	If the present law surrounding
the independence of Parliament is not sufficient to keep members of the Government right, then you cannot pass a law anywhere or place a law on any statute book that will accomplish that object. If members of the Government or members of the
House of Commons or the Senate do not adhere to the law as at present on our statute books, then I say again, with all deference to the hon. member for Brome Mr. McMaster) that he cannot draft a bill which, if enacted, would compel those gentlemen to keep in the line of rectitude. The question is a broad one. You cannot make men honest by statute so easily; and as banks will take without security, the note of a man in whom they have confidence, rather than, with security, that of a man in whom they have no confidence, I would rather a man, who has a reputation for probity, for integrity, in dealing with the public as a member of government, even if he were director in twenty companies, than a man who had a bad reputation and who was a director in no company. To my mind, what the country expects us to do, both as a Parliament and as a government is to bring our best ability to bear upon the questions now confronting us, and every person will agree that they are momentous. If a man who is director of a bank or some other company will give his time, and he is considered to be the man for the position, then all Canada will say: "Secure the services of that man if you can possibly do so." You will do it in your business, I will do it in mine, and the people of this country will recognise that the Prime Minister has done it in his.


Mr. R. A. HOEY (Springfield) :: Mr. Speaker, the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) is, in my humble judgment, a most important one, one the mere discussion of which will create widespread interest throughout this country, and one, the final outcome of which is awaited even now with considerable anxiety. My justification for rising to take part in this discussion is based upon the conviction that this proposal is, in spirit at least, in complete accord with British practice at its best,-British practice as exemplified and illustrated in the case of many outstanding leaders in Great Britain and, I am happy to state, by many outstanding political leaders in this country.
I should like to apologise to you, Sir, for introducing a personal element. I want to do so, in order to discover, if I can, the disease in the body politic, to which the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has referred, and in order to come down into the realm of practical affairs, to which the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) has referred. During the recent federal campaign, an opportunity was ex-

Ministers and Directorships
tended to me to visit many constituencies in western Canada and one or two constituencies, at least, in western Ontario. During those visits I was astonished, shall I say alarmed and depressed, to find a large section of the Canadian people absolutely disinterested in the outcome of the election, not only in their respective constituencies, but in a Dominion sense?
I was naturally anxious to inquire into the cause of this apathy, and I learned that there was, amongst this section of the population, a widespread feeling that governments in Canada, from time to time, had been dominated, if not controlled, by the big interests of this country. I am not saying, at the moment, that they were right in this belief; I am only attempting, in my humble and awkward way, to interpret an attitude of mind. Let me say that I found this feeling most pronounced, not amongst the radical labour element and certainly not amongst the wealthy classes, but amongst what I might he justified in terming the better middle class, business men in a small way, professional men, teachers, many of whom were university graduates and all of whom were keen students of economic thought, the section of the population that, in the older countries, has always been able to determine the outcome of any election by throwing the weight of. its influence in with either of the two historic parties. I heard from this class again and again and again of the numbers of Cabinet ministers who, at the same time, were directors of large business companies. I heard them refer to politics as a game in this country, of profit only to those who occupied places in the inner circle. I heard, throughout that campaign, reference made again and again to campaign funds, and that reference to me seemed particularly pertinent when applied to the late government in the early days of the campaign and to the present Government in the closing days of that campaign. But the point that I wish to bring out is this, that that mysterious source from which campaign funds have been obtained in this country and the fact that there are directors of big interests occupying Cabinet positions, are inseparably bound up in the consciousness of a certain class of the Canadian people.
I made the statement then, which I repeat now, that unless something could be done to restore the confidence, and reestablish the faith, of this section in our political institutions, then the outlook in Canada was in no sense promising. We

have been witnessing during the past three or four years the collapse of constitutional government in more than one of the older countries. How has this collapse come about? I know whereof I speak when I say that in the case of one country that collapse was preceded by a century of propaganda that sought to convince the people that the government responsible for the administration of public affairs in that land was wholly dominated by the landlords and the wealthy men of Great Britain; and that propaganda, continued systematically, ultimately succeeded in completely undermining the faith of the people of that country in constitutional government. Turn to Russia and study its modern history and you will find that the collapse of constitutional government there was also preceded by a system of propaganda that sought to associate the government of that great country with the wealthy classes. It is my conviction that this impression, so widespread in Canada at the present time, that the governments of this country have been from time to time dominated by big business, has been created largely by propaganda for which all parties have been more or less responsible. That propaganda, in so far as it has substantial basis in fact, and foundation in truth, is commendable, believing as we do in the purifying influence of public opinion and publicity. In so far as propaganda of that kind is based on a desire for party advantage, however, it is pernicious and destructive, is always followed by disastrous consequences, and, in my opinion, is unworthy of the Canadian people.


Thomas Vien: My hon. friend says that public opinion, at least in certain sections of the country, has lost confidence in the constitutional government of Canada. Will he tell us what section of the country he visited, and where he found indications of such a lack of confidence?


Robert Alexander Hoey: Perhaps I had better come down to the realm of practical affairs and mention the constituency which I have the honour to represent. There are 20,000 voters on the voters' list in that constituency. I know that a great many voted who were not on the list, but I learn from a table I have here that there were 8,000 of the 20,000 who failed to exercise the right of the franchise on the election day. Let me give my hon. friend some figures from Toronto, that home of tolerance and economic enlightenment. In East Toronto there were 39,435 names on the list, as

Ministers and Directorships
against 14,930 votes counted. Does that indicate disease in the body politic? In North Toronto the names on the list numbered 47,622 and the votes counted 20,864. But, more amazing still, in South Toronto there were on the list 31,749 names while those who voted numbered only 7,531. I think I will repeat that.


Thomas Vien: Perhaps my hon. friend will allow a correction. I was told by an hon. member from Toronto that this small vote given in that city was due not to any lack of confidence in constitutional government on the part of the people of Toronto, but mainly to the fact that the ladies of that city did not vote, notwithstanding that they had been given the franchise.


Robert Alexander Hoey: My hon. friend must have been anticipating my speech.


Thomas Vien: I am giving the hon. gentleman-
Mr. SPEAKER; Order. The hon. member, I think, is unduly interrupting.


Robert Alexander Hoey: So far as the question of lack of confidence is concerned, I know that this feeling is very pronounced in my own constituency, particularly in the urban districts. Now, I am not one of those who believe that this proposal will prove a panacea for that ill. I do not know that it will. But I do think that it is a step in the right direction; and I believe that, if extended, not by compulsion and certainly not by legislation, which I would not favour, but by mutual agreement and consent among gentlemen, the proposal embodied in this resolution would do much to re-establish the faith of this section of the country in our constitutiounal government. I am aware that such a policy if carried out by mutual agreement, and not, as I have said, by compulsion or legislation, would undoubtedly involve sacrifice. I am willing, as I think we are all willing, to admit that. But was it not a sacrifice on the part of all classes that enabled this country to emerge triumphantly from the great crisis of the war? It was; and I am convinced that it will be sacrifice on the part of all our people, and especially on the part of our leaders, that will enable the country to emerge triumphantly from this post-war period of depression and unrest. And it is because I believe that this proposal is a step in the right direction that it affords me a great deal of pleasure to lend it my support on this occasion.


Mr. JEAN JOSEPH DENIS (Joliette) :: I listened with a great deal of interest to
ItEVISED
speech of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and if I cannot share his views,
I must say, in justice to him, that at least he certainly put before the House the best possible case that could be presented under the circumstances. Unfortunately, I am bound to add that, in my opinion, my hon. friend did not make a good case; in fact,
I do not think he made any case at all. Before taking up the main argument on this question, I desire to indicate one or two points that should be considered in this motion if it is to pass at all. To begin with, the motion declares that ministers should resign their directorships on their appointment as ministers of the Crown. Well, Mr. Speaker, it would be very imprudent for ministers to resign their directorships on appointment to the Cabinet, especially had that applied to the ministers who were appointed shortly before the last general election. Several of those ministers never were elected to the House, and consequently had they resigned their directorships on appointment they would have resigned for no consideration whatever.
My hon. friend proposes further, that:
Such companies should have no business dealings with the Government of the Dominion of Canada, or with any department thereof, or with any railway or ship owned or controlled by said government;
It would not be fair to bar a company from doing business with the Government simply because one of its directors happened to be a minister of the Crown, because it is not within the power of a company to prevent its directors from entering the Government. The shareholders of a company generally elect their directors for one year, and it is not competent for those shareholders to displace any director within that period. Therefore I think that part of the resolution should disappear also.
But these are only preliminary considerations, and I prefer to examine the question on its merits. As was pointed out by the hon. Prime Minister, we have at present a statute, that meets the purpose which concerns the hon. member for Brome. That statute is the Senate and House of Commons Act, Section 14 of which provides that:
No person, directly or indirectly, alone or with any other, by himself or by the interposition of any trustee or third party, holding or enjoying, undertaking or executing any contract or agreement, expressed or implied, with or for the Government of Canada on behalf of the Crown, or with or for any of the officers of the Government of Canada, for which any public money of Cahada is to be paid, shall



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Ministers and Directorships
[Stage Direction]
be eligible as a member of the House of Commons, or shall sit or vote in the said House.
That is supplemented by section 18, which provides that in every contract with the Government there shall be inserted a clause giving effect to the provisions of section 14. This law has been in force for about fifty years, and it has not been pointed out to-night wherein it has ever been insufficient. On the contrary, from all that has been said it appears that the statute has always been considered adequate and sufficient.
I suppose if this resolution should be accepted by the House it would be the duty of the Government to introduce a bill to give effect to it. But I say that this resolution in its present form cannot be accepted by the House, because it is arbitrary, uncertain, obscure, useless, and uncalled for. In a word, it has not been demonstrated that any evil now exists which a statute based on this resolution could remedy.
Now, let us examine some of the arguments put forward in support of the resolution. My hon. friend from Brome says that it is based on English practice. Well, I am sorry to differ, but I must say that that is by no means the case. On the contrary, that practice has been, making allowance for certain exceptions which only confirm the rule, that ministers of the Crown, do not resign their directorships. My hon. friend quoted the instance of the chairman of the board of directors of the Northeastern Railway Company, who on being appointed a member of his Cabinet by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman resigned his railway position. But I submit, Sir, that that is not a parallel case at all, because anyone will readily understand that no man could hold the two positions concurrently. It would be about the same as if the President of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, or the President of the Grand Trunk Railway Company, when that company was a private corporation, were appointed ministers of the Crown. Therefore that case in my view falls within the exceptions that confirm the rule.
My hon. friend says, further, that it is a general practice for British ministers of the Crown to resign their directorships. Again I have to differ with him, and point out that not only in Great Britain but in Canada and the United States, generally speaking, ministers do not resign then-directorships on accepting portfolios. The hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) quoted many examples of Min-
isters of the Crown since Confederation who accepted offices without resigning their directorship.
Now, in studying this question I think it is wise to refer to the law in other countries, and with that purpose in view I have examined the laws of Great Britain, the United States, and France, and in none of those three countries have I found any law that by any means resembles the statute which would have to supplement this resolution. I go further and say that in none of our provinces is there any such law in existence. If it is a good principle for the Dominion it is a good principle for the provinces, but, as I have just pointed out, none of the provinces so far has thought fit to embody the principle in legislation. In those three countries and in our provinces the rule has been to refer the question to the integrity, the honour and the sense of propriety of the minister so appointed. Now, sir, if that has been the standard in Canada for the last fifty years; if that is the standard in other countries, has that standard diminished in Canada of late? Is it since the present administration has assumed office that the standard of honour and integrity and sense of propriety has been lowered in Canada? Certainly my hon. friend from Brome will say "No" to that question, as I do myself. In a case like this, where it is more a question of propriety, good taste and honour than of law, I think the wish of the people should be considered. The wish of the people is a criterion, and when they elect as their representative one who belongs to any political party, knowing at the time of his election that he is director of a large corporation, they do so because they want that man to become a member of Parliament, notwithstanding his directorship in that corporation. Therefore I say that if the people want such men as their representatives in Parliament, who is going to say that they are not fit to become members? I apply my argument to members of Parliament because I contend that if my hon. friend's resolution has any foundation at all it must be applied not merely to ministers of the Crown, but to members of Parliament generally. Of course, being applied to members generally it would apply as well to ministers, the minister being only, after all, a member of Parliament. After a member has been elected by his constituents with the knowledge that he is a director of a company or large corporation, the Prime Minister may choose him as a member of his

Ministers and Directorships
ministry. The Prime Minister might or might not make an error in his choice, hut if he does make an error, if the people do not want this man to become a minister because of his directorship in a large corporation, the people have full opportunity of opposing his selection. After the member has been selected as Cabinet minister he must again go before the people for re-election; he must submit his conduct to them and be elected in his capacity as minister. Under those circumstances, when the people pronounce themselves twice, first by electing a man as a member of Parliament and next by re-electing him following his selection as a member of the Cabinet by the Prime Minister, then I say that Parliament should go no further.
It has been said that the work of a minister of the Crown is arduous and unremitting and that, therefore, he should give all his time to the duties of his office and entirely eliminate all other activities. But directorship in a corporation is only one of the many activities of mankind in which a member may be engaged, and if after becoming a minister a man is precluded from being a director of a corporation, he should also be precluded from looking after his own private business. He should be precluded from giving his time to any occupation whatever other than that pertaining to his office; and that would imply a severance from his friends, from all social functions, from his party affiliations, even from his family, if you want to go that far. Such was never the intention of government or of Parliament; such is not the intention of the people of this country. The people ask that a minister of the Crown shall give his best efforts to the work devolving upon him, but they do not and cannot reasonably ask that he abandon everything; that he should isolate himself, if need be, just because he is a member of the cabinet. It has been very properly pointed out that political life is often of short duration, and if after a man has worked for a lifetime and acquired some wealth he has to put it all aside in order to become a member of the cabinet, there is danger that the most able men in the country will, on that account, refuse to accept any such position.
The hon. member for Brome said, en passant, that no man could serve two masters. That is true, Mr. Speaker; no man can serve two masters if one be the Lord and the other the devil. No man can serve -two masters if they are antagonists; if they
are working on projects that are opposed one to the other. But in the ordinary course of life a man can serve two and more masters. A man can serve two masters if their interests are different. But any time a minister of the Crown thinks that the interests of the corporation of which he is a director may come into conflict with the interests of the Government; any time he feels that he is placed in a position where he cannot serve the two masters and he must decide between the two, it would be his duty to resign his directorship. Otherwise I do not see that a man who is a member of the ministry and at the same time a director of a corporation serves two masters in the biblical sense of the word.
The hon. member for Brome spoke very eloquently of what he called interlocking directorates. I submit that this resolution has nothing to do with interlocking directorates, if such things exist. What does it matter to this House that a member be a director of several companies if none of which has any connection or dealing with the Government? As long as there is wealth or riches in the country, men of prominence, influential men, men of wealth will be directors of companies, and in that there is no harm whatever?
The argument has been made to-night, and it is a good one, I think, that the fact of a man resigning his office as director of a company does not preclude him from retaining his interests in that company and from being represented by a dummy on its directorate. Suppose, for instance, that the director owns only a few shares in the company, having been elected a director because he was a capable and intelligent man, and that alongside of him there is a shareholder who owns a great many shares, but who is not a director because he is not as able as the other man. Is it not true that the large shareholder will have more interest in that company, although he is not a director, than the first man even though he were a director and a minister of the Crown ? Is it not true that the large shareholder who was not a director would be more concerned about the welfare of that company and more susceptible to influence than the director who owned only a few shares? Or take the case of a man who owns a large private industry and becomes a minister of the Crown. There is no reproach against him so far, but if he organizes that industry into a company and keeps a few shares
[Stage Direction]
Ministers and Directorships
and becomes a director of that company, he could no longer be a minister of the Crown.
Parliament should always be very careful not to pass what I would call useless legislation. The object of legislation is either to procure a benefit or to cure an evil. I do not see that any benefit will be procured by the passing of the resolution of my hon. friend from Brome, nor do I see that any evil will be cured. If it had been shown that during the last fifty years under the present statute concerning the Senate and the House of Commons, evils had prevailed, or that minister of the Crown had abused his position, either in this or any other country, I would say that there was an evil to be cured, but nothing of the kind has been shown. On the contrary, when we know that ever since Confederation there have been in every government in this country ministers of the Crown who were directors of companies, it is wonderful indeed to think that no evils resulting from that situation can be pointed out to the House to-night. Therefore, I say that the safeguard which the resolution seeks to impose is an artificial, an imaginary safeguard. I believe that there is no necessity for it. What we want in the service of this country are able, experienced, business men, men in whom the community has confidence. Once a man has been elected a member of Parliament and is again re-elected as a minister of the Crown, I say that the confidence of the people of this country has been demonstrated enough so far as that individual is concerned, and for that reason he is fit to be a member of the Cabinet.
I heard one of my friends sitting in the party obliquely opposite make the argument tonight that men of large capital and influence who were directors of a company should not be allowed to become ministers of the Crown. We must be very careful about laying down any such principle as that. If we are going to accept as a principle that the rich man, the able man, the learned man, the man who has been ch'osen by his associates as president or director of a large corporation because they have confidence in him, is not fit to a be a cabinet minister, I would ask from what kind of material will your cabinet be drawn? There is a country in the world at the present time which has swept aside the rich and the powerful, directors of companies, let us say, and we know which country that is. While I would not by any

means compare what my hon. friend said to a Bolshevist utterance or the utterance of a demagogue, it reminded me of a story I saw illustrated by a cartoon not very long ago. Two policemen appeared with a prisoner before a judge in Russia, and were asked by him what was the charge against the prisoner. The policemen answered "A capitalist." The judge asked, "What was he doing? How did you find out this man was a capitalist?" The policemen answered, "We found him in a barber shop having his hair cut."
Andrew Ross McMaster: That does not apply
to the hon. member for Brome.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I am only quoting that in
a humourous way. I must say that there is in this country, perhaps in every country in the world at the present time, a certain tendency which may be very honest in many quarters, to set aside the man who has the reputation of being rich and powerful for the sole reason that he is rich and powerful. I think that when it comes to choosing a cabinet, the rich
11 p.m. and powerful man should be placed on the same footing as the poor arid weak man, that every man should be given the same opportunity providing they are of equal ability and are capable of filling the position.
In conclusion, I wish to say that the principle at the bottom of this resolution is one which concerns the honour and the integrity of members of Parliament and ministers of the Crown, and I submit that the honour and integrity of a man cannot be remedied or improved by legislation. It is entirely a private matter concerning the honour and integrity of the individual. The people choose their representatives, and those who are chosen members of the cabinet have to go back to the people and accept their verdict.
One aspect of this question which has not been touched upon is that it is purely and simply a question of fact. It is not a question of law, it is a question of fact, and this is the distinction I would make between a question of law and a question of fact. If this question could be determined by a general principle of law applicable to all cases with equality and justice, then I would call it a principle of law. If we have to differentiate and to examine each case in particular, if the principle which is embodied in this resolution were true and right in one case, but might be unjust and unwise in another case, according to the circumstances, then I say it is essen-

Ministers and Directorships
tially a question of fact, and I submit that questions of fact cannot be regulated by statute. A question of fact has to be examined each and every time on its particular merits. That is the reason why it might very well happen in one case that a minister of the crown, being a director, could not remain in both offices without violating his oath of office. On the other hand, it might very well happen in many cases, and in most cases, that a minister of the crown could hold a position as director of a company without any incompatibility, without any evil or wrongdoing whatever, and, for that reason, I say that this question is merely one of fact. It cannot be regulated by statute, but can be regulated only by the sense of honour, integrity and justice of the man. For these reasons, I will vote against the resolution.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: I
rise for the purpose of tendering, if I may, my respectful and heartfelt sympathy to the hon. member f.or Brome (Mr. Mc-Master). I think this is an occasion where he needs sympathy, where he deserves it and ought to have it in full measure. I am not in accord with the proposition which he has placed before the House. The party of which I am a member was not in accord with the proposition in its broader form when placed before the House last year. The hon. member for Brome will have no reproach to make to the members of the official Opposition. He cannot agree with them, but he knows that where they stand to-day they stood when he first introduced his resolution. He will, at least, give this portion of the House the credit for both sincerity and courage. Can he do as much for his own side of the House? For years hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have accepted the services of the hon. member for Brome as one of the chief critics, if not the chief financial critic, of the Government of the day. He is a good Liberal and was brought up in the faith. He sat in council, though, as yet, I have not seen any very visible emblems of reward, and, perhaps, my hon. friend does not expect any, but, if I might paraphrase a little, I would have said that before the opening of this Parliament-at all events before the introduction of the resolution-he might have stood against the world. To-day there are none so poor in his own side of the House as to do him reverence. Every member of the Government and every supporter of the Government who has spoken
has, in a mild, perhaps charitable, but still possibly firm manner, told the hon. member for Brcane that he does not really know what he is talking about, and that his panacea is no panacea at all.
Unfortunately, some hon. gentlemen who took part in the debate this year, and also took part, even though a limited part, in the debate last year, and a larger number of them whc concurred in the vote last year, did not exrtess by their vote to the hon. member fo 'rome the things they say to him this year and the things they are going to show him by their vote tonight. It is rather unfortunate. He has been told that the principle is a good one, that no man can serve two masters, but I think the hon. member for Brome is probably considering it from a little different angle tonight. He is probably asking himself how one man can serve one master who goes in different directions at different times. The trouble is not in the multiplicity of masters, but apparently this chart, about which we hear so much, has come in evidence again-the chart that shows no lighthouse, no compass, nothing but an aimless sea of indirection upon which the political bark is allowed to float in a manner that will best serve the political exigencies of the moment. Let my hon. friend from Brome make up his mind now, a little late perhaps, to endure this sort of. suffering for the rest of his political career. He can now really appreciate the company into which he has gotten himself.
We have been told that public opinion is the master of this House. I hope so. I would be very glad to think that, and, , naturally, those of us who sit in this angle would like to lead public opinion along the same lines as we think, but how, may I ask hon. members of this House, are we going to do it? Shall we go on the public platform, or stand in this chamber, or discuss on the street, things that we do not intend to put into practice when we come into office? Shall we go from one end of Canada to the other, exhorting the people to support the Conservative party and declaring to those people that if we come into power we are going to do thus and so, and at the same time have the mental reservation that we do not intend to do anything of the kind, and that we intend to shape our course according to the expedience of the moment? That is not simply one of the issues, but that is the dominant issue in Canadian politics to-day, -whether the party shall or shall not be true to its previous record and true to the
Ministers and Directorships

pledges which it has given to the people. Shall we in this group follow the example, let me say the temporary successful example, which has been set? We intend to hold a nationwide convention of our party, to reassert and reaffirm those principles which eventually will he triumphant in this country. And when we do so, are we to take as a guide that great convention w! 'ch was held a few years ago, the party Dehind that convention having, up to th .me, practically repudiated or refused to put into force every plank, every doctrine, in the platform to which it subscribed? My hon. friends, who sit to my left on this side of the chamber, in fact, I might say, the party which is in morganatic alliance with the Government, a truly morganatic union because it gets none of the honours and yet it is expected to bear its share of the burdens of this entanglement, have supported this morganatic union by voting in this House to absolve, so far as they can, the gentlemen who have gone to the country on one platform and who have come back to this House to put into practice an entirely different platform. They have done so upon the only challenge that has been given in this House since the opening of the session. They will live to see the day when they will rue that morganatic alliance. We do not expect, because we are true to our principles, the gentlemen to our left, who have professed-and they are, I believe, absolutely sincere in their professions-principles largely antagonistic to our own, to look upon our platform with a favourable eye. But it is about time-*


Mr. PUTNAM:: Hear, hear.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: -and my hon. friend who says ''hear, hear" may as well make up his mind whether he is going to say "hear, hear" to every sham and subterfuge which comes from his side of the House, or whether he will, like the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), stand on his feet, follow his convictions, stand by his principles, when his party has gone astray from him. I do not know whether my hon. friend sat in this House last year or not; but if he did, the chances are at least nine out of ten that he joined with the hon. member for Brome in what, although he may not have meant it so, was virtually and really an attack upon the administration of the day. As has been pointed out by my right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) cabinet minister after cabinet minister in

this administration lined up in the vote last year against the former administration, and where are those principles to-night? When those principles are abandoned, how much may the morganatic alliance depend upon the sincerity of this Government in dealing in even such an important matter as the Wheat Board? I want to tell my hon. friends to my left that they are being jockeyed to-day in regard to the Wheat Board. I am not in favour of the Wheat Board.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I rise to a point of order.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: It is about time.


François Jean Pelletier: I really believe my hon. friend is out of order. What he is saying is absolutely irrelevant; it has nothing to do with the question before the House, and it seems to me that he ought to confine himself to the question under discussion.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Mr. Speaker, you have not called upon to me to justify my stand; but, if it is necessary for me to discuss the point, 'for the information of my hon. friend, I will tell him that, upon such a resolution as is before the House, a very pertinent, proper and immediate thing to discuss is the sincerity of the Government which he is supporting.


Harold Putnam: What has that to do
with the Wheat Board?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: A great deal as, in my humble judgment, hon. gentlemen sitting to my left will find out before the session is over.


Harold Putnam: Or the Board of Commerce?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If my hon. friend wishes to discuss the Board of Commerce, I suggest he should discuss that privately with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock).


Harold Putnam: The one is as relevant as the other.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The Board of Commerce is not an issue at the present moment.


Harold Putnam: It is just as much as the Wheat Board.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If my hon. friend really wants to discuss the question I will give him an opportunity of doing so. I do not mind being interrupted provided the chunk of interruption is a big one, but I do not want our voices to ring together at the same moment.

Ministers and Directorships


Harold Putnam: I only say that I am just obtuse enough to think that the Wheat Board is as far away from this debate as is the ill-fated [DOT] Board of Commerce. I gave that as an illustration.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I have much pleasure in agreeing with my hon. friend as to his obtuseness. I trust my hon. friend and myself can approach the subject from the same point of view. If my hon. friend wishes to pay himself any more compliments and have me second them. I shall be most happy to do so. If my hon. friend has not yet reached the limit of his vituperative vocabulary as applied to himself, I will give him an opportunity to apply the epithets.


Harold Putnam: I think the House will see that the seconder was nearer home.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I may say, perhaps, for the benefit of our friends sitting to the left, that, in my opinion-and it is of course, possible that I may he wrong-if the Government of the day really desires to give my hon. friends the Wheat Board that they or some of them profess to want, it would be easy for the Government to do so. I do not want it; I am not an advocate for it; but they can learn, by the translation of yesterday's declarations into to-day's action, how much sincerity to expect from the present Administration. The same sincerity that the hon. member for Brome is experiencing to-night is just the measure of sincerity that my hon. friends sitting to the left may expect. The morganatic alliance will be a splendid institution while it brings the necessary support to a government that cannot live without it. It will be utterly disregarded when it interferes with the interests or desires or prejudices of hon. gentlemen who sit to the right of Mr. Speaker.
I should like, just for a moment, to deal with what the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) said. I think he referred to the fact that the party on this side of the House was a defeated party, and his satisfaction is quite evident, quite natural, quite pleasurable. The hon. gentleman should not be too hard upon defeats. I fancy it was only the fact that he too had been defeated that prevented him from joining in the chorus and vote which supported the hon. member for Brome last year, and he probably would have been as busily engaged as other members of the Government to-night in swallowing his previous utterances if he had been a member of the
House last year. Fortunately, he had escaped, and he was able to take what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) and, in fact, pretty nearly every hon. gentleman who has spoken to-night believe is the wise, sane and healthy course; for I believe myself that the rewards in political life are all too small to induce the captains of industry to enter political life and give their services to the state, and instead of putting up barriers to keep such men out, I believe it is in the interests of the country that such men should be induced by every possible means to come in and help administer a government. I find no fault with the Prime Minister for having induced such captains of industry, such capable businessmen as he has, although the number is not, by any means, as large as it might be for the good of the country.
I can assure my hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) that defeats are not permanent. We are in the posi-iton of a party which, when it again meets the country, will present to that country an unbroken record of consistent adherence to what we, at all events, have believed, do believe, and shall believe, is the best policy in the interests of the entire country. When my hon. friends go to that country for endorsement, it will be utterly impossible to tell from their previous performances what their next performance will be, whether they will go back to the platform they discarded or adopt something new. But this will be sure, that whatever they may utter on the public platform, in the discussions of the next campaign, whatever they may print in their handbooks, whatever they may set forth in the newspapers of the country, will, on the word of the Prime Minister, be nothing more than an advertising campaign to get votes, and will not entail, in their eyes, any obligation upon a single man jack of them to carry it out after he gets back to the House. And my hon. friends to my left can take credit to themselves for having voted to endorse that particularly responsible and, I was almost going to say, that particularly honest statesman.
Now, what the people in this country vote for, that they will get. What their representatives in this Parliament vote for, that they will get. And if they vote for sham and insincerity they will have it in full measure; but they will not get it from this group. My hon. friend from Brome
Ministers and Directorships

(Mr. McMaster) last year made a declaration, and in tones of most respectful sympathy. I want to commend to him the careful study of his words. Hansard records him as saying: "I know my own leader and can speak for him." Can he tonight? Did his wildest imagination a year ago ever foresee the day when his honoured leader would rise in his place and repudiate him and his resolution, and swallow whole, without an effort at gulping it, the doctrine promulgated last year by my right hon. friend the leader of the official Opposition (Mr. Meighen) ? And does the hon. member for Brome think that that is distinctly a good thing in Canadian public life? Is it the sort of thing he wants to subscribe to? It is the sort of policy any man can pursue? Would it not have been at least decent, would it not have been at least fair, to have given the hon. member for Brome some notice of a change of direction, some notice of the back-tracking of the Government, so that he could at least get into line in the procession if he wanted to? That would have been more merciful than to treat an old stalwart supporter to the kicks of absolute repudiation, when he is standing for what he at any rate believes to be an absolute principle and absolute right.


Mr. J. FRED JOHNSTON (Last Mountain) :: I do not intend to attempt a speech at this late hour. One or two of the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has just preceded me would lead one to think that he is very much concerned as to the welfare of this party with which I am associated. I think he made use of the statement that we Progressives were being jockeyed on the Wheat Board proposition. Well, be that as it may, I would inform my hon. friend that when we find ourselves in a bad way we will not look to him or to those associated with him. The hon. member drew attention to himself and to his party in connection with the resolution that is before the House, in words something like these: "We are here to-day, we were here yesterday, and we will continue to be here." Well, Sir, that is the trouble with the hon. gentleman and his whole party. They have been where they are for the last forty years, and consequently we have had no progress when their party was in power.
Now, the reason I rose at all was to make an explanation rather than a speech. It will be observed that the leader of my party (Mr. Crerar) is not in the House,

and it is because of his unavoidable absence that I have spoken. I desire to explain why he is not here. He is under the care of his physician, as he has been for the last number of days, and in this age of misunderstanding,-and, I am very sorry to add, sometimes of misrepresentation I thought it well to let the House know that had he been here he would have been where I am and doing what I purpose doing, namely, supporting the resolution of my hon. friend from Brome (Mr. McMaster).


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Hon. members opposite had a different attitude last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: I
may say to my hon. friend from Brome, in connection with this matter, that friends may come and friends may go, but he and I, at any rate, will go on forever, and I also will support his resolution.


William Irvine: The hour is rather late, but I believe that this issue is of sufficient importance to warrant the few minutes I shall devote to its consideration. The member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in his resolution, and in his most excellent presentation of the case, has given voice to a sentiment and emphasized a principle which I feel sure will receive very hearty endorsation from the people of the country. I wish to congratulate him on his splendid courage, and on the wisdom and moderation which he exhibited in the presentation of his arguments. "Behold a Liberal indeed, in whom is no guile."
I have been rather surprised, however, in the debate which has followed, that patriotism has not been emphasized very much. I do not think there is any class in Canada that is more apt to wave the flag and to prate about patriotism than parliamentarians in general, and we have not to look very far back to find where hon. gentlemen, who have taken part in this debate, waved the flag until the folds were almost worn out. But here is an opportunity for practical patriotism. This resolution calls upon the man of ability, who has proved that ability in the affairs of business, to give his service to the country, not his half-hearted efforts but his whole-hearted service, as well as his complete time, for which the country pays him and is grateful. And yet, not one single parliamentarian has lifted up his voice or waved the flag on this occasion. Surely this is worthy of patriotic emphasis.

Ministers and Directorships
Most of us agree with the central thought of the resolution, that no man can serve two masters, and that we are called upon to vote as to whom we will serve, or as to which master we wish to see our administrative representatives serving. It is very clear-and this is the point which has withstood the test of argument, for no one has challenged it so far as I have heard- that when a cabinet minister holds the position of director in any company he cannot give all his time to the service of the country, while at the same time there may be a clashing of interests. For this reason it is well that he should separate from one or the other, that he should be called upon to give his services in a patriotic sense to the nation, or else give his whole time to the industry which has claimed his attention so far.
I think it was the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) who submitted that no harm has been done by this old method. What an argument indeed! Have we been reduced to a miserable negation? Is that the only argument that the hon. member can put forward in support of his position? He very well knows that it is exceedingly difficult to prove whether any harm has been done in a direct sense; but, nevertheless, I am not so sure that we cannot prove in a general way that harm is being done and will be done. We have just had a bank collapse, and, as 1 understand it, one of its directors was a member of the late administration. He admitted that he had been giving attention to the Government and not to the institution that collapsed. Now, is it not reasonable to suppose that if he had been attending to the bank's business he would have known the condition it was in and would have warned the public, or perhaps even saved the institution? There is a case at least where harm did come. Is it not harmful where a man is so divided in his interests that he cannot give good service to one or the other?
No one will deny that throughout the country there is prevalent an idea that the financial interests, the railway interests, and the manufacturing interests have in the past had a very great deal too much to do with Canadian governments. As to whether that very settled opinion is well founded or not is another question, but the fact remains that a very large section of our people entertain it. Consequently, if we passed such a resolution as this, and implemented it with legislation, it would
to some extent remove the ground for that opinion at least, and tend to establish greater confidence in administrative bodies.
If a corporation represents a man's life, as the hon. member for South Wellington put it, let that man stay with that corporation; there is no particular demand that he should give it up. Then the hon. member tried to give this argument a personal turn and mentioned specifically the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin), who, he warned us, was the actual foundation of the present Government and who, if this resolution passed, might resign. I do not know the hon. member's authority for that statement, but personally I do not think that eventuality would be possible. I am willing to admit the greatness of the hon. Minister of Justice. I believe that every hon. member recognizes his ability, and would regret very much anything that would deprive him of the opportunity of serving his country at this time. But it is just because we believe in his greatness that we have no fear in passing this resolution, for surely such a great man as we believe him to be would not, because of a statutory prohibition, as it was termed by the Prime Minister, feel called upon to resign. We believe that the hon. Minister of Justice is too big a man to take such a course; on the contrary, we believe he would be patriotic and continue to serve his country notwithstanding such legislation. No one would imagine for a moment that the hon. minister would fail to rise to the opportunity for patriotic service afforded by this resolution. But let me put it another way: What would the people think of the hon. Minister of Justice if he should resign because this resolution was passed? There is the other side of the question. I do not believe they would think very much of him if he did resign; personally I think he would say: I have been selected to serve my country at a very critical time in her history, and I am going to rise to the patriotic level of this resolution and continue my services for the benefit of the nation.
Now, the hon. Prime Minister went around so many corners in his swift retirement from his previous position that I was not able to keep my eyes upon him, and consequently I cannot follow him in all the turnings he made. The argument which he so ably delivered to-night I am sure could have been delivered a year ago with equally good reason. If the argument put forward to-night is good, it was good a

Ministers and Directorships
year ago. I believe this is another evidence of the influence of the party system. Either the Opposition to the late administration were wrong in supporting that resolution, or they are wrong now in refusing to support it. In the one instance the Prime Minister was in opposition; now he is in power. Did the Prime Minister vote for a more drastic bill last year to give assurance to the electorate, as he put it, or did he vote for it to discredit the government then in power? Which was the reason then, and what is the reason now? Personally I regret very much that he feels it to be his duty on this occasion to back away from that position, for I do not think it will be taken as a high example by the young men of this Parliament that our Prime Minister so suddenly has forgotten the argument of his party and his own vote and stultified himself on this occasion. I do not think anyone who reads the argument in Hansard-if anyone ever troubles to do so-will feel that he has justified his action satisfactorily, if he was right last year, and I want to say again that I regret very much that he has seen fit to take this action on the present occasion.
The Prime Minister also referred to the practice in Great Britain. I should like to find out if there has been a single case in the last forty years where a member of the British Government has found it necessary to resign from the directorate of any company. If that is not so, what is the reason? Is it not that the members of the British House of Commons do not expect to be called to office if they hold directorships?
The hon. gentleman also made much of the defeat of Swift MacNeil's resolutions in the British House of Commons. Does he not know that they were voted down by Tory majorities? And is that the standard the Prime Minister of a Liberal Government sets up in the twentieth century? I hope it is not. Perhaps he overlooked that.
Then the leader of the Opposition of course comes along to make political capital out of this; and I think perhaps we were as tired of his argument as we were of the argument of the Prime Minister on this question. There is really no credit coming to the leader of a Tory party for not having moved,-because he cannot move. Everyone knows that that is an impossibility, for if he were moving he would not be a Tory, he would have to be something else. He is this year where he was last year; he will be there next year

and all the years that are to come. And when he places himself right straight in the middle of the road of progress, we all know there is no necessity to make a long speech about it.
Next the hon. the Minister of Militia (Mr. Graham) comes along, and he is very anxious to forget all about last year. No one blames him for that of course; that is quite human; I think I would want to forget it also. He told us that the argument of the hon. member for Brome un-forunately came from the upper regions. Are we to understand that the answers to his argument come from the lower regions? I can see no other conclusion-and really, they sounded like it.
Then came the member for St. John and Albert (Mr, Baxter) swimming an uncharted sea without destiny or direction; and he begins by presuming to give the full interpretation of the resolutions that are passed in this House.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman permit me?-he is apparently through with me: does he consider that consistency in public life is a political vice?


William Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any vice that is more vice-y than consistency that is blind consistency.


Arthur Meighen: Blind what?


William Irvine: Blind consistency. I was dealing with the statement of the hon. member for St. John, and I say he presumes to give the interpretation of the resolutions and bills that pass in this House. He even presumes to tell the Progressives what they voted for. I believe that the Progressives are quite capable of coming to their own conclusions upon resolutions, without any advice whatsoever from the hon. member for St. John. Now, as it- happens, I did not agree with that vote that he referred to, but I think perhaps the Progressives were led into a trap. But if trap there was, it was laid by the party of which the hon. member himself is a member. If some of us were trapped1 by a Tory trick, it is not anything to boast about; we might as well forget it, and it would be well for the hon. member, I think, if he forgot it also. He went on to say that if we voted for a sham we would get it. 'Well, we know that, too. We have just had an excellent sham and I presume some did vote for it.
The resolution of the hon. member for Brome still stands, impregnable; his argu-

Ministers and Directorships
ments have not been touched. Hon. members who have spoken in opposition to it have brought up various arguments from their point of view, but I think that it will be agreed that those who wade through Hansard to-morrow will find the argument of the hon. member for Brome unanswered; it stands tier upon tier just as he built it up. We are called upon, then, to vote on the question whether we shall give the representatives of the Crown an opportunity of devoting all their time on a patriotic basis to the service of this country, or whether we shall hamper them or let them be hampered by other influences and their directorates and their companies. That is the issue, and I believe the people of Canada expect us to vote for this resolution.


Mr. H. A. FORTIER (Labelle) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I want to state first that I am opposed to the resolution of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) and I wish to give this House my reasons for this opposition. This resolution, I believe, implies a departure from constitutional usage, and any legislation which might be adopted following this resolution would result in depriving the Cabinet of the services of a distinguished citizen, whom the people of his province and county entrusted with their confidence and, who is absolutely needed under the present circumstances for the good administration of Canada.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, if this resolution were adopted, that person, who enjoys the confidence of his fellow-countrymen would have no other alternative but to choose between the directorates conferred upon him by important companies and the distinction of being a minister of the Crown. Given such a case, the man who possesses the confidence of every one, would likely choose the directorates; and this is why it would be deplorable for our country to behold men so highly necessary and endowed with such intellectual powers, cast aside; it would be a misfortune indeed, if such men were denied all participation in the administration of public affairs. It would be detrimental to our country, and this is the reason why I shall not support this motion. I am convinced that the resolution of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) is uncalled for and in support of my contention, I may say this. In the first place the country needs the services of able and intelligent men for the good administration of the country's business. The world over, able statesmen are scarce and when we do happen to possess such
men, they should be called upon to take an active part in public affairs. In most cases, however, they have already been designated by their fellow-countrymen to fill the important directorship of these large financial companies. This entirely shows their remarkable aptitude and skiil and it is incumbent on the country to entrust to them the management of public affairs. If this resolution were adopted, Mr. Speaker, we would be deprived of the benefit of having amongst our administrators men of experience and ability.
Secondly, in any constitutional government, there is a sacred duty which imposes itself upon a Prime Minister, the one of personally choosing his colleagues. But by this legislation you prevent the Prime Minister from calling upon those who are on these important directorships and who are highly qualified; you circumscribe his freedom of choice which it is most important should remain unimpaired, and you tell him: when you are selecting your Cabinet, you shall not be allowed to single out men who are directors of large companies; you shall have to ignore them; you shall have to choose men in whom you have not an absolute confidence, men who have not given proof of integrity and long experience.
My last argument is this: the purport of the resolution is to cast odium on the public man of the day. How? Because this man has private or personal duties to fulfil, you believe he is not broadminded enough, when his country requests his services as minister of the Crown, to so engross the time in a disinterested manner; because this man has a pecuniary interest in a company, you throw open to doubt his love for his country. I repeat it, I believe this resolution is based on a false principle. I had no intention to take part in this discussion, but I changed my mind after listening to all the arguments which were brought out during this debate, especially to those put forward by the opposition and to those brought out by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter). He stated that, not being a member of this House last year, he takes his cue in supporting the resolution, from the attitude then taken by his leader. For my part, I do not believe that we are inconsistent with our past in voting down the resolution of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster), and this is why I deemed it my duty to make known to this House the reasons that have induced me to take such a stand.
Ministers and Directorships


Mr. J. L. STANSELL (East Elgin):: My only justification for speaking on this resolution at this late hour is its importance and the dearth of argument that has been submitted in its favour. To me this has been an evening of astonishment, not the least part of which was the statement a few moments ago by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) who, turning to this corner of the House, said that if his party ever got into difficulty they would not come to us for help, because we did not change. That statement was made in spite of the fact that only a few members in this corner of the House had spoken on this subject. He followed that up by saying in his next breath that men may come and men may go, but he and the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) were going on forever. They never changed. I submit that if the hon. member has no more faith in our party and its desire to help forward anything that we believe to be in the interests of this country than he has in his own consistency, I do not blame him very much.
I believe this is a particularly important question to those of us who are in Parliament for the first time. Speaking for myself, I am not inclined to form a hasty opinion upon a subject of this kind. I looked for instruction, for inspiration, if you like, from those who were friendly to the measure. My only source of information has been the record of the debates of last session, which show that fifty-four members of the House were strongly in favour of this measure and voted for it a year ago. Strangely enough they are nearly all in one group to-night and prominent among them is the Prime Minister himself and many of his Cabinet. I had expected that the right hon. leader of the Government would give us some information in support of this measure which he advocated a year ago and let me point out that there is no argument against this resolution that was not just as applicable twelve months ago. As the right hon. leader of the Government has said he did not speak at any great length on this question a year ago. May I be permitted to quote a few sentences from one who is held in very high esteem not only by the Prime Minister himself and his party but by all parties and members of this House? The Prime Minister himself in his eulogy on' appointing this hon. member to the position of First Commoner, spoke of his exceptional ability, his great endowments and his distinguished public service. In view of the well known modesty of the 
hon. gentleman who holds that high position I shall mot refer to him more personally, but I am sure he will pardon me if I quote just a few sentences of his remarks in the debate on this question of last year, and which I am sure the Prime Minister himself applauded and concurred in. On page 592 of volume I of last year's Hansard I find this:
I say is not the honour of being a minister of the Crown, the honour of being sworn in as a Privy Councillor, a reward by itself? In my humble judgment, no man should hesitate, when accepting that honour, to put aside his private interests ... I say that it is in the interests of the ministers of the Crown, and of good government and of the good reputation of Parliament that public opinion should be satisfied that there are no conflicting interests between ministers as such and any directors of private concerns. . . It strikes me, after having heard my hon. friend and the objections that were made by some of the hon. gentlemen on the other side-mild objections I must say-that this is a needed reform and one which is consistent with British traditions.
Surely 'in view of such a careful and well-worded pronouncement on this important subject, we could not look for anything but support of this resolution upon the part of those who were friendly to the measure last year. Among those to whom I particularly looked for guidance is the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), the Solicitor General. I particularly looked to him because I had the pleasure of hearing him a few nights ago, when I was very much pleased with his eloquence and ability. Moreover, his apt quotations from Scripture show that he is at least in touch with a very high authority. So much was I impressed with his eloquence that I was not surprised, on looking up last year's debate to find that he used the words " Wash us and we shall be whiter than snow." I presume that in the meantime he has not forgotten the tune. That may not be necessary now; as it would have to be changed anyway to wash us over again, because to my surprise I find that some who advocated this measure a year ago have fallen from grace, not the least being the Prime Minister himself. I had expected that the hon. member for North Cape Breton would use his missionary powers and great ability in endeavouring to convince those of us who are new members, and are in a sense sitting in darkness, not to mention some of the older members who perhaps have exhibited somewhat sceptical tendencies. I seem, however, to be doomed to disappointment because evidently his time and abilities will be taken up in per-

Ministers and Directorships
suading the leader on his own side of the House. My hon. friend is very apt in quoting Scripture, so no doubt he remembers the parable of the ninety-nine sheep that were safe in the fold but one was wandering on the moun-12 m. tainside, and it is well-known what anxiety that caused. What, then, can we say on this occasion, when although there are ninety-nine safe in the fold, one is lost in the wilderness, and that is the bell-wether, the leader of the flock. Surely, if missionary work is necessary, it is necessary on that side of the House, and we on this side of the House will probably be denied the privilege of that much-needed persuasive power.
I might also have looked for enlightenment to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lapointe), who last year supported this measure. We all know his undoubted ability and eloquence although he has not been particularly generous to the House in that respect this session. I had hopes that he had been reserving his powers in order to try and get this resolution carried by a large majority. Perhaps it is not too late yet for the hon. member for North Cape Breton to secure assistance from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in endeavouring to convince those of us who need information and are in a sense still wandering in darkness.
Speaking seriously, there are something like one hundred and thirty new members in this House, who are anxiously looking to those who have been here and understand the needs of the country, and are in a position to give direction and guidance to those of us who are learning. Are we to be told by the fifty-four members who voted in favour of this measure last year, that the facts and arguments they made in support of it then are not now to be taken seriously? Surely any arguments that could be made in support of the measure last year are equally applicable to-day. Surely now, when the sun of democracy is shining and responsible government has again been restored, we may look for stronger and better guidance in the future.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (North Toronto):: I did not intend to speak upon this debate, but after what has been said on the subject I would like to say a few words. This is private members' day, but I think it should be called Brome day. The speech of the hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King)
should be enough to let the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) know that his friends have all forsaken him and fled.
The principle embodied in this resolution is an academic one. I do not know what object the hon. gentleman has in introducing the motion. He cannot accomplish anything by it because if it is carried it will not have any effect and will merely be a scrap of paper. The privilege which has been attacked by the resolution has not been abused by the late government nor by the present Government, and I think the present Government should be given a fair show. There are only one or two members of the Government holding directorships. I think the Minister of Justice (Sir Lomer Gouin) was one of the best provincial premiers the province of Quebec ever had. I am sorry he is not here to-day. Judging from what he has done for the municipalities he has accomplished more than any previous premier ever did. He has erected court houses, registry offices and other public buildings for the municipalities in his province. He has done more for the municipalities of the province of Quebec in this connection than has been done in any province of the Dominion.
If there was ever a time in the history of this country, both in Dominion and provincial affairs when the country wanted business men, it is the present. In my province of Ontario we have a government without a single business man in it. Look at the loans they have made and the financial statement in the budget brought down in the Ontario legislature. They say they have a surplus, but nearly a million of maintenance charges has been put into capital. That is the way they run the province. The privilege dealt with in this resolution has not been abused by the present Government. One or two of the ministers hold some directorships but the passing of this resolution will not mean anything to them. They will not lose any directorships by it.
I may say to my hon. friend from Brome, and my friends, the Progressives, that if they went a little farther up than the mere directorships it would be better for the country and the proposition would commend itself to the judgment of the country. Let them take up the question of the banks and their business methods. Let them deal with the question of the Merchant's Bank which had a president who did not preside, directors who did not direct, managers who did not manage and auditors who did
Ministers and Directorships

not audit. If that matter were investigated something might be accomplished for the country in that direction.
This motion would not prevent shareholders in these large concerns from becoming members of Parliament or Cabinet ministers and probably a large shareholder would be far more injurious to the company if he were in the Cabinet than a director could. The motion does not refer to corporation lawyers and legal counsel. Can they too be retained in the Cabinet to the exclusion of those who are directors? This principle has been discussed in England and it has not been adopted there. They leave the matter to the honour of the ministers. I think we have a very honourable body of ministers here. The Prime Minister must be a responsible officer and has very responsible duties to perform. The ministers work in the mornings, afternoons and evenings. I do not know what time they get to attend to their own affairs or the affairs of any company with which they might be connected. I do not think that the privilege I have referred to has been abused. The principle of the motion may be all right in some respects, but there is no demand for it in the country or in the House, and I do not understand why the time of the House should be taken up with it. The Minister of Justice has given up directorships in La Presse, in The Cockshutt Plow Co. of Brantford, a six million dollar concern, and one or two others, I think. I believe we might leave this matter to the ethics and to the honour of the gentlemen of the Cabinet. There is no demand and no necessity for the resolution and I do not see how any good can come of it. I hope the House will not take up any more time and I ask that the vote will be taken.
Mr. JOSEPH T. SHAW (West Calgary) : I think, with all due deference to the member for North Toronto, (Mr. Church) who has just preceded me, that this matter is one of vital importance to the people of this country. I am not concerned as to whether or not the attitude of the Prime Minister is due to what I might term conscientious inconsistency, or perhaps due to party exigency, nor yet am I concerned with the problem of the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) as to whether he is standing to-day where he stood yesterday, and where he proposes to stand in the future. It seems to me the hon. gentleman from Brome (Mr. McMaster) has presented to this House a very important and very essential principle, and that, in the
[Mr. Church.!
discussion which has taken place, and the desire to make party capital out of this situation, we have ignored the question at issue.
The first thing I should like to direct attention to is the fact that the resolution, as compared with last year's resolution, is very much narrower and is confined to what I might call public service corporations, using the term as used by the good people to the south of us. These corporations are the ones which must, of necessity, come frequently to this Parliament, and must very frequently make applications which are passed upon, approved, or disapproved by this Parliament. For instance, the railway companies are under the jurisdiction of the Railway Commission. The cabinet, the executive of this House, sits in appeal from that Railway Commission from time to time, or may do so. Then take the situation with regard to banks; these institutions are, as one writer has stated, the manufacturers of credit on other peoples' money; they must, at regular intervals, make reports to the Finance Minister, and those reports are subject to inspection by this parliament from time to time. Not only that, but I believe it is the practice every ten years to revise the Bank Act under which they operate. Then again, we have insurance companies, which also are peculiarly under the jurisdiction of Parliament. That, to my mind, is the distinguishing characteristic between the corporations mentioned in the resolution and the private corporations which were included in the resolution of the hon. gentleman from Brome introduced last year. These, as I say, are public service corporations. They are corporations which are performing public functions, and, in that sense, they are perhaps performing a duty of government.
What is the position of a director in one of those companies? He stands, of course, as a trustee for the shareholders. It is his duty to advise on matters of policy, to direct the government and to preserve and to enlarge, if need be, the assets of his company. On the other hand, what is the position of a minister before this House? And I, from my standpoint, see absolutely no distinction between the position of the first minister of the Crown and that of any other Cabinet minister. He is here simply as a trustee, entrusted, perhaps, for a short time or, perhaps, for a longer period with responsibility from his constituents and from this House. He is the trustee of the people and the executive

Ministers and Directorships
trustee of this Parliament. Under those circumstances, if a man occupies a dual capacity, as a director in a public service corporation and, at the same time, as one of the executive of this House, with the necessity, as I suggested at the outset, for supervision or inspection of his company at various times and in various ways, is it not possible that, at some time or upon some occasion, his interest as director may conflict with his duty as trustee of this House? That, I take it is in short, the neat point for discussion now, and the question is not one of whether somebody took a position six or twelve months ago inconsistent with the position now assumed. That is a matter of special significance, perhaps, at a time like this when institutions, including even this institution in common with all other governmental institutions, are being questioned and analyzed as never before by the people at large. It is absolutely essential that the independence of Parliament should be preserved; that there should not be even the slightest breath of suspicion regarding the conduct of any minister of the Crown in connection with his relation to any private or public corporation.
It is the plain duty and responsibility of this House to see that no one shall be put into such a position of difficulty by having to act in a dual capacity, and if he is, by circumstances, put into that position, then he should resign the directorship or his position as a minister of the Crown. Not only is this in the interest of Parliament itself; but, to my mind, it is equally in the interest of the corporations affected. These corporations have, perhaps, secured much money on the strength of the particular members mentioned as directors. Men of every class and walk in life are, perhaps, expecting, and reasonably so, that these particular individuals as directors will give all their time, energy, and talent to the care of their corporations. Not only are their interests involved; but the interests, perhaps, of hundreds of other people are likewise involved. Therefore, it occurs to me that, while it is a proper thing for a minister upon his appointment to resign his directorships, I think we should have on the statute books of Canada legislation affirming this resolution, so that no one can be put into that dual position. We should divorce private interest from public duty, by a statutory prohibition of this Parliament. I shall, therefore, have much pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Brome.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, may I direct attention to just one point, to which, I think, attention has not yet been called, and that is the absolute necessity that there should exist in this country some body that will protect the people from the arbitrary power of these great corporations? Within the past few years, as we all recognize, there has been a shifting of power from the political to the industrial field. In the olden days, when industry was a small affair, the employer had comparatively little power. To-day, when industry is on such a large scale, the employer has power such as those in political power know nothing whatever about. We sometimes have talked of captains of industry, of princes of finance, of money kings. These terms are significant of a real state of affairs, because, in many respects, the men, who are at the head of our big industrial, commercial and financial affairs, have more real authority than those who occupy prominent positions in the political life of the country. It has been stated that whoever controls a man's job-I am speaking as a Labour man- controls his life. That is true; whoever controls a man's job, controls his very livelihood, and if he has no one who can stand between him and arbitrary power, his case is perfectly hopeless. Within the last few years we have witnessed a great concentration of capital in this country, so that to-day the big financial institutions determine whether or not there shall be production; they determine in what branch of industry there shall be production, and upon what terms that production shall be carried on. That being the case, it seems to me that it is absolutely essential that, in some way, there should be an impartial authority absolutely dissociated from those big interests, which can protect the people of Canada from the arbitrary power which those industries have gradually attained.
The hon. member for Brome (Mr. Mc-Master) referred to a chart which had been prepared and which showed the interlocking directorates to which he made reference. He gave no names of directors, giving only the numbers, doing this in order that no personalities might enter into the discussion.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Was that not a wise thing?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It may have been a wise thing. I can quite understand the position of the hon. member for Brome.

Ministers and Directorships
As, however, the discussion has gone on, reference has been made to the one member of the cabinet who is included in the list given by the hon. member for Brome. Some days ago I was furnished, not by the hon. member for Brome, but by a friend who had evidently been working on the same proposition, with a graph of this character, based, I believe, upon the Canadian Annual Financial Review of June, 1921. It seems to me that a graph of this kind ought to be placed definitely before the people of Canada, and they would then have no doubt as to the absolute necessity of this body making some provision for preventing power being placed in the hands of a few men such as we have here. As the hon. member for Brome was reading the list, I was checking this particular graph with his, and I think it is the same graph as it represents the same figures, the total capital controlled being something like $4,295,000,000. The names of the fifteen men who each have directorship in from two to eight of these big companies or corporations are as follows: 1, Sir Augustus Nanton; 2, Sir John Aird; 3, Sir Edmund Osier; 4, Lt.-Governor Cockshutt; 5, E. W. Beatty; 6, Sir Vincent Meredith; 7, Baron Shaughnessy; 8, Sir Lomer Gouin; 9, Sir Herbert Holt; 10, Sir Charles Gordon; 11, .C. R. Hosmer; 12, Hon. R. Dandurand; 13,
J.	E. Aldred; 14, C. E. Neill; 15, E. L. Pease.
It seems to me there is no particular reason, if these men are occupying the most honoured positions in the country, why their names should not be generally known to the public, in order that their position in society should be recognized. I quite realize the fact that they have attained this position because of considerable business ability and all that kind of thing. It is not a matter of impugning their personal integrity in any sense whatever, but it is a question as to how the public itself can in some way control the great power which has gradually been concentrated in the hands of a comparatively small group of men. The resolution of the member for Brome would look to the separation of the Cabinet, on the one hand, from the power which is exercised by great corporations on the other. That may be a temporary measure; but it is in the right direction. The public generally is not going to be satisfied until, in some way, not only do we insist that Parliament shall not be directly controlled by these great corporations, but that, on the other hand, in some way, right within the corporations themselves, there shall be in-

troduced a very large measure of democracy. Political democracy was the watchword of the last generation, and we are all glad to think that we have attained a certain measure of political democracy. But political democracy is an absolutely hollow thing unless we have industrial democracy as well. This resolution which has been presented to day is simply the first step in controlling these great aggregations of capital which have placed almost unlimited power in the hands of small groups. For that reason I believe I am expressing the opinion of a large group of at least the labour and middle class people in this coun. try when I urge that the resolution be adopted.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I will not be long in my closing remarks, but there are just a few things which I think, in justice to myself, and I hope, in the interest of the country, I should say. I will deal with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). In his eloquent observations he made the statement that I had wrongly interpreted the practice in Great Britain, and that in 1896 a committee of the House of Commons had sat for the purpose of considering the question whether it would be wise to more stringently draw the rules of the House of that great Parliament along the lines of, although not quite precisely in accordance with, my resolution of to-night. It is quite true that it was decided not to change the rules of that House, but that decision was arrived at by a vote of six to five. The five that voted for the purpose of amending the rules, more in the spirit of the resolution I have before the House to-night, were, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Courtney, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. MacNeill, while those who were opposed to any change were Mr. Bonsor, Sir W. Hart-Dyke, Mr. Halsey, Mr. Grant Lawson, the Solicitor General and Mr. Woodhouse. Now, I respectfully suggest that the five who voted in support of the principle I now advocate are well worth the six on the other side.
The Prime Minister stated that I had no ground for believing that anything untoward had happened in connection with his administration, and I would assure you, Mr. Speaker, I would assure him, I would assure this House, and I would assure this country, that I never suggested for one moment that there was anything untoward in any action of this Government. In bringing this matter before the House, what

Ministers and Directorships
have I done? I have simply done what I did last year with the enthusiastic co-operation of the Prime Minister himself. Not only in the debate which has been referred to, as to the advisability of directors in large companies being ministers of the Crown at the same time, but in another debate, was the attitude of the party plainly set forth. There was that debate provoked by me in connection with the railway estimates, in a speech which I made showing the inadvisability of members of the board of directors of the National Railways being also members of the board of directors of any company who might sell things to the railway. It was not precisely the same case, but it was precisely the same principle; for what is the principle? Without imputing wrongdoing to any one, I say that the principle is that a man should not be put in a position where either his personal interest or his fiduciary interest can conflict with any other fiduciary interest. That position was assumed by me on that occasion. I made a speech then late in the evening, and the Prime Minister did me the great compliment of placing largely the same facts before the House in his own budget speech. He did me the further compliment of placing those facts before the country from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The principles are not the same. The case of members of the board of directors of the railways purchasing for the railways from companies on the boards of which they are also directors, is not parallel to the principle now under consideration. If similar action were attempted by a minister of the Crown he would be disqualified in five minutes.


Arthur Meighen: Is the Bank of Montreal not dealing with the Government now every day?	.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all in that direct way.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, and to the extent
of millions.


Andrew Ross McMaster: If I might interject myself into the debate, if I remember the circumstances correctly, and I think I do, it was not charged by me or by the Prime Minister that directors of the national railways who were directors in other companies had been selling. The point I made was that they belonged to companies which might sell, and therefore it was improper
for them to be also directors in the national railways, who might buy from the companies in which they were concerned. There was a possibility of a conflicting fiduciary interest. Now, let us take the question of banks. I do so frankly, and I would point out to the House that I was careful in my introductory remarks to avoid any personality at all. It is a principle that I am advocating, and I try to keep away from personalities altogether. Let us put the case in a supposititious way. Suppose there were a minister of the Crown who was a director in a bank. Suppose that bank were doing work for the government. Do not even suppose that; suppose the bank were only doing what banks are obliged to do every month, sending in returns to the government. Suppose my right hon. friend were in power; what position would he take in regard to his Minister of Marine and Fisheries, say, when it was found that the bank of which he was a director had to be charged with having sent in false returns to the government. What position would my right hon. friend be in, and what position would his Minister of Marine and Fisheries be in if such a situation existed? I do not need to stress the point, Mr. Speaker. The thing is so patent that it is inadvisable to have ministers of the Crown directors also of banks.
Now, I spoke about interlocking directorates. The Prime Minister said: Well, interlocking directorates should be treated as such. I ask: By whom? By this Parliament, which may contain certain members in the Cabinet who are also members of these companies whose directorates interlock? It seems to me that whatever our opinion may be about the advisability or inadvisability of interlocking directorates, we should see to it that the interlocking does not pass into the Cabinet chamber. That is the position I am putting before the House to-night; I think it is reasonable.
It is true the Prime Minister seems to think that there is plenty of protection in the Senate and House of Commons Act, extracts from which he quoted. Now, if there was not an exception-which he did not read-permitting a company of which a member is a shareholder, dealing with the Government, what he said would, I think, be quite accurate and the necessity for this resolution would to a certain extent disappear. But it seems to me that whether a man is a director or merely a shareholder in the company, the fact that he is such does not prevent the company from dealing



Ministers and Directorships
with the Government. I think that is a correct interpretation of the law.
Shareholders need not give up their shares; that is quite true. I am sorry that I seem to find myself in the unfortunate position of not being able to please anyone. Last year my right hon. friend situated angularly opposite said that my resolution went too far, and now my critic seems to think that my motion does not go far enough.


Arthur Meighen: My hon. friend is looking in my direction. I did not say that. I took objection to it on principle as not meeting the case at all.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I stand corrected
then. But last year I remember my right hon. friend saying: Why, you are trying to imp y that a minister should not even have the interest that his family gives him. And I recollect saying, with the former Minister of Trade and Commerce, Sir George Foster, in front of me, that it would be impossible to impose celibacy on his government. Shareholders need not give up their shares; that is quite true. I am not going on the assumption that there is something wrong. If there are dishonest men in public life, they will be dishonest no matter what legislation is passed; but what I do say is that we should try to prevent a possible conflict of fiduciary interest. The Prime Minister has said that leaders of political parties should not accept directorships. I agree with him. But I do not agree with him if he sets a higher standard for himself than for members of his government, because my view is that all the members of the Government, especially in view of our constitutional principle of solidarity, stand more or less on the same footing-that the Prime Minister is merely primus inter pares.
My hon. friend stated that my resolution would deprive him of the ability of leading business men. Now, that is exactly contrary to what I wish by my resolution. If first class business men go into the Cabinet, I wish them to be absolutely "off with the old love before they are on with the new" .-I wish them to be in a position to devote 'their whole time and attention to the affairs of the Government. I am of opinion that men of ability, no matter how rich they are, will be glad to do this if they have the proper spirit which we wish to see manifested in our public men.
The Prime Minister implied that in bringing forward this resolution I had
[Mr. McMaster 1
given way to a sentiment of juvenile audacity; that I should leave such questions for older and wiser heads.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I was speaking entirely about myself.


Andrew Ross McMaster: That just shows how one may misunderstand even one's friends. I must no longer detain the House. I have merely one argument to make, and that is in reply to stmething said by the right hon. leader of the official Opposition. He said: Under this resolution proposed by the member for Brome you might have in the Cabinet men representing the British Empire Steel Corporation and the Dominion Textile Company; that there is nothing to prevent great industrial corporations having their directors in the Cabinet; and the member for Brome says that that is all right. Of course, my right hon. friend sometimes exaggerates.	I
never said that that is all right. I grant that that abuse is not specifically covered by this resolution. I grant the difficulty of keeping out certain companies and saying that the directors of those companies should not be in the Cabinet. What I have done is to pick out those classes of companies the directors of which have a particular fiduciary relation to their shareholders; thus the banks look after the money of the people, the trust companies look after the estates of the people. The companies I have picked out are large companies, companies which are very powerful and whose operations affect the whole people. It is possible that my resolution does not go far enough, but I say it is a step in the right direction and I trust it will meet with the approval of this House.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 52, respecting The Canadian Transit Company-Mr. Rankin.
Bill No. 53, respecting Itabira Corporation Limited, and to change its name to "Itabira	Corporation".-Mr.	Maclean
(Halifax).

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the adjournment of the House:
William Stevens Fielding: Before the House adjourns, may I be permitted to announce a very important financial transaction which has just been closed. The Government have sold $100,000,000 of Canadian bonds to Messrs.
J.	P. Morgan and Company of New York. The bonds will be placed on the market tomorrow at par, bearing interest at five per cent, for a thirty-year period, callable after twenty years. The Government, of course have to pay commission to the banks, but the bonds will be offered to the public to-morrow in New York.


Arthur Meighen: May I ask the Prime Minister what will be the business tomorrow, aside from rejoicing over further debt?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will take up estimates of the Department of Railways as they affect civil government. Then we will go on with Militia and Defence, and, if we finish those, with Indian Affairs.


Arthur Meighen: In the Railway Department, only civil government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motidn agreed to, and the House adjourned at 1.08 a.m., Tuesday.
Wheat Board
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 25, 1922