1932-02-11

Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	Has the Russian government made a proposal to the Canadian government to purchase $5,000,000 worth of aluminum in exchange for other goods?
2.	If so, what was the answer of the government?


Mr. BENNETT:: The answer to the first
part of the question is no; the answer to the second part is that it is answered by the reply to the first.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	Have any directors of the Canadian National Railways resigned or signified their intention of resigning?
2.	How many applications have been made to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Canadian National Railways for interchange

Questions as Orders for Returns
connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway during the years 1922 to 1932 inclusive?
3.	How many applications made to the Board
of Railway Commissioners by the Canadian National Railways for interchange connection with the Canadian Pacific Railway or any other railway company have been granted during the years 1922 to 1932 inclusive?	_
4.	What railway company carries the mail from Vancouver, British Columbia, to eastern points in Canada and to points destined for United States, Great Britain and European mails?
5.	At what rate is the mail from Vancouver to these points carried?
6.	What amount of money was paid for the transportation of all such mail service for the year 1931?



SALARIES OF CIVIL SERVANTS

Mr. REID:: How many persons in the employ of the Dominion government are in receipt of the following salaries, or remunerations: $4,000 or more, up	to	$4,900,	$5,000	or	more, up to$5,900; $6,000 or more, up to $6,900; $7,000 or more, up	to	$7,900;	$8,000	or	more, up to
$8,900; $9,000 or more, up to $9,900; $10,000 or more, up to $10,900; $11,000 or more, up to $11,900; $12,000 or over?



RAILWAY INTERCHANGE CONNECTIONS

Mr. REID:: 1.	How many applications have been made to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for interchange connection with the Canadian National, or any other railway company, during the years 1922 to 1932, inclusive?
2.	How many applications have been made to the Board of Railway Commissioners by the Canadian National Railways Company, for interchange connection with the Canadian Pacific or any other railway company, during the years 1922 to 1932, inclusive?



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. REID:: 1.	Was any assurance given by the federal government, or any official of the federal government, to the province of British Columbia, or to any official of the province of British Columbia, to the effect that the Dominion government would advance funds to cover the municipal share of costs in connection with unemployment relief work?
2.	If so, on what date was the assurance given?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Did I understand the minister to say that this question should be passed as an order for return? I would respectfully point out that it only asks a simple question as to whether any assurance was given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is an inference to
be drawn from the documents; that is the answer.



LAWYERS EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT

Mr. BARRETTE:: 1.	What are the names of lawyers or firms of lawyers who have been assigned government cases in the province of Quebec, since July 28, 1930: (a) for the Department of Justice; (b) for the Department of National Revenue; (c) for the Department of Finance; (d) for the Department of Secretary of State and External Affairs; (e) for the Department of Railways and Canals (1) the railway commission; (2) the administration of railways; (f) for the Department of Marine and Fisheries; (g) for the Post Office Department; (h) for the Department of the Interior; (i) for the Department of Immigration and Mines; (j) for the Department of National Defence; (k) for the Department of Pensions and National Health; (1) for the Department of Public Works; (m) for the Department of Agriculture; (n) for the Department of Trade and Commerce; (o) for the Department_of Labour?
2.	What amounts were paid, during the last fiscal year, to each of said lawyers?



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, legislation was
passed last year providing for the payment by the federal government of 75 per cent of the amount spent on old age pensions. May I ask when these payments will be made by the federal government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman might put his
question on the order paper; it involves consideration, and there has been much correspondence between the provinces and the dominion.



NEW ZEALAND TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I ask the Minister of Trade and
Commerce (Mr. Stevens) when he expects to be able to make an announcement to the house with regard to the New Zealand treaty?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Not for a few days.



THE PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. FRANKLIN AHEARN (Ottawa):: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the
Australian Treaty Rates

government, when the bill to reduce civil service salaries by 10 per cent is introduced, to name a select committee of this house which will be empowered to hear any representations which may be made by those most affected by the measure?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is no.



SEED AND FEED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I should
like to direct a few words to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) and in order to make my point clear I will quote freely from the Winnipeg Free Press of February 9, 1932:
Word still is being awaited from Ottawa concerning Premier Bracken's plea for dominion aid in the cost of shipping seed grain and feed for live stock to farmers in the drought afflicted areas. This was the information given to J. T. McCallum, reeve of Arthur, in the southwestern part of the province, when he called on the provincial Department of Agriculture Monday morning.
The minister will recall a conversation I had with him a few days ago, and he will recognize the fact that this statement does not quite harmonize with what he said to me on that occasion. I wish to request the Minister of Agriculture to make a full statement to the house on this question of seed and feed grains at the earliest possible opportunity. It is an important question-
Some lion. MEMBERS:	Order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This does not appear to
be a question which should be directed to the ministry on the orders of the day.



AUSTRALIAN TREATY RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: Last
year when the treaty between Australia and Canada was being discussed I directed the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to what I considered to be a discrepancy between the preference given on canned salmon and that given on canned crustaceans. At that time the minister stated that he had done the best he could with Australia, but I asked him to take up the matter again and he said he would be glad to discuss it with that country. I would like to know if the minister has had an opportunity of doing so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have had many very
satisfactory conversations with representa-

tives of Australia since that time, and without any notice of the question I cannot say offhand just what has been done in this regard. I am under the impression that the matter has been fairly well covered.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister look it
up?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes.



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Speakman:
Whereas; the problem of production has been largely solved, assisted greatly by the application of scientific methods and the results of organized technical research; and
Whereas; the federal government has contributed to that end by the establishment of the National Council of Scientific Research, and by the financial assistance given to that body; and
Whereas; the problem of distribution, with the kindred questions of purchasing power and the exchange values of agricultural and other commodities, together with their relation to the growing problem of unemployment, are still unsolved, and demand immediate attention with systematized investigation and scientific study; and
Whereas; this can best be done at the instance of the state and by men of scientific training enabled to devote their entire time and attention to the study of this important subject;
Therefore be it resolved; that, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the establishment and maintenance of some organized body for this purpose, which body might be known as the National Council of Social and Economic Research.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, this resolution was introduced yesterday afternoon by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman). I will summarize its subject matter briefly. It calls to our attention the fact that the problem of production has been to a very large extent solved; that scientific research has greatly contributed to that solution, and that the government has recognized the services of science in that respect and has organized and financed a national council of scientific research. Then the resolution goes on to point out that there are still to be solved some very grave economic problems, for which solutions have not yet been found either in Canada or any other country; it suggests that a body should be organized to take up the study of these questions, and that such body should be known

Economic Research-Mr. Irvine
as a national council of social and economic research.
The hon. member for Red Deer brought this matter before the house last session, and on that occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) was highly critical of the suggestion. In his speech yesterday the minister was still very critical indeed, as well as somewhat sceptical of the anticipated results of such a proposal, but withal he exhibited a tolerant if not a receptive attitude of mind, so I would congratulate the hon. member for Red Deer on having made at least some progress with respect to an idea.
I think we might say that the 'history of philosophy flows into two main streams of thought. The one is that the individual has absolute freedom, that the human being is free to plan and do as he may will. This idea is epitomized in the words "I am the captain of my soul; I am the master of my fate." That is the one idea. The other is that of historical materialism, as it is sometimes called; the idea of economic determinism. that everything is determined by certain economic conditions. These two ideas run through the history of philosophy. The philosophy of history, which is a very different thing from the history of philosophy, shows that both streams flow together into the great sea of human activity. In other words, the ultimate depends as much upon the reaction of the human mind to the events as it does upon the events themselves. I hold the view that there is possible a wise and prudent action which can be taken to meet any given situation but that action is not likely to be wise or prudent unless there is a thorough knowledge of all the facts embraced in the particular situation. Holding that view with regard to matters of social and economic import to the nation, I hold also the view that some body should be entrusted with the responsibility of pursuing and systematizing the study of national matters, with the common weal as the objective. The governments of all countries, as well as the government of Canada, are endeavouring to function to some extent in that capacity. No doubt each government attempts to plan its work in the best way it can, no doubt each government has in view the common weal but the tremendous task of administrative work and the carrying out of legislative policies, especially in times such as these, entirely absorbs the attention of the statesmen, and we cannot expect them to make a special study of the problems which are to-day so pressing.
We have proposed in previous sessions, as we do now, that the government should take into consideration the creation of a body to be known as the council of social and economic research. This body would devote itself to the study of social and economic problems with the viewpoint of the national well-being. It would give the same attention to these matters which scientists in the past have devoted to the question of production and so forth. We believe that this function should be performed by a body other than an administrative body, insmuch as that body always will have sufficient to do in carrying on the ordinary affairs of state. For upwards of a century and a half scientific research has made great strides in the field of production, its contribution to human progress has 'been amazing and beyond all possible computation. Governments throughout the world have recognized the value of scientific research in matters of industrial pursuit and our own National Council of Scientific and Industrial Research is an example of the foresight displayed by Canadian governments both of to-day and of the past in respect to the value of scientific information in connection with production.
Scientific methods of production however when accompanied iby unsoientifie methods of distribution constitute in a general way the modern problem. I do not hesitate to say that our council of scientific research will do more harm than good if it is not supplemented by social and economic research. Still further to increase production which is to-day so great that we do not know what to do with it, without paying attention to the other half of the problem, that of distribution, will make our problem more acute than ever.
Those of us who believe in the possibility of a planned national economy are sometimes characterized as bolshevists and dangerous characters. I have no objection to being thus characterized. Nevertheless I may say that I advocate the idea embodied in this resolution in the hope that bolshevism may be unnecessary. In my opinion there is no way by which we can prevent the disruption of the world other than by the intelligent planning of the affairs of the peoples and of the countries of the world. If there is no planned defence against chaos, then we will have bolshevism; if we act according to plan, we can avoid such catastrophes.
The hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) made a telling point in his speech of yesterday. He referred to the great problem which faces Canada to-day in connection with her

Economic Research-Mr. Irvine
railways and lie suggested that if plans had been laid some years ago in connection with the transportation system we would not now be saddled with a problem which is almost too heavy to be borne. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in the speech he delivered a few days ago made reference to this railway problem. He said something to the effect that it was difficult to explain why there should have been such a rush to build three transcontinental railways to serve less than ten million people. The reason that was done was because no one had any reason for doing anything, they just did it. Our railroad system grew just as Topsy grew, and we are now faced with the difficulty which that kind of policy brings to any people or to any nation. It must be clear that if there had been any planning from a national viewpoint at the commencement of our railroad policy then the government of to-day would not be confronted with the great problem which now confronts them. I question whether many of us are able to appreciate the magnitude of that problem.
That is an example of the lack of planning. Meanwhile we are building up other systems just as thoughtlessly and just as carelessly which in the near future will result in problems for some other government to solve. It must be clear to everyone that any attempt at planning, even though it is not as successful as it might be, even though it bristles with difficulties as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) pointed out, will have some effect in easing the problems of future statesmanship. Some hon. members may be impatient because our proposal may appear to be very abstract, far away from the balancing of the budget and the equalization of freight rates, a considerable distance away from revenue and all that sort of thing, but we do not expect that the budget will be balanced this year as a result of the adoption of our proposal of planned economy. While we regard our proposal as being quite practical we know that the results wiil not be apparent at the moment. However, we do argue that its results some day will be very apparent and serviceable to the state. This is the time to begin to plan to prevent the occurrence of some things with which we may have difficulty in our public life years hence.
We appreciate the difficulties which will confront any government which undertakes to establish a body of this kind. I may not appreciate the difficulty to the same extent as does the Minister of Trade and Commerce, some of the difficulties may be never

absolutely overcome but we should not stop trying to do a thing because there are difficulties in the way, those difficulties must be overcome in one way or another. Any one of the difficulties which were mentioned yesterday by the minister might have been just as appropriately brought forward as an objection to the scientific research council which is now functioning. It might have been said at the inception of this council:	Where will you
get your men? Will you go to the universities for them or will you find them at the head of great industrial enterprises? Will you put pure theorists or bolshevists in charge? Who will you put into your scientific research council? The same questions can be asked now. But those difficulties are not insurmountable.
There are those to-day who are fearful for the survival of the economic system. I do not know whether it is going to survive or not. I would say that it has no more claim on eternal life than any other economic system, nor has civilization for that matter. Civilizations in the past have come and gone and we do not know but what ours may go too, although I agree with the minister when he said yesterday that in the present system there are many things which are well worthy of being safeguarded. Nevertheless nobody knows whether the present system is going to survive the existing crisis or not. Supposing we just for the moment imagine it does not survive. Then what? Surely if there is the barest possibility of its not surviving, then we ought to be planning what we are to do when it ceases to exist. But take the other alternative. Supposing it does survive; supposing once more we crawl out of this bog of depression and start on our next cycle. In that event this is the moment to begin planning to prevent the next depression, for just as surely as we emerge with the system as it now is, just as certainly will the next depression fall upon us and it will be more depressed than this one. We shall be deeper in the bog, and if we are going to try to avoid that, now is the day and the hour to begin. There is no use in talking now about this depression; we cannot do anything but try to adjust ourselves to it and carry on. We should have been planning against this ten years ago. If we had done so, it could have been avoided. The next depression can be avoided if we begin now to plan against it.
The minister charged yesterday that we had not been very practical in the suggestions and that he had some difficulty in understanding just what we meant by national planning and what function we expected to be per-

Economic Research-Mr. Irvine
formed by such a body as we proposed. I want to touch for a little on the practical side of the question and I do not think I can do better than read a very short selection from a modern school book which I have no doubt the minister has read, because I know he is an omnivorous reader on matters of this sort. Perhaps the house will bear with me while I read this excerpt from this school book which is entitled "What happens when they work without a plan."
Mr. Fox acquires money-one million dollars. But money must not remain idle. Mr. Fox looks through newspapers, he consults friends, he employs agents. From morning till night the agents comb the city, look about, and make inquiries. What is to be done with the money of Mr. Fox?	,
At last a business is found. Hats! That is what one should make. Hats sell; men get rich.
There is nothing to hesitate about. Mr. Fox builds a hat factory.	,
The same idea occurs at the same time to Mr. Box, and Mr. Crox, and Mr. Nox. And they all begin to build hat factories simultaneously.
Within half a year there are several new hat factories in the country. Shops are filled to the ceiling with hat-boxes. Store rooms are bursting with them. Everywhere there are posters, signs, advertisements; hat, hats, hats. A great many more hats are made than are needed-twice as many, three times as many. And the factories continue to work at full speed.	.
And here something happens that neither Mr. Fox, nor Mr. Box, nor Mr. Nox, nor Mr. Crox anticipated. The public stops buying hats. Mr. Nox lowers his price twenty cents; Mr. Crox, forty cents; Mr. Fox sells hats at a loss in order to get rid of them. But business grows worse and worse.
In all of the papers advertisements appear:
You may have only one head, but that does not mean at all that you should wear only one hat. Every American should have three hats.
Buy the hats of Mr. Fox!
Mr. Box offers to sell hats on a three-year instalment plan.
Mr. Nox announces a sale:
Only for one day! Take advantage of this opportunity!
But this does not help. Mr. Fox lowers the wages of his workers one dollar a week. Mr. Crox lowers the wages two dollars a week. Again business grows worse and worse.
All at once-stop! Mr. Fox closes his factory. Two thousand workers are discharged and permitted to go wherever they please. The following day the factory of Mr. Nox stops. In a week practically all hat factories are standing idle. Thousands of workers are without work. New machines grow rusty, buildings are sold for wreckage.
A year or two pass. The hats bought from Nox, Fox, Box, and Crox wear out. The public once more begins to buy hats. Hat stores become empty. From the top shelves dusty cartons are taken down. There are not enough hats. Prices on hats go up.
And now, not Mr. Fox, but a certain Mr. Doodle, thinks of a profitable business-the building of a hat factory. The same idea also enters the heads of other wise and businesslike people-Mr. Boodle, Mr. Foodie, and Mr. Noodle. And the old story begins over again.
There is the story of production on the north American continent, and as well of all the countries of the world. There is absolutely no preparation, no planning, with the result that in connection with some commodities we have a tremendous over-production, and in connection with others, we may have too little. For instance, there is nobody in Canada to-day that knows whether there will be enough boots made in this country next year to go on the feet of the Canadian people. Nobody is looking into that matter. We leave that to chance. Nobody knows whether in Canada next year there will be enough wheat to feed the Canadian people. We take a chance on that because we say the farmers are so foolish they will grow wheat for nothing, so that they will continue doing that.
There is absolutely no plan in any country that I know of that takes care of the national economy in such a way that we may feel sure that production will be sufficient; that it will not be wasteful; that it will not be too much. That is a function that I say has not been performed in any country and it is one that must be performed if we are to avoid disaster in the future. I am not saying that this task should be undertaken by the Department of Trade and Commerce; I am not saying that it should be undertaken as a political matter; I am saying that it should be undertaken as a national, scientific scheme with a view to running the affairs of the country on an intelligent basis.
Let me cite a few more practical suggestions. It was suggested that this national planning was only a phrase which we were in danger of using just to sound wise and, well, trifle with. Let us look at a practical suggestion. Take the issuance of currency and credit in Canada for the years 1931 or 1932, or 1933, the years that are coming. Can there be any question more important to the business welfare, the commercial welfare and indeed the very welfare of the people than that? But there is no planning about it. There is no way of controlling the issuance of currency or credit so that it has the proper volume in relation to the business to be done. That is just left, as in the case of the way in which Mr. Cox and Mr. Nox built their hat factories, to competition between two or three

Economic Research-Mr. Irvine
bankers, and that is all the regulation there is. The result is only too apparent.
Take another illustration. Take the investments of insurance funds, an enormous amount of money collected from the people of Canada entrusted to a few private individuals to invest largely for their own gain, because the gains do not return to the policy holders. Think of how some companies invest their money in highly speculative stocks; consider the endangering of these investments. Insurance companies may invest the money they control either inside Canada or outside. Consider the direct effect upon the industrial life of Canada of the investment of such an enormous amount. The effect is tremendous. But there is no national voice which directs how that money shall be invested. It may be invested in mines in Timbuctoo or in soap factories in the Argentine, if they have any there, or in any other industry in any other part of the world. So far as Canada is concerned there is no direction at all. That is a practical proposition for a council such as is suggested in the resolution to deal with.
Then take the question of production itself. No planning is made with regard to quantity of production in Canada or in any other country, so far as I know, except perhaps in Russia. Nor is there any planning with regard to the quality, nor with regard to the variety of production. In this connection I should like to quote a sentence or two from Mr. Stuart Chase, a very orthodox authority whose opinion ought to count for a good deal in an argument on this question. He says:
We drown in a sea of things which we do not use, which we lose, which get out of style, which we give to friends and which they do not need, which disappear somewhere; fountain pens, cigar lighters, cheap rings, razors, endless trinkets, gew-gaws. We destroy mountains of good iron ore and an endless quantity of horsepower in order in a few months to fill rubbish cans with them.


Mr. SPENCER:: Will the hon. member
say who Mr. Stuart Chase is?


William Irvine: I cannot give his pedigree
but he is a member of the labour bureau of the United States and a man of considerable authority on practical economics. He has written works on the tragedy of nations and so forth. He is, of course, an American. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is the kind of thing we should do some planning about-the quantity and quality and variety of production. About the only product in Canada that we try to look after to-day in regard to quality is the farmers* wheat. We are very particular to grade the farmers' wheat No. 1 or No. 6, but I do not know anyone who is

grading boots or undershirts or anything else we have to buy except the products of the farm. The quality of these different products ought to be guaranteed by the state so that a man would know that when he is buying an article he is getting what he is paying for. That is a matter that should be thoroughly supervised. There should be supervision of production with regard to quantity, quality and variety. There are thousands of things that we do not need at all that are just being made by speculators to make money for themselves by producing some article that tickles the fancy of the public.
How are we going to get a body to consider all these things? I do not believe that it is impossible at all. I will conclude my remarks by saying that we believe that the contribution of science in the field of sociology and political economy can be just as great and just as effective as it has been in the field of production. We feel that the great task of our time is a sociological task; not so much a problem of production, although we do not want to lose sight of that. We believe that unless we can solve the sociological problem as adequately as we have solved the production problem we cannot avoid chaos, and so we urge that the government should give reasonable consideration to our suggestion. We do not expect that to-morrow we shall have a fully fledged scientific bureau at work dealing with these matters, but we hope to create a body of opinion in Canada that will more and more look towards a higher and better knowledge for solutions of the problems of our day, and we trust that steps will be taken very soon to develop such a body charged with such a function. That is our hope in supporting this resolution.


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON (East Algoma):: I desire to make one or two observations with regard to the resolution, not by way of criticism at all, but in an effort to get some enlightenment. I do not propose to attempt to follow my hon. friend who has just sat down (Mr. Irvine) through the maze of his arguments except to say that I am very much afraid that when he undertakes to mould the Canadian people into a character that would accept the grading of our boots and our hats and our coats and specifying that they must be of a particular type and kind and put on the market at a particular time, he will be faced with very considerable difficulty.
I wish to refer to one paragraph of the resolution itself:
Whereas; the problem of distribution, with the kindred questions of purchasing power and

Economic Research-Mr. Nicholson
the exchange values of agricultural and other commodities, together with their relation to the growing problem of unemployment, are still unsolved, and demand immediate attention with systematized investigation and scientific study;
In that connection I also wish to refer to a phrase that was used by the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution (Mr. Speakman), who referred to the creation of a planned economy that would solve the problems that are dealt with in the paragraph of the resolution which I have just quoted. I take it that what the hon. member has in mind is some plan which will enable us to distribute the products that we create to the satisfaction of the producer on the one hand and of the consumer on the other. If we in this dominion were confined within an airtight compartment independent of all other nations and all other plans, we might reach some measure of success in carrying out the idea which my hon. friend has in mind. I would mention three commodities that we produce in Canada which to-day owing to the industrial conditions are exercising a dire effect on the economic life of our whole country. One of them, the chief, I would say, is the wheat of western Canada. Another is pulp and paper, and the third is lumber. I take the liberty of saying that if these three industries were on a sound and profitable basis our problems in Canada would be very largely solved. But how are we going to work out a plan that will solve the difficulties of these industries? Very few years ago, after an intensive study on the part of those who know, or at least think they understand the question of the production and marketing of wheat, a plan was worked out that seemed at the time to be very satisfactory to that industry. Businessmen all over this country thought the plan was satisfactory, but while that plan was being put into effect somebody else in some other part of the world was working out a different plan. The Argentine, Russia and the wheat-consuming countries in Europe had a different plan entirely from ours, and our plan with regard to wheat went completely to pieces in 1928 and 1929.
The pulp and paper association were working on a plan in connection with their industry, and they had worked out a plan that seemed to be perfect in itself. They could produce and sell because there were consumers to buy, but the market on the North American continent fell from under them, and the result was that their plan went to pieces.
The producers of lumber are in a similar situation. I happen to know something about 41761-8
that myself because for the last year and a half I have been working in association with many others on a plan by which the product which I am engaged in turning out could be put on the British market, but while I was engaged on that plan others were working out an entirely different plan and their plan took that market away from us.
We might trace back through the life of any man who is sitting in this house and see what the plan of that life has been; we might begin by working out a plan such as the hon. member for Red Deer has suggested, stating how much wheat we should produce, how much beef, how much butter, how much lumber, how many pairs of boots, and so on. Following his suggestion, and losing sight altogether of all the other people whose activities we cannot in the least degree control, I wonder what would happen to our plan? As the minister said yesterday, the whole progress of the world has been based on the gradual evolution which men have created by progressing, one step at a time. The position mankind now occupies has not been the result of any definite, fixed plan, and in my judgment to attempt to work out a plan by which we would absolutely control production by saying to this man, "You do this," or "You do that" is not reasonable. The time may come when that may take place, but in my opinion we will not get out of our present difficulties by endeavouring to formulate a plan such as that. On the other hand, we might reach a solution of our troubles, if the problems, now taxing the best brains in the world, were fairly faced by everybody. We will not reach a solution however by any effort to organize a plan which will control what we produce, what we sell, how we produce it and how we sell it.
I should like someone to go to the independent farmers of western Canada and say to one of them, "You must grow wheat," to another, "You must grow barley;" to another, "You must sell this" and to another, "You must sell that"-and at such and such a price. I am very much afraid any organization attempting such a plan would find itself up against very serious difficulties.
I am not going to discuss what is being done in a country about which we hear a great deal. The Russian people and their plan may be all right but, as the minister said yesterday afternoon, to attempt to apply their scheme to an Anglo-Saxon people, to Canadians, would result in nothing but ultimate failure. During the last session and for several previous sessions I listened to speeches

114	COMMONS
Economic Research-Mr. Woodsworth
such as those we heard yesterday. I am not in the least critical; any hon. member who listened must have admired the manner in which the hon. member for Red Deer presented his case, but up to this moment these gentlemen who have apparently given so much thought and care to the subject have not placed before the house, so far as I know, one constructive suggestion as to how this plan may be worked out, who will work it out, or how it will operate after it has been prepared.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 
Mr. POULIOT:: Before my hon. friend
proceeds I should like to ask him a question. Does he take into consideration the fact that Russia has repudiated her debt to France?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would prefer not to go into the question of repudiation; it is a very complicated matter. I said I hoped we could get through this discussion of economics without bringing in the political affairs of Russia. However, I might just remind the hon. gentleman in passing that when those debts were being contracted the London Times warned British investors against subscribing to the Russian loans, which were being used by the Czar to prevent the establishment of a parliamentary system of government. The French invested in Russian securities notwithstanding warnings of that character. France herself through her inflationist policy, repudiated a great percentage of the debts she owed and there are other countries which will have to repudiate their debts also before many months have passed.
But I want to come back to the Russian economic system. I think no one can read the statistics, or can visit that country, without being tremendously impressed by the economic development that has taken place. I have never seen a country which was experiencing such a boom as is taking place in Russia at the present time. It may be that the boom will not last. I am not a prophet; i am merely stating what is evident to even a tourist. It is a tremendous boom which is in progress at the present time. The soviet authorities have beaten down opposition, as I have said; they have adopted their plan and now they are beginning to get results.
I spent an evening-a very pleasant evening, I may say-with Mr. Yazikoff, who was here some years ago as Russian trade commissioner. A number of members of this house met him at that time. After he had told me a good deal about the progress of Russia in the last six or seven years he turned
to me and said, "I have been telling you about Russia; I wish you would tell me something about the progress of Canada in the last five or six years." That question struck me like a blow between the eyes. The progress of Canada in the last five or six years? I felt like throwing up my hands and saying that in the last few years Canada, instead of progressing, has been going back. I think there is not much doubt about that. It is not a question of this or that party being in power; the fact is that Canada has not been progressing in the last five or six years. So the greater part of Europe is stagnant to-day, but in that great country of soviet Russia, at least for the time being, they have struck upon something that is succeeding.
I talked to a large number of American technicians, who had no interest whatever in communism. In fact they repudiated it; they were there simply as experts to give advice, and I think the opinion of these men could be summed up in the words of one of them who was on the train with me as we came out. He said, "I have been all over this country in the last three or four months making a survey. If things were done as efficiently here as they are in America I could have done my work in as many weeks. No doubt there is a great deal of inefficiency and waste, but these Russians do not often make the same mistake twice. They are learning, and I think they are going to make good. If they do there is going to be a hard time ahead for us in America." He was from the western United States and, after having made a survey, that was his opinion. Whether or not we agree with communism it is absolutely stupid for us to adopt that policy which traditionally belongs to the ostrich, that of burying its head in the sand. We cannot refuse to see what is going on. If for no other reason than to compete with communism I think it would be a good thing if the members of this house, and representatives of western Europe generally, looked well into what is going on.
For my part, I am not one of those who would lightly dismiss communist ideas; certainly the communists have hit upon something that is producing results. I am quite willing to admit that it may be that an autocratic system of this kind is possible only with a people having the Russian temperament. It may be that a democracy would not lend itself to the successful carrying through of a communist program. I would take exception however to what was said here yesterday, that we are a free people and can do as we please. We have very little freedom in this country, and while I do not like the dictator-
118	COMMONS
Economic Research-Mr. Woodsworth
ship they have in Russia, and do not hesitate to say so, neither do I like the dictatorship we have in this country of oure, a financial dictatorship which operates under the guise of a democracy.


Mr. PETTIT:: Would the hon. member care to deal with the remuneration of the workers who are engaged in this five year plan?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is difficult to compare the two as it would involve very extensive computations. I would recommend the hon. gentleman to read a very fine article by Louis Fischer which appeared two or three weeks ago in the New York Nation. This article goes exhaustively into the question of wages. Personally I believe that wages are lower there than in Canada, but it is not the amount of wages paid, it is what goes with the wages. These people are getting many social opportunities which our people do not get. I attended theatres such as we do not have in Canada. I attended operas such as do not exist in Paris, Vienna or Berlin. Those operas were frequented by the ordinary working people who received tickets at the doors of the factories as part of their wages. Under these diverse systems it is extremely difficult to compare the remuneration received by the two sets of workmen.
This is a big field and if I may I will deal only with the economic phase. In visiting Russia the first thing which strikes one is the fact that they have no unemployment. I was in Austria where unemployment is simply desperate. I was in Berlin where unemployment is affecting not only the unskilled workers, not only the skilled tradesmen, but large numbers of business and professional workers. The civic authorities very kindly took me around to some of the unemployment bureaus. At one they had hundreds of applications for relief. These applications had not been received from working men, but they were from school teachers, university professors, artists, musicians and skilled technicians. There were men who had been at the head of large works as supervising engineers; I saw the applications of men who had been drawing salaries of from $10,000 to $20,000 per year as consultants. These men were down and out and were glad to receive relief from the city. Unemployment is something like paralysis which works up. With us it has only reached the ankles and the knees, with them it has gone higher and higher until .it has reached the business and professional classes. There are at least six million unemployed in Germany to-day, involving probably twenty million individuals

or about a third of the entire population. You leave Germany and go into Russia and you cannot find any unemployment. In fact they cannot get people in fast enough to do the work.


George Hamilton Pettit: That is because they are
conscripted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, they are not
conscripted. I will give a little illustration. On the same train with me were three Austrians, one a mechanic who had been unemployed and was going to Russia in the hopes of obtaining a job, the other two were musicians. Within a few days after his arrival the working man had got a steady job, and before we left the two musicians came to our hotel and told us that they had signed a contract for a year with a soviet state theatre. The peasants are being encouraged to come in from the country districts to Moscow and the other large cities, after the harvest. I travelled on one of those trains and I would not like to spend another night under such circumstances. Traffic is fearfully congested: but, there is activity all along the line. A contrast with our railway situation!
In Moscow the housing shortage is very great. Nearly every other house is being rebuilt, or the old house being torn down to be replaced with a new one. I have never seen anything like it in my life. What is true of Moscow and Leningrad is equally true of the other cities right through to eastern Siberia. There is tremendous activity everywhere.
A great deal has been said about conscript labour. There may be some in the northern camps, although opinion is divided on that. The great majority of the people are no more working under conscription than are the workmen in this country where if you do not work you cannot get anything to eat. That is perhaps the only conscription they have there and the same applies here in perhaps a more violent form.
They have a planned economy, they know where they are going. It may be that they may not be able to complete the five-year plan, but what about it? If they do not do it in five years, they may do it in six; if they do not do it in six years, they may do it in seven. The vital thing is that they have a plan ahead of them, they are working towards that plan and they are enthusiastic about it. I do not talk Russian but I was able to obtain considerable information from Canadians and from Englishmen who have been resident in Moscow for some years.

Economic Research-Mr. Woodsworth
I will give a little illustration which I believe I have published somewhere and which I think is very illuminating. We were waiting at a street comer to allow the traffic to pass and a group of high school boys and girls, ranging in age from fourteen to sixteen years, passed, each one with a spade upon his or her shoulder. They were jollying one another and joking as high school youngsters will, and on inquiring where they were going I was told that this was their free day-they have one day free in five, although I believe in the last few months the plan has been altered in some industries where they now put in six days straight-and they were spending their holiday by giving voluntary assistance to some particular state enterprise which was lagging behind its schedule. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine a group of our high school boys and girls putting spades on their shoulders and starting off to tamp ties on the Canadian National railways? They might if we had such a plan. The fact remains that we lack that enthusiasm which seems to be so prevalent in Russia.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What would have hap-pended had they refused to take those spades on their shoulders?


James Shaver Woodsworth: They were doing it of their own free will. I suppose the high school boys and girls in our country would not like to carry spades, they are a little too aristocratic for that. My hon. friend across the way is inclined to scoff at the freedom with which they did it.


Mr. COTNAM:: The labour unions would not permit it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is quite true. The difference between Canada and Russia is this: here the only possible way in which labour can maintain its position is by adopting the methods more or less in vogue in every organization, that of limiting its numbers and curtailing its output. Lawyers do the same thing, doctors do the same thing, everyone attempts to impose limitations; that is the only way in which they can make their living under a competitive system. In Russia everything is different, the more they produce the greater benefit it is to the public at large. No objection is raised by their unions as it is realized that it is helping along the cause.
In this connection I might mention a visit I paid to one of the gaols. In this country we dare not let the prisoners produce for the public market lest forced labour compete with free labour; in Russia they pay wages to their prisoners and what they produce is sent
into the ordinary commercial channels. Under their system the more that is produced in any one department, the better it is for the community at large. In this country, if we produce too much we get into difficulties. We have more wheat in our western granaries today than we had a year ago; we do not know what to do with it, we cannot market it and yet people who are hungry are unable to eat.
It may be true that Russia is behind in production but it must be remembered that they started at the bottom. They did not have very much to begin with, they did not have a productive machine and so they were short of commodities. But to the extent that they are able to produce, they are distributing commodities to the people. So there do not arise many of the difficulties which we have here such as so-called over-production. Quite naturally some of the members who have not thoroughly studied these things may think they have those difficulties in Russia, but that is not the case.


James Arthurs: What are the living conditions of the workers in Russia as compared with those in Canada?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wish I could have gone into the economics of things without being diverted to living conditions, but I am quite free to say in my judgment living conditions are lower in Russia than Canada. I do not consider, however, that is of very material significance in discussing this question. Let me put it in this way: 101 degrees of temperature is not in itself a very significant thing. If a patient has had a very high fever, 101 degrees of temperature is a good symptom. If a man has been living normally and has been infected, then a temperature of 101 degrees is a dangerous symptom. It all depends on the direction we are travelling.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. member is getting out of his depth.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I may be, but I
think there are other doctors in the house who will agree with me, and the reading of a thermometer is surely not altogether a monopoly of a doctor.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Interpreting it is.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but 101 degrees in one case may be a good symptom, and in another, a bad symptom. I think I may be permitted to use an illustration from the medical profession without being called to task. What I desire to emphasize is that while the standard of living in Russia may be low, so far as I can ascertain it is on the up-
120	COMMONS
Economic Research-Mr. Woodsworth
grade, while, as I see it in Europe and indeed in almost every country I visited and certainly in Canada, instead of our standards of living rising, they are falling. That is the significant point. Although in Russia the standards of living for the moment are lower than ours, I think they are on the up-grade and that is the most challenging thing about the situation.
If I may come to the point that I was about to mention a moment ago when my attention was diverted, this is to me the most interesting thing in contrasting the two economic systems. In this country if we produce too much we get into difficulties, because under our system we are bound to pay dividends on certain stocks which we have or certain investments which we have made.


Mr. STANLEY:: And wages.


James Shaver Woodsworth: And we have to
pay wages, of course. We have to pay dividends and if a number of different institutions reach the point, which I think we have reached now, where they cannot at the same time pay dividends and wages, then wages are likely to suffer. Over in Russia it seems to me that under their system it is possible for them to go on steadily with their production and to devote their production to raising the standard of living of their people. The reason they have not raised wages more rapidly-and this may be a criticism-is this, that they have found it was essential for them to complete their productive machine and after that they would have time enough to raise the general standard of living of the people. The living conditions of the people were low; the people had been comparatively content to have them low, and so the plans have been pushed forward. Probably our people would not be as content to live on as low a standard as the Russians have done, but in the meantime this has enabled those people to build up very rapidly a productive machine. It took us one hundred years or more to build up our machine. We were told by all the classical economists in the old days that we could not have accomplished what capitalism has without the incentive of private gain; that is, had not the big owners been able to save and to salt down a great deal of what was produced and put this surplus into new enterprises.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
been speaking for forty minutes.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I finish this
thought? Russia it seems to me, has shown that that position is untenable. Under the 
communist system it has been possible for them to build up their capital equipment at the same time as they were, to a certain extent at least, raising the standard of living of their people. I trust the house and especially the proposer of the motion will pardon me for introducing Russia; for I know the member for Red Deer has no idea of introducing the Russian system into this country. I take this opportunity of interjecting these remarks because Russia is the outstanding example of a nation with a planned economy.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOI3 POULIOT (Temis-couata):	Mr. Speaker, I have been interested
in listening to my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth), who, as everybody knows, is a great student of these matters. A few weeks ago I read in L'lllustration the story of a journalist. At a reception in Russia where there were many diplomatists he asked one old gentleman about the Russian five-year plan, and the answer was: yes, the five-year plan is a wonderful success. He went on to another diplomat of equal standing and asked him the same question. The answer was: the five-year plan is a complete failure. So, people's views are divided about the matter, and although my hon. friend is sincere in his opinion, it is doubtful whether this country should follow the example of Russia.
What I do not like in the Russian system is the coercion of labour. A man may have a disposition to do a certain line of work, and you cannot force him to do work for which he has no disposition, especially if he is not paid for doing it. Hon. members will remember reading not long ago in one of our Ottawa newspapers that in Russia butter was selling at $50 a pound and a pair of boots at $100. They have different stores for strangers where one can get luxury articles at a decent price, but there are other stores where the Russian workers can get only the primary necessities of life at high cost, and their life is far from being that of the ordinary working man in Canada. Would the unemployed in this country like to see coerced labour here? The problem is a serious one. For instance, take the case of commercial travellers who have been earning decent salaries for many years, many of whom have been discharged. Could you put those men to work on the trans-Canada highway? That would be pretty hard work for them to do. Everyone should work according to his own disposition and this is one reason why the Russian plan may be criticized. I would not go so far as to say that everything in this country is perfect. The other day I read an

Economic Research-Mr. Pouliot
article from the president of the American Telegraph and Telephone Company, who said that matters in the United States were not so bad now even in regard to unemployment because there was plenty of foodstuffs in the warehouses, and conditions would be much worse if there were nothing in reserve. That statement can be challenged, because the system of distribution at present is wrong, and in that connection something should be done to improve conditions. The same applies to this country.
The trouble is that during the last few years the rich have 'become richer, and no one has heard about the poor man 'becoming richer. There are many reasons for this state of affairs. Let us take for instance the big firm of the T. Eaton Company, Limited. At first they had their own store in Toronto. Now they have large stores in Montreal, Ottawa, Moncton, Winnipeg, and they are concentrating the business in one central firm, the shareholders of which are getting richer and richer at the expense of the country storekeepers. Then also we have the chain stores which are controlled by only a few individuals. They take trade away from a great number of people and a few privileged ones enjoy the benefits that a large number of people had before. This causes a disturbance in the social order. How long this will continue no one knows. This idea of concentrating business in a few hands with great profits to a few is a great mistake and it may cause very serious trouble in this country. Oif course, the big firms can sell more cheaply, but they do not give any credit. A few years ago the country merchants were much more prosperous because they had the local people for their customers. I am sure 'that if the Postmaster General would have an investigation made in his own department to ascertain the amount of money that is sent in money orders to big stores like Eaton's and Simpson's from people in the rural municipalities, the house would be astounded if he would give us the figures. Many of the storekeepers in the rural municipalities have failed because they had to trade with those who were asking them for credit and were sending their money to the big cities to the large firms like Eaton's and Simipson's. This is a matter of the utmost importance, which is worthy of the attention of the house. Last year the Postmaster General was 'asked to impose a heavy tax on the catalogues mailed by these firms. When I brought the matter up, the Postmaster General regarded the suggestion somewhat favourably,
but up to now nothing has 'been done about it. I hope that action in that direction will be taken very shortly in order -to protect the country merchants by decentralizing the trade.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: In closing the debate upon the resolution which has been presented, may I express, Mr. Speaker, my appreciation of the interest which has been shown in the subject and of the many intelligent suggestions which have been made and the excellent speeches which have been delivered. As I propose to take only a very few minutes I may be pardoned if I make no lengthy reference to many of the speeches. This afternoon we listened to what I consider to be a most interesting and informative address upon Russia. I recognize, as I think the house does, that the problem in Russia and the problem in this country are so very different and so far apart that the same policies could hardly apply in both countries. In Russia there is no unemployment. Why? Because, Mr. Speaker, in that country their problem is still the problem of production, which we have solved. They are attempting to build in five years a productive system which we have been building through generations, and which in the western world generally has been building for a century. Their problem is that of production; ours is that of distribution. They are dealing with a people unaccustomed to democratic methods. We are dealing with a people who have been taught to think and act for themselves. With other bon. members I was much interested in and appreciative of that address.
Coming to the resolution and the remarks that have been made thereon it struck me as I listened to the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) that with his usual sympathy and intelligent observation he had advanced several fairly strong arguments in favour of the resolution. He pointed out that various plans had been tried in different industries and had failed, and failed, he said, because they were local plans brought forward by individuals or by local or restricted bodies of people. These plans failed, he said, because they did not take into account the plans of other individuals in other communities and of other people engaged in the same business. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we are attempting in some degree to obviate by what I would term a reasonably planned economy.
I am grateful to the various members who have spoken in support of the resolution. I appreciate the very fine addresses that were
122	COMMONS
Economic Research-Mr. Speakman
given by the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) and the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine), addresses full of thought and indicative of the very careful consideration which they had given to the subject. I also appreciate most sincerely the address and support given by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol). Speaking as he did from the point of view of a practical business man of many years experience and as one who had given a profound and detailed study to the subject in general and to the work done by organizations similar to the one we are now suggesting and to similar work that has already been done in various countries in an experimental way, I believe that his suggestions were of undoubted value.
I come now to the address given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). As always, the minister demonstated the brilliant qualities of his mind. Undoubtedly he is a student and a fair-minded man who gives deep and careful consideration to those problems which fall within his own department and problems which are before the country generally. I appreciate also the decided modification in his attitude since he spoke on this subject twelve months ago. His manner yesterday conveyed some change in the position which he took one year ago. His condemnation was not so sweeping, his opposition by no means so definite and comprehensive as was the case at that time. I thank him for that, and I also accept with some satisfaction the promise of sympathetic consideration given.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, and not unexpected, that his attitude was in the main critical. Generally speaking, his criticism was this, and I shall attempt to be fair: His opinion apparently was that neither in the resolution itself, nor in the arguments with which I attempted to support it, was any practical suggestion to be found. To use his own words, any such resolution as the one under discussion and any such statements as I had made in support of it caused him to become a little restive, because he said he was a little bit tired of the practice of enumerating difficulties and problems and then leaving it at that, simply pointing out the problems which lay ahead and offering no solution for them. I must confess at once, Mr. Speaker, that I have no ready-made plan which I can advance, no short-cut to a successful solution of these problems. Had I advanced such a plan, had I said to this house, I have a plan here which if adopted will solve our problems, then the minister would have been right in his criti-
IMr. Speakman.]
cism. But I have no such short-cut. The methods which he suggested-line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little-are the only methods that I myself believe can be successful, and it is that very method which has been put before the house in this resolution. I am suggesting that we commence that work, that we approach with a view to trying to solve them, the various problems which go to make up this depression, because evidently someone must set about solving them.
The government could do this. I recognize that within the ranks of the government, in the minds of the minister himself and those who are his colleagues, there is an abundance of intelligence and ability. But, Mr. Speaker, may I in all kindness suggest to them that facing as they do the every-day details of administration, working as I know they do- the Prime Minister and every member of the cabinet-for hours day after day, they have neither the time nor the opportunity to devote themselves to the study of such a question as the one I have outlined. This problem would demand all that was best of strength and energy, and would require full time study by any body of men. Obviously the government of the day cannot devote that much time to it. Following the suggestion he himself has made I agree that these matters must be the subjects of study and careful thought, they must be approached in detail, and not at one sweeping stroke. The government should call to its assistance men who are competent and who could devote to their work the time the government cannot spare; I am sure such a body would assist and not hinder in the task. That is the scope of the suggestion.
I noted that the minister and other hon. members took exception to the term, "planned economy." He said that it was a term to be played if not trifled with. I assume he meant that it is a term which many people have been in the habit of playing or, trifling with. After all however what is a system of planned economy? It does not necessarily mean planned economy after the Russian style any more than one plan need be similar to another. Surely however some plan is necessary. Who would think of opening a business without making plans? WTho would commence to construct a house without consulting an architect? Who would commence to build a railroad without first laying down a definite and comprehensive plan embracing every detail of the enterprise? Who would enter into any business without planning carefully and in de-

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
tail? Surely, Mr. Speaker, the business of the nation itself deserves and demands careful and judicious planning just as imperative as any private enterprise. The suggestion is not that wo should establish some super committee which would usurp and override the functions of government and, as suggested by the hon. member for East Algoma, tell the people what they should wear and what they should eat, the hours they should rise and when they should go to bed. Such an observation is beneath the intelligence of the hon. gentleman who made it, and on many an occasion we have had evidence of the hon. member's intelligence. That is not the idea at all. But surely even to those profound persons like himself it would be of inestimable value could they come to some competent body of men who could show them where the greatest opportunities lie, along what lines there may be obvious over-production, and receive from them assistance in planning their own destiny.
I am suggesting that it is still possible for a people without domination, for a people reserving to themselves their freedom of action to come together at least to some degree, in a cooperative spirit and agree upon the best lines along which various enterprises might be promoted. The hon. member for East Algoma stated that civilization as we have it to-day is the result of individual effort without a plan. I believe it is, and that is why I suggest the necessity for a slight change. Would anybody in this country, even the most profound individualist who goes abroad to-day and sees the conditions we have, say that with our individual lack of planning, with individual unregulated enterprise our system had been or is now a tremendous and outstanding success?
I am not going to go into those details or to point out the obvious to every hon. member. Anomalies and contradictions exist in this country; it appears to be impossible to make use of what we have to help those in need. We are confronted with a ridiculous situation wherein we have full granaries and empty stomachs, plenty of clothing and bare backs. I need not go further in that connection. I suggest however to those who recognize that situation

and we must all recognize it-it must be obvious that there should and must be a better way.
The statement has been made that the Russian situation is a challenge to us. I agree; it is a challenge to us. I am not denouncing the Russian system, but if we do
denounce it, if we say it is wrong, it is for us to show in our own way and according to our own belief that we can do something better. The interest taken in the Russian republic by the people of western Canada undoubtedly is due to the fact that we are to-day meeting them in competition. As individuals we find that we are going down under that competition, or may all go down under it. Because of that we say, "Plan must be met with plan." Coercion and discipline, if hon. members wish to put it that way, must be met with cooperative action. To assist in that cooperative action and to bring some order out of the chaos which we find in civilization to-day it seems to me we must establish some body of people who will have the time, if the government has not, and who are competent, to search into the causes of these abnormal conditions and, with the good will which should be manifest throughout the country, attempt at least to provide something better than that which we now have.
As I stated before, I appreciate the modified attitude of the minister; I appreciate his suggestion that, subject to the reservation that the government is not pledged to any immediate action, they are pledged to give careful and sympathetic consideration to this matter. I am content to have the resolution accepted on those terms, to leave it to hon. members and to the intelligence, the good will, integrity and knowledge of the government and to their realization that something must be done. At this point I am content to leave the matter for another year to see what steps may be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. McINTOSH:: (a) For a statement detailing the different amounts of money given or loaned by the Dominion government to each of the several provinces during the present fiscal year 1931-32, specifying dates in each case; (b) the specific purpose for which each amount of money so given or loaned was intended; (c) any record or information possessed by the government in regard to the disposition of each of the said sums, explaining in detail the purpose or purposes for which each amount was expended.



ST. RAPHAEL POSTMASTER

Mr. MARCIL (for Mr. Boulanger):: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Adelard Dallaire as postmaster at St. Raphael, county of Belle-ehasse, and the appointment of his successor.

Unopposed Motions for Papers



MR. LOUIS GUAY

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Louis Guay, as postmaster at Ste. Sabine, county of Bellechasse, and the appointment of his successor.



MR. J. N. BELANGER

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. J. N. Belanger, as postmaster at St. Damien, county of Belle-ehasse, and the appointment of his successor.



MR. JOS. LAPRISE

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Jos. Laprise, postmaster at St. Nerde, county of Bellechasse, and the appointment of his successor.
MR. MAXIME l'aBBE


Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Maxime L'Abbe, postmaster at St. Neree Station, county of Bellechasse, and the appointment of his successor.



MR. J. BTE. BOULANGER

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. J. Bte. Boulanger, postmaster at La Durantaye, county of Bellechasse, and the appointment of his successor.



MR. LOUIS N. LATULIPPE

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of Mr. Louis N. Latulippe, postmaster at St. Valier Station, county of Bellechasse, and the appointment of his successor.



MR. NOEL CULET

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of M. Noel Culet, postmaster, at Beaumont, county of Bellechasse, and the appointment of his successor.



NATIONAL HEALTH-PERIODIC EXAMINATION AND MEDICAL RELIEF

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Howdten:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration steps which would: (a) provide for periodic medical examination of the Canadian people; (b) afford medical relief for those suffering from disease.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Number 16 should have been dropped from the order papeT, having been called twice and not spoken to.
It is dropped now.



PRICE OF GASOLINE

Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch) moved:: 
Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker, in seconding this resolution I desire to direct the attention of the house to two or three matters which have come to my attention since I spoke on this subject last year. After the matter had been brought to the attention of the house at the last session a reply, or an attempted reply, to the statements made was published in the Financial Post of June 18, 1931. In this article the oil companies endeavoured to

Price oj Gasoline-Mr. Bothwell
justify the prices which they were charging the public in Canada. I take exception to certain of the figures given in that article, and I believe that many hon. members will agree with me when I say that many of them do not represent the prices charged throughout Canada. For instance, in order to show that in the city of Toronto they were not charging a price greater than that which would permit them to make a reasonable profit, they show an allowance for tank wagon distribution of 4 cents per gallon and an allowance for service station distribution of 5 cents per gallon. I do not know the particular charges in different parts of Ontario, but from my knowledge of those districts on the prairies to which I have had access I can say that no such charges are allowed, and I cannot see how or why such a charge should be allowed in the city of Toronto. The tank wagon allowance runs from 1 to 2i cents instead of 4 cents, while the service station charge runs from 2 to 3 cents. In setting forth why they require protection they state:
There are several grounds on which the Canadian oil industry based its appeals for protection:
1.	That Canada's population of ten million people is scattered over an area greater than that of the United States, and that a large part of the thinly populated territory has to be serviced at a loss.
It will be found that the price of gasoline in different parts of Canada varies according to the district. If you travel away from the railroad you must pay several cents per gallon more than at points on the railway line. I doubt very much the truth of the statement that the people in any particular part of Canada are being serviced at a loss. That is one matter which the committee on banking and commerce could investigate.
The second reason given for the necessity of protection is:
2.	That because of the long winter Canadians demand and receive a much better quality of gasoline than is commonly thought necessary in most parts of the United States and that a large number of Canadian service stations outside the large cities lose money in the winter.
It may be true that some service stations lose money during the winter, as there are any number which are not financed by the oil companies and which close during that season. If the others are operating at a loss I imagine they would do so but a short time before they would be closed.
I have a good deal of doubt, too, about the next statement; in any event it could be investigated :
3.	That the refining capacity being developed in Canada and the immense sums being spent by such companies as Imperial Oil and British American Oil in the last year on modernizing plants create employment which is of prime national benefit.
Surely that is no reason at all why all the people of Canada who are users of gasoline should be exploited to the extent that the figures given by the hon. member for Willow Bunch would indicate. The next one reads:
4.	That since the protection was given the price of gasoline has been successively lowered to its present level, and that the industry could not do better than at present except at a loss, even if it received the crude petroleum for nothing, unless freight rates came down or taxes disappeared. Cost prices given in the tables are average prices. In a city better results can be obtained than in a place of smaller population.
Those are the four reasons which the oil companies allege as entitling them to protection.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch gave figures as to what we are paying for gasoline in excess of what he believes the ' proper price should be, allowing a reasonable profit. On the 30th of November of last year the Regina Leader-Post obtained by telegram information from fifteen United States cities as to the prices of gasoline, and I want to read to the house the results of their findings. On that date, November 30, 1931, the report showed:
The average price of white gas in Canadian cities was 31-37 cents, against a United States average of 24-21 cents, or a difference of 7-16 cents.
These figures are reached by taking into consideration various government taxes _ and also adjusting American prices to imperial gallon measure. Gasoline is sold south of the border on a basis of American gallon, smaller than the imperial gallon used in Canada.
Then they give the comparisons showing the average on the 30th of November last. The figures are as follows:
	White	Ethyl
	gas	gas
	cents	cents
Western Canada	.. 31-37	34-93United States cities..	.. 24-21	27-81Difference	.. 7-16	7-12
They also made inquiries as to prices in different parts of the same states, and this is their finding and report in that regard:
At Minot, North Dakota, close to the Canadian border and almost immediately south of Regina, the price of ordinary gas is 21-5 cents a gallon. In Regina the price is 32-5 cents, 11 cents a gallon more than the Minot price. At Scobey, Montana, just over the border from Saskatchewan, gasoline costs only 28-8 cents.

Price of Gasoline-Mr. Bennett
These American prices are adjusted to the imperial gallon.
In Montana cities there is uniformity in gasoline prices. In North Dakota the same situation is apparent.
On the Canadian prairies there are all sorts of prices. There is two cents difference between the Saskatoon and Regina prices, and in Winnipeg gasoline is selling at 7J cents less than in Regina.
There are big oil refineries in Calgary, Regina, and Winnipeg, but there are not two cities in western Canada with similar figures for gasoline.
We understand at this time that the matter of gasoline prices is being brought before the Saskatchewan legislature, possibly before all the prairie legislatures. They are or intend investigating the matter from a somewhat different angle. We believe here-and this is a matter over which the house has control- that the difference in price is largely attributable to the exploiting that the oil companies are doing by reason of the tariff legislation of 1930. We believe that although some 80 per cent of our gasoline is produced in Canada and only 20 per cent imported, the producers in this country are holding their prices right up to what gasoline could be obtained at from the other side, even with the fixed valuations, the dumping duty being added on those fixed valuations, and the regular duty. We believe the oil companies are taking advantage of everything the tariff allows them, and there has not been a decrease in gasoline prices to the same extent that there has been in prices of other goods. For these reasons we are asking that this matter be referred to a committee in order that there may be a thorough investigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with
great interest to the observations of the hon. members for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) and Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). It is always well, however, not to prejudge a case on its presentation. I shall therefore refrain from endeavouring to traverse in any respect the allegations that have been made. There is one thing I think I should fairly say, and that is that it is not correct to assume that because we produce gasoline in this country, the raw material from which it is produced is produced in Canada. Unfortunately, except for small quantities of crude naphtha found in Turner valley and very small quantities of crude petroleum found in other places, we are entirely dependent, for the production of gasoline in Canada, on imported raw material.

The crude petroleum is brought in not only from Columbia and Peru, but from other parts of the world as well.
The agitation in connection with an investigation into the prices of gasoline has been going on for some time in this country. The observations made by the hon. member for Swift Current first started the discussion last year, and it has been continued with more or less vigour ever since. It will be recalled that the great producing oil companies gave an undertaking at the time that the tariffs were changed in 1930, and by that undertaking they are bound. That, coupled with the provisions of the statute, sufficiently indicates the position of the administration. But owing to the discussions that have taken place in the public press, on public platforms and elsewhere, apparently the companies themselves have been seized of these agitations and discussions, and on the 19th of January the Imperial Oil Limited wrote to me a letter reading as follows:
Rt. Hon. R. B. Bennett, P.C.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir.-
Due to chaotic conditions in the United States, the widespread evasion of gasoline taxes there and to uninformed criticism of the petroleum industry in Canada, an impression has been created that undue profits are being exacted by the industry from the Canadian public. We believe it to be in our own interest, as -well as that of the government, that the situation, in respect to gasoline prices, should be thoroughly ventilated.
Our willingness to submit ourselves to inquiry by any competent tribunal is largely prompted by the beneficial results to us which followed the last public investigation, which was conducted at the instance of the government of Ontario, but which was not limited in scope to the jurisdiction of that province.
Voluntarily, all of the refining companies with head offices in Ontario submitted every detail of their business, Canadian and foreign, to the government. The investigation, which covered a period of five years, occupied months; every document required was produced and executives of all the companies concerned were examined under oath.
The finding was that in the years 1920 to 1924 inclusive, the earnings of these Canadian companies had averaged 8 per cent, and that in no year were they exorbitant. The effect of this upon public opinion was extremely helpful.
Actually, the Canadian consumer is now enjoying lower prices for gasoline and other petroleum products than at any time during the period covered by the investigation referred to and the industry is now working upon a narrower spread over raw material costs than then.

Price of Gasoline-Mr. Carmichael
As a matter of self interest and because the true position cannot be brought before the public in any other way, except at great expense, we wish to advise your government that any inquiry which it may decide to conduct will be facilitated by us.
Yours respectfully,
Victor Ross,
Vice-President, Imperial Oil, Limited.
The fallowing communication, dated January 16, 1932, was received from the McColl-Frontenac Oil Company Limited:
Dear Sir,-
During the last few months there have appeared from time to time, either as speeches in the Canadian House of Commons or as articles in the press, charges that the Canadian [DOT]oil companies have been treating the public unfairly regarding gasoline prices. More recently there have appeared requests from various sources for an investigation by a royal commission appointed by the Canadian House of Commons.
Should such a commission be appointed, I would like to assure you that our company will assist in every way the workings of such commission and be pleased to place before the members all facts pertaining to the operations of our company.
Yours very truly,
McColl-Frontenac Oil Company Limited, J. A. Wales,
Vice-President.
The following letter, dated February 6, 1932, *was received from the British American Oil Company Limited:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,-
I note in Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons of Canada, dated February 4th, notice of motion by Mr. Thos. F. Donnelly, member for Willow Bunch, Saskatchewan, dealing with the price of gasoline to the Canadian consumer.
There has been considerable comment, particularly in western Canada, concerning the price of gasoline compared with the price in the United States, and an investigation would clarify the situation, both from the standpoint of the oil companies and the public. Therefore, on behalf of this company, I advise that I shall be pleased to offer the fullest cooperation should an investigation be determined upon.
I would point out, however, that the manufacture and national distribution of gasoline involves a very comprehensive system of accounting and, therefore, the commission appointed should be technically competent to deal with the situation.
Yoprs very truly,
A. L. Ellsworth,
President.
I shall therefore make no further comment upon the motion other than to indicate that so far as the government is concerned the motion will be adopted in the terms in which it has been prepared. I might say that it is 41761-9
just possible that a smaller committee would be of greater service for those who are putting forward the views that they express, but in order that there may be no misapprehension or misunderstanding or misconception the government will accept the motion in the exact terms in which it was submitted to this house, and in which it was submitted to the press before it was discussed here.
In view of the representations that have been made by the three largest companies vitally affected, I shall not, as I say, discuss the merits or demerits of the observations that have been made with respect to this matter. To prejudge is not the duty of government, but the fullest possible opportunity so far as the facilities of the committee are concerned will be afforded for the investigation, and in the light of the willingness expressed by the three largest manufacturers of gasoline from petroleum in this country I should think there would be no reason why definite results should not follow from the labours of the committee. The committee may require some technical assistance, and that technical assistance will not be denied.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: I was pleased indeed to hear the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) acceding to the request of the -mover of the motion (Mr. Donnelly) to have a committee investigate the price of gasoline. If this matter is to go before the banking and commerce committee, of which I have not previously been a member, I feel like making a few comments which might be helpful to the committee.
I represent a constituency that is, I might say, altogether agricultural. We have large farms of open prairie country which are operated largely by means of the tractor. We have also the combine in use out there, and the motor car, of course, so that gasoline is used very extensively in my constituency. There has been a feeling for some time among the farmers of my district that the price of gasoline is too high. I do not know whether that feeling is warranted or not, and I welcome the opportunity to have the matter properly investigated in a committee so that the correct information may be brought out. In my own district the retail price of gasoline in the -past year has been 35 cents per gallon. That includes 5 cents per gallon for provincial tax, leaving the retail price to the motorist 30 cents per gallon. If the gasoline is for tractor purposes there is a slight reduction in the price because of the larger quantity taken. I have here a letter from the secretary of a



Price of Gasoline-Mr. Carmichael
municipality in my constituency, which perhaps is worthy of presentation to the house. He says:
I am instructed to write you in protest of the duty of 2J cents on gasoline from the United States as a result of which the Canadian consumer has been paying from three to five cents more for gasoline than his competitor in the United States.
I do not know whether that statement is correct or not. He says further:
At a time when agriculture is in such a desperate condition that a very large number of farmers are faced with "downing tools" it is absolutely impossible to carry on under present economic conditions, we feel that you, representing a western agricultural constituency, must see the injustice of increasing costs to the power farmer at a time when it is imperative that everything possible should be done to reduce these to the minimum in order to allow him to continue to exist.
That represents to a large extent the feeling at least among the power farmers in my own constituency.
There are several factors that enter into the price of gasoline, and I shall briefly mention them. One is referred to in this letter-the tariff. Prior to September, 1930, the general tariff on gasoline was one cent per gallon, with some grades coming in free. In September, 1930, the duty was raised to 2^ cents per gallon, and we were assured by the leader of the house that any attempt to increase the price of gasoline because of the increased duty would be speedily dealt with. So we have an effective weapon to deal with this matter if it should 'be proven in the committee that advantage has been taken of the tariff. Another important factor bearing on the price of gasoline is the power that rests in the hands of the Minister of National Revenue to set an arbitrary value for duty purposes on gasoline coming in from the United States. Last year there was a price war on in some of the western states and out our way the people were of the opinion that gasoline was down to a very low price in Oklahoma; yet when that gasoline came to the border the Canadian purchaser was compelled to pay duty on a value arbitrarily set by the Minister of National Revenue. That is a feature that could be inquired into by the committee.
Another factor that enters into the price of gasoline is the freight rate. I have a letter here from another municipal council protesting against the high freight rate on gasoline and asking that as a measure of relief for agriculture the freight rate should be cut in half. I do not know whether that is a feasible proposition or not.

Another fact that is perhaps unknown to a great many of the membere here is that gasoline does not weigh up per gallon to the weight 'used in charging freight. I quote from a letter from the secretary of a municipal council in my constituency. He says:
We find upon examination of freight bills of tank ears of gasoline coming to this point that they are billed with the weight figured on the basis of eight pounds to the gallon, and when a gallon is weighed out it turns the scale at seven pounds.
The average car will run over 6,000 gallons so that the consumer pays freight as a rule on three tons of gasoline which is not carried by the company and never received by the dealer which turns out roughly at $50 per car.
If that is correct, it seems to me that the committee might take notice of it, and have the difficulty rectified. This secretary protests also against the high price of gasoline, and asks for a reduction in the freight rate charges as a relief to agriculture.
There is another feature to which I should like to direct the attention of hon. members. During the past season in my own district a number of farmers and residents have gone across the border into the province of Alberta, a matter of about fifty miles, and purchased what they called distillate at 15 cents a gallon, with no tax payable to either the province of Alberta or the province of Saskatchewan. I am informed that distillate is superior to gasoline for motor car purposes, if you are content to bear with the odour arising from it. So far as power is concerned it seems to test a little higher than refined gasoline. In any case a great many of the residents of my own constituency have been crossing the border into the province of Alberta, purchasing this cheaper product and using it both in their tractors and in motor cars. I understand the distillate is secured in the Turner Valley field of Alberta, and I suggest that if it serves the purpose and can be purchased at a price so much lower than that of distilled gasoline, it is worthy of investigation.
There are several questions now in the public mind which should be answered. From my own constituency I received the following:
In order to obtain a Canadian refining industry employing 4,978 persons with a pay-roll of $8,153,625 we are subsidizing the owners of the refineries to the extent of some $20,000,000.
I do not know whether' or not that is a correct statement, but .possibly the committee would investigate as to whether or not the owners of the refineries are being subsidized to that extent. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, I believe his statement was that their dividends were about 8 per cent. To

Price oj Gasoline-Mr. Brown
my mind that is a very handsome dividend in these times of depression, and if they are receiving that amount they are very well cared for indeed.
I am very happy to give my endorsation to this resolution. I should like to see a thorough investigation made, and all interested parties brought before the committee. I am not sure that the committee on banking and commerce is the best place to investigate this matter, and it might have been well had the mover recommended a special committee to delve into the problem and make a more thorough and impartial investigation than the committee on banking and commerce could make. I am content, however, to endorse the proposed investigation, and I hope that something useful may come from it.


John Livingstone Brown: I had intended to make a few remarks along the line followed by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael). To my mind the order of reference should be sufficiently large to allow the committee to investigate the prices of kerosene and fuel oil.


Mr. YOUNG:: And of petroleum products.


John Livingstone Brown: Yes, and of petroleum products. When I arrived home last summer I found that the oil companies were charging a price for kerosene that the farmers felt was unwarranted, and as a result they began to import the distillate to which the hon. member has referred. I think however he is mistaken when he refers to distillate as a substitute for gasoline, because as a matter of fact it is a substitute for kerosene to be used in tractor engines. The farmers in my constituency were importing distillate from the United States, paying a duty thereon and finding the importation profitable as compared with the price they were paying for kerosene. The oil companies then reduced the price of kerosene, and I believe there was an undertaking that the reduced price would continue during the summer. The reduction in price indicated that they were evidently very anxious to sell their product. Then, some time during the month of December, notice was given that the price of kerosene would be raised 3 cents per gallon.
To my mind the committee would do well to inquire as to whether there was anything in the general conditions of trade which warranted the increase of 3 cents per gallon in the month of December, or whether the oil 41761-9J
companies took advantage of an opportunity to charge a higher price to the householders who were buying kerosene for lighting purposes and, to a somewhat limited degree, for use in engines. I think therefore that the order of reference should be sufficiently large to include not only gasoline but all petroleum products.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I heard with much pleasure the statement of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) before six o'clock to the effect that he was going to offer no objection to this resolution. It was gratifying also to hear the definite terms in which he stated that the fullest investigation would be permitted; and his offer to furnish such technical assistance as might be required. The right hon. gentleman read us certain letters from some of the Canadian oil companies, indicating their willingness to cooperate in any such investigation; that is satisfactory also.
During the dinner recess I had time to consider and in some sort perhaps to analyse those letters and seek to find in them what the line of presentation of the companies would be when the matter comes before the special committee. I find references to a very comprehensive system of bookkeeping and a quite proper suggestion that technicians would need to be available to understand that complicated system. There were also references to a previous investigation which had taken place under the auspices of the government of Ontario, which investigation, it was stated, had occupied many months and had demonstrated that over a period of some four years no profits in excess of 8 per cent had been derived by the Canadian companies in question. I think the deduction is a fair one- I do not wish to be anything but that-that their attitude would be that if they could prove that the Canadian companies had not taken undue profits in recent months or years, they might be allowed to continue the range of gasoline prices as at present existing in Canada.
Now*, sir, I submit that that is emphatically not the issue, and that justice will not be done nor the public satisfied if the line of investigation is confined entirely to that point,
Price of Gasoline-Mr. Neill

although, of course, the investigation would include it. I maintain the issue is rather this: have the companies taken advantage of the increase of tariff and of the special provisions and amendments made to the Customs Act in September, 1930, to maintain the prices of gasoline in Canada at a level higher than the comparable level of prices in any competing country-in this case the United States? That is the question which is being asked at the street corners, at business men's luncheons, at farmers' conventions and at fishermens' meetings. The speeches to-day on the resolution all bore out that trend of thought. If the answer is, yes, that they have been taking advantage of this legislation, then, of course, it is obvious that the government should take the action that they indicated in September, 1930.
I see nothing in the correspondence pointing to any intention to answer the point that I have just made, that is, the relative prices of gasoline in Canada and in other competing countries. It will not suffice for the Canadian companies merely to prove on paper that they have taken no excess profits in the recent period. To combat that would necessitate our going very far back and investigating records-not open to us-of the oil companies dominant in the United States. We would have to go into the question of interlocking interests, of a division of assets in years perhaps long gone by, whether the relationship of parent and child did not or does not exist between some of the oil companies in a foreign country and in Canada, and whether the parent on some occasions did not get the best of the deal. I am only suggesting the point. Possibly there might be a common source of supply to the parent and the child, and possibly better prices might have been given to the one rather than to the other. That is something which it would be impossible for us to prove by any information that we could obtain. There would also enter into the matter the question of watered stock, the question of bonuses of stock, of stock issued as dividends, and whether stock so issued should be entitled to claim interest.
As the member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) stated this afternoon, he had personal knowledge of where he could buy gas cheaper retail in the states than he could buy it wholesale in Canada; possibly some of our Canadian profits have been going to meet the close competition in the states. Many of these things it is absolutely impossible to ascertain, or to say whether under the circumstances 8 per

cent or one per cent is a fair dividend, whether 8 per cent represents really 8 per cent or a very much larger figure. I recall when I went into business many years ago naturally I met with competition, and it was my endeavour to keep prices so low as to eliminate that competition. But occasionally some big company would get the opportunity to buy a whole carload of some commodity and sell it at cost, or perhaps below cost-what they would call a "special," which probably they figured was a cheap form of advertising. But when my customers came to me complaining of my higher price it was useless for me to show my invoices as proofs that I was paying more for the article than the price at which the big company was selling it. Nor was it any use for me to suggest that the company had paid more for the article than the price at which they were retailing it. My customers were not interested in that at all; the only thing they were concerned about was, could they get the article somewhere else at a price cheaper than that at which they could get it from me. I very soon realized that it was a waste of time to argue that I must have a particular price to give me a fair profit. They were not interested in my welfare, and it was up to me to meet my competitor's price or lose a certain amount of business. The converse was true when a fortunate turn in the market enabled me to buy to advantage and I could sell below my competitors; the public did not ask me whether I was making much or little profit on my sales.
The point I am trying to make is this; there is no obligation whatever on us to maintain prices to give a profit to any oil company any more than there was any obligation on the public to give me profits on my petty line of business. It might just as well be argued that we should provide dividends by way of increased freight rates to the Canadian railways. Of course, if some members of the house held Canadian Pacific Railway shares it would be very gratifying to them if we could arrange for an 8 per cent return on their investment; but I see no disposition in this house or in the country to do that. What about our friend's from the prairies if they come forward and show beyond peradventure that they cannot grow wheat profitably at a price below $1 a bushel, are we to formulate policies or vote money to enable them to get that price? We are just as much entitled to do that as to provide any given rate of dividend for an oil company. It is not our business, especially in

Price oj Gasoline-Mr. Neill
these days when profits are so minimized, to provide guaranteed profits to anybody.
This is the question:	Are they meeting
competitive prices without sheltering or-profit-eering under the terms of the tariff? If not, it is the duty of the committee to so report and of the government to take appropriate action.
As the government have consented to the passing of the resolution, I will not waste time supporting it in regard to the gas used in cars and tractors, which has been the subject of debate this afternoon; but I do want to say a very few words in connection with another branch of the question which has not been touched upon to-day, and that is as to how the price of gasoline affects the fishing industry-more particularly the small fisherman, because the big fishing companies use expensive Diesel engines and a cheaper fuel in their large boats which the small fisherman cannot afford to buy. It may be said that the automobile is an important or a trivial adjunct of the man in business; but as regards the fisherman, it is absolutely essential that his boat should be fitted with a gasoline engine. When dealers sell us cars they tell us they will go 25 or 30 miles on a gallon of gasoline, but it is a known fact that the average fishing boat cannot go more than 5, 6 or 7 miles on a gallon.
This afternoon the right hon. Prime Minister very kindly gave credit to ' the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) and the hon. member for Willow Bunch for introducing this matter last session, but so far as the needs of the fishermen are concerned I think I can claim for the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) and myself credit for the fact that we antedated those gentlemen in bringing up this question. When the legislation was introduced in September of 1939 the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth and myself pleaded with the government to have mercy on the fishermen, explaining their dire need and their inability to meet increased taxation. We went so far as to move an amendment which was rejected, and why was it rejected? A reference was made to the guarantees which had been given by the oil companies, and at page 533 the right hon. gentleman said very definitely:
I am quite sure that both hon. gentlemen realize that as there is to be no increase in price there is no object in what they suggest. . .
That was with reference to the amendment. At page 597 the right hon. gentleman also said:
There will be no increase in price.
That was one of the reasons why the amendment was rejected. Again, the question arose as to the guarantees given by the oil companies. It was stated that they only referred to there being no increase in price, and this question was raised: Suppose as a matter of fact, while there is no increase, there is no drop in price when there should be? At page 578, in two places, the right hon. Prime Minister dealt very frankly and fully with that suggestion. On the second occasion he said quite plainly:
... if there should be a great falling-off pf prices beside us and an effort made to maintain present prices in Canada, that would be utilizing the tariff to increase the prices and would be a violation of the undertaking.
So whether the price of gasoline was increased or whether it was not reduced when that should have been done, the obligation of the companies would be the same.
The results have been outlined this afternoon by all the hon. members who have spoken, and they have repeatedly shown very plainly the great difference in prices between those in the United States and those in corresponding points in Canada. No mention was made of the great spread in prices between points in the extreme west, such as Seattle and Vancouver. The difference there is greater than at other points named this afternoon. I should like to give just one illustration from a fishing point of view; I should like to get it on Hansard. The increase in duty from one cent to 2i cents a gallon was not the chief trouble, though that was equivalent to an increase of 250 per cent in the duty. Still, the country voted for high protection in 1930, and cannot very well complain if it gets high protection, and the 2i cents would appear to be high enough. But that could be endured, perhaps; that has not caused the trouble. The difficulty has been brought about by those changes in the Customs Act, more particularly under section 36. There have been several separate changes, which have made it possible to enormously enhance the duty by means of orders in council.
There are several methods by which this may be done. One is by putting on a price which the customs department considers to be the fair price or cost price in the competing country, plus a fair charge for distribution costs, plus a fair profit. Another method is the more arbitrary one of simply passing an order in council in which the minister declares the value to be whatever he wishes.
I said I wished to give an illustration. This is an actual case, in connection with which I

Price of Gasoline-Mr. Neill
think I could produce proofs if necessary. It has to do with fishermen going to Seattle with fish caught in the waters off Vancouver island. These were taken to the only market available at that - time, which was Seattle. In order to make the comparison fair I will translate the prices into .terms of imperial gallons. They could buy gasoline in Seattle for 7.2 cents per imperial gallon but, while that was the price at which it was being sold by millions of gallons all down the Pacific coast, our Department of National Revenue ruled that this was not the proper price. They would not allow the people of the United States to fix the -price at which they could sell their gasoline; they decided that the correct price should be 13.2 cents, a difference of 6 cents, and of course under -the provisions of the Customs Act there automatically came into force a so-called dumping duty of 6 cents per gallon. In addition there was the regular duty of 2J cents, making a total duty of 8.5 -cents on ga-soline which cost only 7.2 cents! But even if you add those figures together they fall far short of what was then the current price in British Columbia. The United States fisherman was competing with our fisherman on the same fishing grounds, paying only 7.2 cents -for his gasoline, paying less for his engine, but getting 2 cents more per pound for his fish because of -the duty of 2 cents per pound on our fish going into the United States.
, I sa'd in June last this creates, perhaps inadvertently, a very great hardship on our fishing population. We talk about Canada first and about equal opportunity, but this situation does n-ot reveal an equal opportunity for our west coast fishermen, though it might be called perhaps a little better than an equ-al opportunity for the oil -companies.
To know that the fishermen are in desperate need one has only to -be familiar with current conditions in the fishing industry on the west coast. Not only have prices been shot to an unbelievable extent, but in -many cases the market has totally disappeared. Last year the prices went so low that good salmon was bringing one cent a pound, and it is claimed by those in -a position to know that the cost of gasoline is 35 per cent of the cost of fishing, so it will be seen that when our fishermen have to pay 22 cents -per gallon for gasoline it gives a tremendous advantage to those with whom they have to compete. I should -like to quote just a few wards from a press item to illustrate this fact:
The run of sockeye is so far very poor. High boat got 15 fish at 6 cents per pound which will average around 20 cents per fish.

In other -words the high -boat, fishing perhaps 18 or 20 hours a day, made about $3, while the low boat would make probably around SI. I quote again:
Many trollers have quit and gone ashore. Fish are costing the fishermen more to catch than they get for them from the dealers. Gas here is 22 cents per gallon while it is sold to fishermen across the line at 8 cents. It costs on an average one gallon per hour to keep the trailer moving, some more, some less, but boats do not on an average catch more than one fish per hour at 15 cents per fish.
Then -the article goes on to give the price of one cent per pound, which I mentioned a moment ago.
That is the situation I wish to bring to the attention of the house -in order that it may be on record when this question is referred to the banking a-nd commerce -committee, of which I am not a member. I want it to be there so that this phase of the question will not ibe -misunderstood, but I repeat -that I am pleased with the attitude of the government in the matter and I hope the work of the committee will be of benefit -to users of gasoline -both on sea and on land.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for the question?
-Mr. BROWN: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question. He was not in the house when I spoke on this matter just before six o'clock. I suggested the desirability of enlarging the order of reference so os to include -all petroleum products. Would he care to accept that suggestion?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There has been no move on the -part of the mover and the seconder of the resolution to adopt -that suggestion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton) moved:: Whereas during the session of 1931 a special committee -was appointed to investigate the "Beauharnois power development" and
Whereas it was shown that enormous sums of money had been contributed for political campaign funds,
Be it resolved: That, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the committee on privileges and elections consider and report upon the question of election funds and draft such amendments to the elections act as may be considered necessary.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it was not -my intention to speak so early in the deliberations

Elections Act-Mr. Mitchell
of this house, 'because the experience I have gained from other deliberative bodies is that it is desirable first to gain some background and understand more fully the rules and procedure which govern. During the recent campaign in which I was successful one of the outstanding issues was the Beauharnois scandal and its relationship to campaign funds. The evidence in that regard is definite. I quote from the Toronto Globe of August 18, 1931, as follows:
Mr. Sweezey's evidence summed up the campaign contributions as follows:
Dominion Liberals	 $720,000
Ontario Conservative party.. ..	125,000
Quebec Conservative party..	. .	30,000
Ontario Liberal party	 2,000
or 3,000
Mr. Leslie Bell, Montreal Conservative member	 6,000
From this I think we can all readily agree that the Child rests upon the doorstep of both the Conservative and Liberal parties.
The resolution which I have the honour to move is definite in its terms. It reflects the driving force of public opinion, not only in the province of Ontario and particularly in the constituency which I represent, but throughout the whole Dominion. It should be remembered that apart from the hon. member who moved the address in reply to the speech from the throne (Mr. Bourgeois) I come most directly from the people of this country, and I carry a message which interprets their desire that this problem of campaign funds must be confronted and that an honest effort must be made to prevent its recurrence in the political life of this country. I am glad to say that as a representative of Labour I received the support not only of the working people but also of the middle classes and the more well-to-do. These people were amazed at the magnitude of this scandal, which, after all is said and done, strikes at the very roots of democratic government. Many men spent last Christmas within the confines of Kingston penitentiary who had done less than these gentlemen have done, many of whom no doubt spent the holiday season surrounded by the comforts of a first class hotel.
I submit that we have come to a sorry pass when these financial highwaymen can influence indirectly the votes of the people of this country. Money is still an influence in the elections of Canada. Some time ago a well known politician was discussing an election campaign with me. Like all other candidates I expressed the belief that I was going to win, but he replied, "Humphrey, we have the dough and you have the enthusiasm, but we
will win." What chance have men with progressive views to win an election when they are pitted against conditions such as this? It is my experience that men with progressive views are generally poor, and being poor economically and socially, they have a terrible struggle to maintain their existence.
I remember well the campaigns which brought into existence in the province of Ontario what I consider to be the greatest public ownership project upon the face of this globe. Up until recently any Canadian, irrespective of the province from which he came, could go to any part of this world and speak with pride of that public ownership proposition. Electricity is one of the greatest civilizing forces in the life of this country; but what chance has this project when it is confronted by something similar to this Beauharnois business? All hon. members who are farmers by profession, whether Conservative or Liberal in politics, must realize that electrical power is the greatest Jersey cow in existence-it is easy to milk.
I know something of the problems which confront a Labour candidate during an election. In many cases he is forced to go on earning his livelihood; money is not coming in very fast and all the problems which confront the average candidate are intensified. If this condition is allowed to continue, what chance have the democratic institutions of this country? Frankly, I believe the Dominion could give a lead to the world on the question of the conduct of elections so far as the financial aspect is concerned. I believe we could pioneer in this regard and show the world that elections can be won on principle and not on the driving force of selfish financial corporations.
Briefly, what are the facts? We all agree that campaign funds are necessary; we all agree that they are desirable, and I think that on a consideration of the evidence we all agree that some of them have been contributed by people who have axes to grind. Let me ask the house: is this a satisfactory way of influencing public opinion? In connection with that, I should like to read an account of an incident which took place, I understand, in the last provincial election in Quebec, where one of the candidates accused another of taking $325,000 from the Beauharnois corporation. This is the reply of that particular candidate:
I hereby state with all the force at my command that never directly or indirectly did I receive a cent from that organization.
He went so far as to charge the candidate who made the accusation as "a vulgar liar
136	COMMONS
Elections Act-Mr. Mackenzie King
and a public calumniator." These were not two highwaymen talking to one another. One was Mr. Gagnon and the other was Mr. Taschereau. Another instance that is worth while quoting I take from the Toronto Globe of Tuesday, August 18, 1931. It reads:
Nor can the general question of campaign funds be kept in the background. At the meeting where Mr. Taschereau flung his challenge to Mr. Gagnon, Mr. Laetere Roy, former member for Levis, discussing the political contribution of the Beauharnois company made this statement:
"During the last federal election the Conservatives had $2,500,000 at their disposal. You know yourselves that in Levis they had barrels of money. And do you know where that money came from? A good part from a railway corporation, and the larger amount from the manufacturers. Mr. Bennett then raised the tariff which allowed them some return for the sums they had advanced."
I am an Englishman, and I am proud of the fact. Of course we are not responsible for our nationality; we had no control over that. Possibly if some of us had, we would not be here now. My attitude in life towards the human family anyway is that we are all human beings. I want, however, to bring up this point:	the only argument I know of
in favour of titles is that you can get some rich people to pay for titles half a million dollars which go into the campaign fund of a political party, but in this democratic country of ours, they are repaid not in titles but in cold cash.
In conclusion, I appreciate the complexity of the problem that will confront the committee, but I believe, after what has arisen out of that investigation, the house owes a duty to the people of this Dominion to see to it that as far as is humanly possible there shall be no recurrence of the present scandal in the public life of this country. Even if this should mean a distinct and possibly radical departure in connection with the operation of elections, it is the duty of the house to see to it that that departure is made forthwith.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker,
relieved of the preamble, the resolution reads:
Be it resolved: that, in the opinion of this house, it is desirable that the committee on privileges and elections consider and report upon the question of election funds and draft such amendments to the election act as may be considered necessary.
I am heartily in favour of that motion carrying, and I hope it will meet with the unanimous acceptance of the house. Indeed, the resolution is almost in the exact terms of what at the conclusion of the last session of

parliament I suggested should be the first step taken at the beginning of the present session, namely that a select committee of the house should be appointed to consider the question of election funds and amendments to the election act which would be in the public interest. The present resolution suggests the standing committee on privileges and elections. I do not think there is much to choose between the two. The committee on privileges and elections is a proper committee to dea^ with a matter of this kind. The main point is that there should be at this session a careful consideration of the whole question of campaign funds so called, and if possible, amendments to the election act which, as I said, will be in the public interest.
When I spoke in this house on July 30 last, I went a step further and suggested that it was desirable to have a royal commission to inquire into the whole question of campaign funds, not only of the last campaign, but as well of the campaigns of 1925 and 1926. I repeated that proposal at a meeting which I addressed at London, Ontario, on October 20, my view being that were a royal commission appointed at that time the personnel of which would include commissioners nominated at the instance of the three principal parties in the house-because that is the only kind of royal commission that would meet with any degree of public confidence in a matter of this kind-we would have before us at the beginning of this session a report which would be a great help to the house, or to a committee of this sort in deciding upon necessary amendments to the act. The government, however, alone has power to appoint a royal commission, and the government has not seen its way or thought it wise to take that step. It must of course accept the responsibility therefor.
I should like to quote from Hansard of July 30 of last year what I said with reference to these two matters I shall quote just sufficient to make clear that I am but restating at the moment the position I then took. I said, as will appear at pages 438S-9 of Hansard of July 30 last:
I think that not only should there be a royal commission to go into the matter of party campaign funds from the ground up, so that if at all possible we may have the matter cleared up once and for all, but as soon as the next session of parliament meets there should be appointed a select committee of the house to consider the Dominion Elections Act, and see if in some way it is not possible to have that act further amended so as to render unnecessary, to as large a degree as possible, the collection of moneys for campaign purposes. I make that

Elections Act-Mr. Bennett
suggestion in the interests of every hon. member in the house, in the interest of every future candidate, in the interests of every political party, and in the public interest.
Hon. members will see that the course there suggested is practically identical with the one which the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) has recommended in the motion which is before the house and which I have expressed the hope the house will adopt unanimously. I did at the time make, in addition, certain suggestions as to what might be helpful by way of amendments to the elections act to accomplish the purpose in view.
I shall not repeat those suggestions at the moment. No doubt if a committee is appointed they will come before the committee, and if they do, I hope that they will be favourably considered.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I congratulate the hon. member
for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) on his maiden speech in this chamber? It is quite clear that he is a skilled public speaker and a debater of large experience. His performance was most creditable and I trust will be often repeated in this chamber, as often as may be necessary to meet the circumstances that seem in his judgment to require his intervening in debate.
There is only one question to be considered in connection with the motion now before us, and that is whether or not any good purpose will be served by dealing with the matter at this session. When the census returns are complete it will be necessary to readjust the boundaries of the constituencies, and a complete redistribution will pass this house. It is obvious that the census returns will not be completed to enable that to be done at this session. In point of fact they never have been. Next session will therefore be the first opportunity at which redistribution can be considered.
Side by side with redistribution the whole machinery of elections must be considered. For instance, the question as to whether or not our method of registering the voters is a sound one; secondly, whether or not there should be any educational test imposed. I recall on one occasion having endeavoured to have the registers set up by each elector subscribing his name in a book, and then when he came to vote, if his identity were challenged, he would of course have to sign, and it would become apparent then, if he were a repeater, that he was not the elector entitled to vote. I need hardly say that repeating has in this country assumed very considerable proportions. I recall on one occasion being
told at the end of a contested election in a city through which I was passing that a certain visitor from another city, a foreign city, had voted some forty times that day and had left on the evening train. That is one difficulty that has to be overcome. In Great Britain they can have a general election after a very short interval. Here the shortest time within which an election can now be held is some fifty-six days. That is a matter that should engage the attention of those charged with responsibility for the enactment of a new elections act. The other day, for instance, a vacancy occurred in Athabasca. It was quite apparent from the communications that were sent that unless that election were held while the ground was still frozen it might be impossible to hold it at all until well on in the summer, and indeed it might be difficult to hold it at all within the time required by law. You will find that that happens frequently in this country. How can that difficulty be overcome?
Then you have the larger question, to which some attention has been directed, as to corruption in elections. The hon. member for East Hamilton said that there had been evidence of corrupt elections in this country. There have been. Elections have been held in this country in which a very large number of those returned have been charged with participating in fraudulent arrangements whereby they were elected, and the legislature has passed a statute to prevent the matter being inquired into by the courts. That is a matter, of course, that is well understood. Each legislature and parliament chooses its own methods of dealing with these matters. In England and in Canada, both in the federal parliament and in the provincial legislatures, it was the custom, as is well known, in the beginning of the development of our institutions for committees of the house to determine whether or not a member had been properly elected, and it will be within the memory of those who took the trouble to read the history of it that when Wilkes was elected over Colonel Luttrell, although he had a clear majority, the House of Commons undertook to change the return and substitute for the name of Wilkes that of Colonel Luttrell. It will perhaps be within the memory of members of this house that that brought about well nigh a revolution; for it was said that the legislature was not the body charged with responsibility for the election of members, but rather the people of the country, who had already exercised their franchise and returned Mr. Wilkes. That doctrine no longer avails in some parts of this country, and a

Elections Act-Mr. Bennett
legislature has seen fit to determine that it, and not the electors, shall say who shall sit in the legislature. I direct attention to that only as indicating the trend of modern democratic thought. In the early days in England, in the middle of the last century, it was believed, as it has been in this country, that the proper method of determining these matters was through the courts; and hence it is that judges-in our country two judges- are called upon to decide whether or not a member has been legally elected to his seat if a petition has been filed against his return.
The causes that vacate a seat are so numerous, Mr. Speaker, that it is almost impossible to say with certainty that any election held in this country might not on purely technical grounds be voided. I point that out to the hon. member for East Hamilton; for we are dealing with practical things, and not with matters of the emotions. When he says that it is desirable to do thus and so I only point out that in the election law that has been on the statute books of this country since we substituted the courts for a committee of parliament we have made so many matters offences under the act that almost any election could be voided. In the end the machinery of the law has very seldom been used. Those are facts known to everyone in this country. Such things, for instance, as the employment of automobiles, the giving of a dinner or a lunch to a friend under certain circumstances, the giving of hospitality of any kind-


An hon. MEMBER:: A drink.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not necessarily a drink.
Hospitality and ginger ale, for instance. It is true that there are constituents of hon. gentlemen present who probably prefer a mixture of alcohol with water to ginger ale, but that need not engage our attention. The point I desire to make is this. For nearly three-quarters of a century we have had upon the statute books in Canada, in Great Britain, in Australia and other countries under the British flag, provisions whereby elections could be voided for corrupt acts; we have endeavoured to define them, and in so doing we have made the conduct of an ordinary election almost technically illegal under the provisions of the statute. Shall that continue as it is? That is something to be considered. Is it wise thus to impose restrictions against what I might call the common sense attitude of most men in these matters? If you meet your friend, take him in to dinner and extend to him hospitality of that kind, are you laying

yourself open to a possible offence and to the voiding of an election? This question which arises out of kindred circumstances need not be discussed beyond saying that I have always held the view that if we would limit the number of offences and make them broad and general without endeavouring to particularize as we have done, we would find it less difficult to attain the end we have in mind with respect to the voiding of elections.
You will remember perhaps, sir, that the late Doctor Weldon, who at the time was dean of the law school at Halifax, to whom I owe a debt I will never be able to repay, and whose memory I revere, sought by motion made in .this house to disfranchise constituencies for corrupt acts that resulted in the return of a member who should not have been returned. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I have long held the view that there is much to be said in support of that principle. If the constituency is willing to be debauched by a candidate violating the provisions of the statute and committing such corrupt acts as are defined by the law, resulting in the voiding of the election, it might be that if it were proven to be general the constituency itself could be punished for a term of two or three years, or as the case might merit.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What does the
Prime Minister mean when he refers to punishing a constituency?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Depriving it of a member. Perhaps in some cases it would not be a punishment. I understand the point 'the hon. gentleman has raised. My words were very simple; their meaning was that the constituency would be deprived of a representative in the House of Commons.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the Prime
Minister mean that if some individual committed a corrupt act he would punish the whole constituency because of that act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he did not say any
such thing.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I just wondered-


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not say any such thing, and the hon. gentleman is quite capable of hearing. What he said was that if these acts were general the result would be that the constituency would be disfranchised for a term of years. In England on one or two occasions that was found to be a most satisfactory measure, and resulted-*


Edward James Young: If there were ten righteous
men in the constituency, would you spare it?

Elections Act-Mr. Bennett


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman need not concern himself in that regard, because I fancy he will find there are more than ten righteous men in his constituency.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I should think five ought to save the situation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But, sir, we have gone a step farther. We have undertaken to punish the constituencies and to punish those guilty of corrupt offences, and we have defined what constitutes corrupt acts. Will anybody say we have made substantial progress in twenty-five or thirty years in that regard? Read election reports in cases where elections were contested-you will find them in the library- and I think you will express great surprise that a seat could be voided under circumstances there stated. In one of the first cases-in fact, I think it is the first case reported in the Supreme court reports-there was reference to undue influence in connection with those who exercised their franchise. All these things are now past and gone, and no one will say, contrasting present day conditions with the allegations made in the case to which I have referred, that we have made very great progress in that regard. Why? The hon. member for East. Hamilton was very frank when he said that campaign funds are necessary. I recall reading, during the progress of his campaign, a letter in which the president of the Trades and Labour Council enclosed a subscription to assist the hon. gentleman who is now the member for East Hamilton in his election campaign. Undoubtedly that subscription was to help defray legitimate costs in connection with the campaign. There are legitimate costs; there are legitimate expenses, and the fact that your friend or my friend-


Humphrey Mitchell: I wish to point out that I do not think the Prime Minister read a letter from the Trades and Labour Council.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said it was from the president of the Trades and Labour Council.


Humphrey Mitchell: It was the president of the Trades and Labour Congress who sent me a personal cheque.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If I said Trades and
Labour Council I meant to say Trades and Labour Congress. I was not responsible for the donation being made public, and I have merely mentioned that I read in the newspaper that Mr. Moore had sent a contribution to the hon. gentleman. I did not complain of his action, and I am not criticizing it. I merely point out that the hon. gentleman has
stated frankly in this chamber that campaign funds are essential and necessary to play their part in an election. Whether the cheque was personal or how it came to be paid I cannot say, but I do know Mr. Moore's contribution was mentioned in a press communication which I read on the train one day. I am not criticizing the receipt of that cheque, or suggesting for one moment that it was improper. If Mr. Moore wished to send his old friend a ten dollar bill, he had a perfect right to do so. If my friend sees fit to give me a thousand dollar bill I say he has a perfect right to do so.
Those who have read the life of Disraeli will recall that Mrs. Willyams gave him a thousand pound note which he put away in the pocket of the coat he that day was wearing. He forgot about it for some time, and subsequently discovered it in the pocket of his jacket The contribution itself cannot by any possibility be said to be wrong. If your friend desires to assist you in maintaining your office or securing your return to the House of Commons, he has a perfect right to do so, and I venture to point out that there are very few members in this house, if there are any, who have not at some time in their lives received assistance, probably very small or very trifling, but yet indicative of the spirit of helpfulness and the good will of the individual contributor towards the one whose return to this house is desired. There cannot be anything wrong in that; the law contemplates that it will be so.
During the life of each succeeding parliament an effort has been made to limit, circumscribe and restrict the extent to which contributions should be made, and more than that, the persons who should make them. Perhaps hon. members will recall that between the years 1921 and 1925 this parliament placed upon the statute books a provision whereby contributions by corporations or companies were made illegal, and, that the hon. member from Winnipeg, who has just asked a question, through his activity in the privileges and elections committee was responsible for its recall; it was repealed before the election of 1930 was held. After the election of 1925 and during the succeeding parliament, owing to irregularities which came about in connection with the election of Athabaska, the privileges and elections committee met, and in no sectional or party sense endeavoured to prepare such legislation for submission to this house as would prevent a recurrence of the condition to which reference had been made. The election of 1930 came on with the restriction eliminated as to corporations,

Elections Act-Mr. Bennett
making -contributions. It will ibe recalled a special provision was made in the statute whereby companies were organized-my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) knows what I mean-for the purpose of -making contributions to the -cause of the Progressive or farmers' movement in the western provinces, and funds were collected for that purpose; that is well known. It was discussed in the lifetime of the house eleoted in 1925. I say that to the hon. gentleman for East Hamilton because I suppose, like most new members, he has -the very laudable ambition to accomplish a reform, and I take it, that no member will deny him the -right to achieve that ambition if he can. But I merely take a little time to point out that for -the last half a century successive committees on privileges and elections, not only in Canada, not only in Australia, not only in England, but in every country where democratic government prevails, have -made an effort, first, merely to define what constitutes -improper -practices at elections, and second, to limit the -contributions that may be made by -individuals or corporations to the funds of (a) the party and (b) the individual. In the United States it will be recalled that in connection with the great national campaigns -contributions are now made public and it is stated with particularity by whom they are made. We have such a provision in our Jaw. We have provided that every member of this house shall make a return of -his election expenses -indicating the sources -from which the funds came to pay those expenses, whether from hi-mself or from a contributor. If those who have interest in the matter will go through the returns filed after the last election they will realize that various -people made contributions towards their particular favourite -candidate, sometimes $5, sometimes $25, sometimes $100, sometimes $1,000. But it is within the memory of members of this house that in at least one return with respect to one of the elections held since 1921 the candidate-mark you, he was not successful-showed he had expended over $75,000. No one for a moment said that that money was not -properly expended. There were supporting vouchers, there were the details of the expenditure. It indicated to me, at least, that the ascertaining of the will of the people had become highly expensive for those who endeavoured to speak for a party in the determination of that question.
Now, let us ascertain what other appropriate remedies may be suggested. There may be some difficulty in that regard. In Australia, confronted with similar conditions, they endeavoured to cure the evil -by compulsory

voting. How many members of this house are prepared to say that the enactment of legislation to -make it an offence to fail to vote will cure the evil to which reference has been made?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Don't you think it would help?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have always held that it would assist, and I have not changed my mind.


Charles A. Stewart: I think it would.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe it would. But, remember, this country is so vast in area and its population so scattered that the difficulty of maintaining successfully a -charge against an elector for not voting is such as to make it wel-l-nigh impossible to secure a conviction, a situation that makes it most difficult to say that that is the remedy to be sought.
Now, it has been the -practice in this -country, as it has been in most democratic countries, to say, and quite properly so, that party contributions made by those who are seeking benefits for the purpose of ensuring the receipt of those benefits is wrong. I have heard no one attempt to justify any other view. But the difficulty always has been to ascertain whether or not you had the sequence -the payment, the expectation, the reward. Those have been the really difficult things to determine. If you show that over a long course of years any individual regardless of such expectations has contributed funds to assist in the election of his party's candidates, that is not indicative of any evil intent. But then you come to the question as old as the Pacific scandal in this -parliament. I wonder if members * sometimes look back upon the journals of the house of the days of the so-called Pacific scandal and realize what progress Canada has made in minimizing what were then regarded as great evils, and if they realize that what in those days was regarded as serious would to-day be regarded as a mere incident. I wonder if that fact is borne in on the minds of hon. members. Re-ad the journals of the house of that day, read the evidence given and compare it with the evidence given last year 'before the Beau-harnois committee, and what is the result? It is for that reason that I suggest the great difficulty that arises in merely saying that something shall go to the committee on privileges and elections where various ideas are thrown into the melting pot and something emerges to be embodied in a statute

Elections Act-Mr. Bennett
which accomplishes no good. That is a fact known to every member of this house who has taken the trouble to study the subject.
I have felt that compulsory voting might accomplish some good.


Charles A. Stewart: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be I am wrong
as to that. I have inquired of my friends in Australia how in practice compulsory voting has worked out there. I think they have also a similar statute in New Zealand now.
I was told that the law had this effect, that, first, it greatly increased the number of men who voted, and, secondly, it did something to lessen the possibility of improprieties in the conduct of elections.
* Mr. HEAPS:	If the right hon. gentleman
will permit a question-could he inform the house whether they have also compulsory registration in Australia?
Mr.'BENNETT:	I dealt with that in the
irst few words of my observations on the luestion of registration. I am not going1 to develop the idea beyond saying that I think there must be some method of registration and some method of revision, because as the law stands now there are many names of dead men and women on voters' lists that should not be there.
The immediate matter that has given rise to the motion of the hon. member for East Hamilton is the Beauharnois scandal, in connection with which the special committee found that very large sums of money had been paid to a political party. This gives me an opportunity to make just one observation. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) went to Winnipeg and made a speech, in the course of which he took occasion to say that money had been paid to the representative of the then opposition and returned at my instance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the right
hon. gentleman said at London, not Winnipeg-that money had been paid to the representative of the Conservative party and at my instance returned. I have always felt -I want to do justice to the right hon. gentleman-that it must have been either an error -a very simple one on his part, but not so simple so far as we are concerned-or it must have been done with malice aforethought. I cannot think any good purpose would have been served by his doing it with malice afore-[DOT] thought, because ultimately he must come back to this chamber and meet here his peers
who heard the discussion and read the evidence that dealt with that question. In that evidence it was never suggested by any person that a sum of money had been paid to the federal Conservative party by Beauharnois interests. There is the record and it speaks for itself. Then why should it be said money was so received and returned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Does^my right
hon. friend say no money was contributed by Beauharnois to any member of the Conservative party, to be paid into the party funds?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am now dealing with
the evidence. I say that the right hon. leader of the opposition went to London and made a speech which he either knew was false or he should have known was false, and he therefore was wilfully negligent in the discharge of his duties, for he had the hardihood to say that this sum of money was received and returned at my instance. That was what he said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my right hon. friend that I made no statement, at London or anywhere else, which I knew was false. I would have made no such statement. If I made an incorrect statement I at once retract it, and I accept my right hon. friend's word as to what is right and what is wrong in the circumstances. What I do say is this: what I am speaking of is the contribution-my right hon. friend has just referred to it-being made by Beauharnois, and all along my understanding has been that Beau-hamois did make a contribution to a member of the Conservative party, which was to have gone into the funds of the Conservative party and would have gone there but for the fact that the present leader of the government indicated that it should not be done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the report made the
next day, and in this case prepared from a printed or typewritten manuscript, this is what is said:
As the law stands a corporation or an individual has a perfect right to make a contribution to the funds of a political party, and the party a right in accepting contributions. Some years ago a law was enacted which made contributions from corporations to political parties illegal. I much fear the law was never greatly respected, but it was there. At the session of 1930 that section of the Elections Act was repealed. The repeal was made at the request of Labour members in the House of Commons, the reason being that under the law as it stood it would have been illegal for labour unions or farmers' organizations without incorporation as political bodies to make contributions to the campaign funds of Labour candidates or farmer

Elections Act-Mr. Bennett
candidates. In commenting upon the amounts contributed to the funds of the Liberal party, and accepted, it is desirable that this fact of there being no illegality about the transaction should be fully and clearly understood.
For reasons which I think are apparent I endeavoured to repeat that to the house this evening. Then the right hon. gentleman went on:
The next point to note is that contributions were made by those associated with Beauharnois to both political parties, to the Conservative party and members of the party in the federal field, as well as to the party or members of the party in Ontario and Quebec, and that the return of the contribution made to the general fund of the Conservative party was on grounds of party expediency and not of public policy.
When the general elections came on, Mr. Sweezey made a contribution to the campaign funds of both the Liberal and Conservative parties. Later the contribution given to the treasurer of the Conservative party was returned, he, according to Mr. Sweezey's statement of what he had been told, having had instructions from Mr. Bennett to return the contribution. Now what was Mr. Bennett's reason for directing the return of the amount contributed?
Mark you, it never was contributed, and the evidence shows that to be the case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my right hon. friend say that no contribution was made to Mr. McCuaig or any other person-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what the
hon. gentleman was dealing with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: to be given to General McRae?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not so far as I know,
and what is more, that is not what the right hon. gentleman was dealing with. The right hon. gentleman went to London and told the people that the contribution was made and returned at my instance because, he said, I believed there would be an inquiry, and it was done for party expediency and not public good. Sir, the person alleged to have made the contribution, without my knowledge, wrote a letter to the public press and denied that any such contribution was made, a few days after that speech. Then why did the right hon. gentleman make that statement in London? Why did he speak of the sums of money having been received and returned, unless for one purpose? Being in the valley of humiliation and unable to extricate himself, he tries to drag down other men to keep him company.
I knew the time would come and the opportunity would arise when I might say to this house that that statement was untrue. The motion of the hon. member for East Hamilton [Mr. Bennett.J
affords that opportunity. Not only that, but with my knowledge or at my instance there was never any money received from Beauharnois. Hon. members will recall that I stated last session that I felt possibly it should have been my duty to go before that committee and make a statement in view of what was said.
It is an unpleasant sort of thing to inquire into this matter further, but I did so, and the language that was used when the offer of a contribution was made, according to the person who received that offer, was, "Not a damned cent." That was the answer; I hesitate to put it to the house in that way, but that is what was said. I do greatly deprecate an unfair statement being made for nothing but a sinister purpose, but I accept the statement of 'the right hon. gentleman. The only difficulty is that my right hon. friend made the statement in London and was content that it should be published broadcast. It does not do much good now to stand in .this house, when he had the knowledge before him at the time he made his speech only a few months ago, and say, "I did not intend that" or "I am sorry, and I accept the hon. gentleman's word." It is not my word; it is what the record shows, what is written there and what he referred to during the progress of his speech. Then why misrepresent it? That is what I want to know, and that is what many people want to know. I knew the time would come when, before a jury of his peers, he would have to face that statement, untrue, highly improper, and calculated to mislead people merely for his own personal advantage.
I point these things out, sir, because the hon. member for East Hamilton has said that during the course of his election much attention was paid to this particular matter, and that it became of considerable importance that he should propose the resolution he now brings forward. In fact, I think he promised his electors he would do so, and as I have said, he has discharged that duty fairly and, for a new member, with very great credit and distinction to himself. But I ask him to consider whether or not any progress will be made by sending this resolution to the committee on privileges and elections. Would it not be advisable to have this matter dealt with when redistribution is dealt with, and when this parliament will frame, as it must frame, a new election act to provide for the forthcoming election, with new lists in new constituencies?

Elections Act-Mr. Bourassa
If it is the sense of this house that the motion should pass and that the matter should be sent to the committee certainly I will not, nor will the government, bring forward any objection to that being done. I have discharged my duty when I point out to the hon. gentleman the conditions to which I have referred and the desirability of considering this matter when perhaps party feelings and passions are less strong and when the members of the committee may be better able to take a dispassionate view of a situation which must be remedied if democracy is to survive, and which must be frankly met if we are to maintain our institutions in their vigour and strength. I have merely put the matter before the hon. member in this way;
I leave it to the house to determine whether or not a good purpose would be served by having the resolution go to the committee on privileges and elections at this time. I repeat frankly that no opposition will be offered by the government to this being done, but I say with equal frankness that I do not think any good purpose will be served by following that course at this time.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: The
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bennett) has covered a pretty wide field, more or less directly related to the matter under consideration, but on one point especially I beg respectfully to disagree with his view. He states that the proper time and occasion for the committee to deal with this phase of the electoral system, that is, contribution to party funds, will be when the same committee will have to deal with redistribution.
I was a member of this house, Mr. Speaker, when one redistribution took place, and I kept in close touch with proceedings on a couple of other occasions. My impression is that during those times the committee had its hands full, the whole time being taken up with the question of redistribution only. Surely the right hon. gentleman cannot expect that at the next session the committee will be able to deal with redistribution, with campaign funds, with amendments to the elections act and so on. It would take at least two or three sessions. It seems to me all those things have to be taken seriatim.
I was interested and pleased to hear the hon. gentleman refer to old times both in England and in this country. There is no doubt that the evil of which the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) spoke is an old one. At this moment I take the opportunity to congratulate the hon. member, both upon his successful campaign and his
maiden speech. No doubt this evil will last for ever, but the same thing can be said of anything connected with human affairs. One of the objects of parliament is to deal with evils as they occur and to correct them as far as possible, with the expectation not of eradicating them altogether but rather of minimizing their effects. The argument advanced by the right hon. gentleman in connection with that aspect of the question is similar to the sceptical criticisms made of the League of Nations because that body has not been able to prevent the present trouble between China and Japan. I do not take that view. We are not all-powerful-not even the right hon. gentleman is all-powerful-but with the cooperation of men of good will in all parties we can accomplish something from time to time.
The question dealt with by this resolution is one that might be better taken up separately. The operation of the elections act, the redistribution and qualification of voters, compulsory voting and so on are all different aspects; they have nothing to do with this matter. This is outside of the electoral law, so to speak.
The question of campaign funds is a very complicated one, and I am not unmindful of the statement made by the Prime Minister that campaign funds in themselves are not wrong. They may be necessary, but I do not believe they are necessary to the extent to which they are functioning in our present system. My firm belief is and my experience has been that a very large proportion of the campaign funds are not used either in corrupting the people or in helping the candidate; they are pocketed by the so-called local leaders. These men come to the committee and say, "You know, in such and such a district I command so many votes; if I had five hundred or a thousand dollars at my disposal I could assure you a majority." Nine times out of ten the money remains in their pockets; they are benefited to that extent but neither the electors, the candidate nor the party have received any good therefrom.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: How does the hon. gentleman know that?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I know it from experience. As the hon. gentleman has raised the issue, I will give him an example. When I was chosen as a candidate some thirty-eight years ago the first condition which I imposed was that I would not seek any campaign funds from any electoral committee. That was the condition I laid down to my electors and to my late revered leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He gladly

Elections Act-Mr. Bourassa
accepted that condition, because in those days the Liberal party was mighty poor and Sir Wilfrid had a peculiar tenderness for any candidate who did not ask for any financial assistance from his party. My second election was more of a contest and two of my friends, both good fellows and very honest, thought fit to go to the committee to Montreal and ask for a subscription. They got that subscription and they returned to a certain corner in my constituency where one of them spent all of his share while the other one kept a little reward for himself. When I found out what had happened I borrowed money from the bank and I reimbursed the treasurer of the Liberal party. I was thus enabled to continue to speak and vote just as freely in that parliament as I had during the previous parliament. At the next election I decided to make an experiment. I visited this same comer of my constituency and the local leaders came to me and in a mysterious manner asked if Mr. So-and-So would be there. I told them that he would not, and they then wanted to know who would come. I told them no one would come, and then they inquired as to what they would do for an organization. I have no scruples in admitting that I have usually spent a little money here and there. There might be a poor devil of a settler living twenty miles from the polling booth and having no rig in which to come to the village, and I have helped him out and given the man who brought him to vote two or three dollars. It may have been against the letter of the law, but I do not deny having done it. These poor fellows have no other pleasure in life than to come in and vote once in five yearn. However, there was no committee, no place where the wiseacres of the village could get together and get drunk on whiskey and beer and then cry out, "Hurrah for the Liberal party." On this particular occasion, in 'carrying out my experiment, I spent not one single cent in that particular district, and I obtained the same number of votes as I had received at the previous election. This convinced me that the so-called necessity for campaign funds is to a large extent caused by the exactions of canvassers of local leaders who pocket most of the money they receive. So much for that aspect of the case.
There is still a broader aspect, the source of these subscriptions. The right hon. gentleman has mentioned various amendments to the law, so I will not refer to any detail. It seems to me a distinction should be drawn between corporations and individuals who have no direct dealings with the government but who may have a personal or a public interest in supporting one party or the other,

or one candidate or the other, and those who are directly interested in getting favours from the state. What I have always objected to is the contribution which is made, generally to both parties, such as the contributions made in the past by the railroad companies or by tlie Canadian Manufacturers Association, which has always had a permanent and enormous interest at stake.
I have previously referred to the elections of 1896 which were carried on by the Liberal party in the name of free trade. The curse of protection was to be eradicated for all time; but everyone knows what happened later on-the Hon. Mr. Fielding brought in a moderately protective tariff. I regarded myself as a moderate protectionist. In spite of the great convention of 1893, in spite of the program initiated by my party, I could not believe that free trade could be established in this country, and I so stated in my constituency, to the great scandal of some of my Liberal friends. Afterwards, and upon inquiry, I was informed by one of the most influential ministers that they had engagements. I asked what those engagements were and he replied, "You know, when election time came we needed money, as elections are not won with prayers; we received a subscription from the manufacturers association and we promised them the tariff would not be dealt with too harshly." That shows the effect of campaign funds when contributed by certain corporations. To my mind the contributions which have been made by the manufacturers association from year to year since 1879 have been far more detrimental to the morals of this country and to the independence of this parliament than have the contributions made by Mr. Sweezey and his associates. My feeling is that too much noise has been made over the Beauharnois affair. Of course it is a scandal, but no more than many other things. The right hon. gentleman has properly said: if you look up the records of parliament at the time of the Pacific scandal, you will be amazed to see that things which were considered abominable in those days would probably be accepted as-well, unimportant in these days. What was important in the Pacific scandal? It was not the amount of money contributed. It was the direct connection between Sir George Etienne Cartier and Sir John A. Macdonald as party leaders, and Sir Hugh Allan on the other side. It was the direct, shall I say, conspiracy between the two leaders of the government, two most eminent men, and the man who was interested in procuring the charter and privileges of the company. When you read those letters of

Elections Act-Mr. Bourassa
Sir George Etienne Cartier to this and that man saying-well, I translate it in popular language-put the screw on you for a little more money, that was the scandalous part of it. It was not the amount of money; it was not the secret understandings; it was the brutal fact that the leaders of the government, the leaders of the country, got into direct connection with the organizers of a big railway company which was after privileges from parliament, and secured money from that company on the eve of the session which was to give them their privileges. That was the scandalous part of it.
I quite agree with the hon. member for East Hamilton that the traffic in titles which has been going on in England for a number of years in order to fatten the subscription fund of the Liberal party especially is not so scandalous as some may consider it. My point of view-and I suppose it is the point of view of the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton)-is that it has been very helpful in one way; it has shown the baseness of many things that were considered very respectable in England some years ago. It has shown what lordships amount to.
Reference has been made at various times to traffic in Senate seats. I well remember one day when Sir Wilfrid Laurier told me his propaganda fund was empty, but that before long perhaps two or three seats could be disposed of in the Senate, and therefore the flow might come again. Of course all those things are known. We might just as well make no bones about them, and not be hypocritical. I believe no reform can be accomplished by cant and hypocrisy. Let us put situations as they are. Human beings being what they are, you cannot cure all those things at once, but I think from time to time efforts could be made to prevent the evils from becoming too great. You have a certain piece of machinery. It gets dirty. You clean it, although you know it will be dirty again five years hence. But you do not say: the chief officer is busy elsewhere, or the chief mechanical engineer is busy; let us wait for a few years from now when there will be a general review of the whole management of the firm and we shall take up the question of the reorganization of the whole machine, therefore let this piece of machinery continue clogging. No; we might just as well cure evils as they come. Supposing the committee should accomplish no great object, I believe it would advance parliament; it would give satisfaction to public opinion if, the motion of the hon. member being accepted, the committee on privileges and elections modestly 41761-10
and effectively would deal with some of these matters and report to the house.
The right hon. gentleman is afraid of some extraordinary bill being introduced that might make the remedy worse than the evil. The right hon. gentleman will still be in power.
I do not believe at the end of the session he will be less powerful or more timid than he has shown himself heretofore, and if there be in what is proposed by the committee anything which the right hon. gentleman in his capacity as Prime Minister and his responsibility as leader of the house thinks improper, it will be open to him to tell us that the proposals of the committee are inacceptable or impracticable. But I really think something could be done on those two things. First, is it possible to control to a certain extent the source of campaign funds? I shall not talk of shutting it out altogether. That is like prohibition. I do not want to draw a red herring across the trail, but we know what prohibition has shown itself to be in practice in all the provinces of Canada that have adopted and tried it, as well as in the United States, in Scandinavia and in Russia. I know, however, something can be and has been done to enhance the cause of temperance and diminish the evil of the liquor traffic. Likewise this country could and should do something in this matter.
I quite agree with the Prime Minister that there is some risk of the Beauharnois affair again cropping up and of party feeling existing in the committee. But party feeling will always exist in the house; party feeling will always exist in every committee of the house. The moment you touch on some question which is directly or indirectly connected with the election of members of parliament, willy-nilly party feeling will run amuck. Next year the question of redistribution will come up. Surely the right hon. gentleman is not so naive as to 'think that either his friends or the friends of the leader of the opposition will have no thought of party success when they come to the question of redistribution of seats. Therefore, if you connect this matter up with the redistribution of seats next year, you will have a double dose of party feeling; whereas, at the present time, the right hon. gentleman to my right being where he is, the right hon. gentleman opposite being where he is, his friends in Toronto being where they are, and the friends of the Liberal party in Quebec being where they are, I believe there is some chance, not of party feeling not arising in the committee, but of the politicians in that committee not showing their party spirit so much this year as next.



Elections Act-Mr. Bourassa
So far as that is concerned, I agree with the leader of the Liberal party that going down into the valley of humiliation is good for parties at times. It gives them strength. First, it purifies them. It did good to the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side to go into opposition once in a while. I have known times when the Conservative party at the height of power has not been exactly a model of public or private virtue. I have known occasions when it would have been rather difficult for the leaders of the Conservative party to pose -well, they could have posed as the Pharisee did, but they could not have made the speech of the Pharisee because the Pharisee was a pretty detestable individual, although nothing appears in the gospel that what he said was not true except that he was a Ettle too proud. But I have known times when the Conservative party oould not have boasted of their virtues or been proud of their vices. Therefore, going into the valley of humiliation at times is good for all parties and all public men. I really believe this session is the one at which we should deal with this aspect of the question. So I think the house should accept the resolution in the good spirit in which it has been presented by the hon. member for Bast Hamilton and for which on my part I thank him heartily.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) :: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was speaking of the civic police. Certainly they were under instructions from the mayor or some other authority in that city; I do not know from whom.
Mr. St-PERE: Oh!


An hon. MEMBER:: Was it Mr. Houde?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It was not in Mr. Houde's regime. Then what right has the government of the province of Quebec to send its provincial police into the city of Montreal in a federal election to stand around the polls of St. Lawrence-St. George for purposes of intimidation? Those are evils which to me are far greater than the evil of contributing to alleged campaign funds. Funds are necessary, as I have shown, in order that you may have proper and vigilant oversight of the registration and of the polling, and yet the elections act is so precise that I have to go outside my district in order to get polling agents. I cannot under the present state of things obtain sufficient volunteers to man the polls without paying for their day's service, and as the voters in my constituency would be deprived of their vote by accepting five dollars for the day's service of representing me at the polls, I have to go into other districts to secure men to represent me at the polls on election day.
Mr. St-PERE: A very bad move.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Well, it is pretty bad all
over that city.
Mr. St-PERE: I cannot see why you cannot get some public-spirited men to act as your representatives.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: You cannot get business men to give their time for a day.
Mr. St-PERE: Have they no civic spirit?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That sort of civic spirit does not exist, and if my hon. friend tells me the truth he will tell me that he or his committee has to pay the men who represent him at the polls in the various districts of that great constituency which he represents.
Mr. St-PERE:	Maybe vTe are doing the
same thing everybody else does. Let us be frank about it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why have all this hypocrisy? If we are to pay the services of representatives at the poll, why make that an infringement of the election act?
Mr. St-PERE: I stood with you last year.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I know you did, and I
appreciated your support in the committee on elections. For once we stood shoulder to shoulder, but I think we had not sufficient weight to have our ideas carried into effect.
If there is to be a revision of the elections act this resolution is not sufficiently broad. It deals simply with campaign funds, and to " draft such amendments to the elections act as may be considered necessary" to avoid the use of campaign funds. The resolution is not sufficiently broad. Campaign funds and their contribution is one of the lesser evils in connection with elections. If there is to be a revision of that act it should be placed before a committee of the most competent members in order that there may be a thorough revision in respects other than those mentioned in this resolution. As I said to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken when we were fighting to secure some amendments to this act, "To me it does not matter very much." The condition of affairs is such, however, that the absolutely necessary expenditures by candidates in large cities is far beyond the financial resources of any young man, unless he has inherited great wealth. Elections should be open so that young men with distinguished records in the universities or elsewhere may have an opportunity to enter into political life and establish a parliamentary career. To do that campaign funds are necessary for legitimate expenses. Certain amendments could be made to the act to

Elections Act-Mr. Woodsworth
ensure straight and clean registration, fair voting, the prevention of impersonation, and provision to bring before the courts for condemnation officials of the highest possible standing, if need be, who for party purposes lend their high offices to the perpetration of fraudulent acts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure we all admire the frankness of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). May I state that he has given us the very best argument as to why this committee proceed at once with its work. It is evident that a great many changes must be made to the election act. The Secretary of State has said that the matter of campaign funds is one of the lesser evils. That may be so, but I submit that they are one of the evils, and to draw up legislation which will remedy such an evil is sufficient work for a committee at this session. In fact, I think the Secretary of State has answered very well the argument put forward by the Prime Minister. If we are to bulk redistribution and election funds and all these other evils into the work of one committee, at one session, it will be absolutely impossible to deal with them all efficiently and fully. Surely we might make a beginning this year by tackling the one question of election funds, which has so recently come before the general public, ahd upon which the public would like to feel some assurance that the evil will not persist in the future. The Secretary of State has informed us very frankly that in his judgment to carry on an election in his constituency requires at least a minimum of $25,000, and that upon one occasion his opponent spent $125,000. I ask: What chance has an ordinary labour man to obtain a seat in the constituency of St. Lawrence-St. George? To me that seems to be the best evidence of the iniquity of our present system. If $25,000 is the absolute minimum necessary to enable the electors of that constituency to select a man, in my view that $25,000 should be put up by the state so that everybody would start on an even level. I can imagine, however, that if certain amendments were put into the election act which would make it a crime to overcharge for a hall during the time of an election, and which would make it a crime for a newspaper to overcharge for space during an election, we might considerably cut down that $25,000. The Prime Minister suggested this evening that it was quite all right for a friend to make a donation of $100. He went farther and said that it would be all very well for another friend to give $1,000. The inference was that if a

friend made a contribution in a personal way it was a proper gift, no matter what the amount might be. I think that the statement and inference are not correct.
We all know the influence of money. H a large amount of money is necessary to ran an election, as the Secretary of State suggests, then surely the man with the money is the only man who can run successfully. The man with $125,000 is in a great deal better position to be successful than is the man with $25,000, even though the money may be spent in a perfectly legitimate way. I submit that under modern methods of manipulating mass psychology by means of big advertisements in the newspaper, big bill boards, radio and all that sort of thing that the man with $10,000, $25,000 or $100,000 is in an infinitely better position to run a successful election than a man with only $500 or $1,000. So in my judgment an amendment is necessary which will definitely limit the amount of campaign funds, no matter from what source those funds may come. As I said last year, I would go farther and not only limit the amount but if necessary provide a minimum from public funds. That would have to be safeguarded, but it has been done elsewhere and could be done in this country.
I am sure some of us sympathize greatly with the Secretary of State in his troubles with the police. I have sought to bring before this house some of the arbitrary measures adopted by the Toronto and Montreal police, but I do not think I could have ventured to take the strong stand taken by the Secretary of State, and advised my friends to stand off the police with arms. I am very glad he has come out frankly and told us that thalt . was his position.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was referring to constables who were acting under illegal warrants, and without legal authority.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In this connection
I wish to call the attention of hon. members to an editorial which appeared in the last issue of the Weekly Witness of the city of Montreal. Attention was called to the outrageous conduct of the Montreal police in clearing Victoria square at a time when there was supposed to be a Communistic meeting at that place. People, whether they were Communists or not, were brutally attacked by men in plain clothes who used their fists and riding whips. It is not in keeping with the freedom of British subjects that that sort of thing should go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.

Alberta-British Columbia Boundary


James Dew Chaplin: What has that to do with it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I mention this
situation in passing because it arises from the statement of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan). He gave his own experiences in connection with the police of the city of Montreal.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: His life was threatened.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Citizens of Montreal who happened to be passing the square at that time also had their lives threatened.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are talking of
elections.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but this
matter was introduced by the Secretary of State, and I am just adding another incident in connection with it.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to express the satisfaction of those of us in this corner at the attitude of the Prime Minister in stating that his government would raise no objection to the passing of this motion. I know he has advanced certain arguments in favour of delay. He has said that redistribution could not take place until the results of the census are known, and therefore there should be delay in dealing with this matter. Well, I am always afraid of delays of this kind. Two sessions ago we were told that we should not go on with unemployment legislation until the results of the census were known. Now, I feel quite confident that the statistics of unemployment have been tabulated by this time, and yet we have not available so far the data secured at the time of the last census with regard to unemployment. I can see no good reason why in this matter there should be delay for another year.
The Prime Minister also made reference to the fact that I had moved for the elimination of the clause forbidding the donation of campaign funds.


James Dew Chaplin: By corporations.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I did that, and
most of the older members of the house will recall the circumstances. We in this corner had on several occasions tried to get the act so amended that it would permit the contribution to campaign funds by trade unions. The act was worded in such a way that it forbade such contributions. We felt trades unions had the right to make contributions to campaign funds if it was done openly, but it was impossible to get the amending bill passed. Consequently when the amended
elections act was going through it occurred to me that by repealing the section we might secure the purpose we had in view. I would not have taken that course except for the fact that the act as it stood was ineffective; there were no penalty clauses, there were no teeth in the act, and so really nothing was lost by the repeal. I should be very glad indeed to see a new section added containing penalty clauses of such a character as to render the statute really effective.
I am sure the Prime Minister did not by his review of the situation intend to imply that because we had not yet prevented all corrupt election practices we should not now make an effort to prevent at least some of the most glaring evils; that we have failed in the past is, it seems to me, all the more reason why we should attempt something along this line in the future. We in this corner feel that it would be very desirable indeed that this motion should pass and that the matter should be referred to the committee this session. While this matter is fresh in the public mind I think it would be in the public interest that this should be done.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 2, respecting the boundary between the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on the first reading I gave an outline of the purpose of the bill and the circumstances under which its introduction became necessary. It is only neces-* sary now to say that the commission which was appointed by the government of Alberta, the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada, from 1913 to 1924, continuously carried on a survey of the boundary between those provinces, and completed the Rocky mountain section of the boundary together with 252 miles of the 120th medidian survey to a point in latitude 57° 25' 40". There are 174 miles of the boundary yet to be surveyed and determined, but this is through an uninhabited and unproductive country, and the provincial governments interested desire that 'the boundary which has been so far surveyed should be determined, leaving to a future date the survey of that great waste district.
Under the terms of the British North America Act, 1871, it is competent for this parliament to pass an act confirming the interprovincial boundary survey after the two provinces interested have given their statutory
150	COMMONS
Alberta-British Columbia Boundary
approval of the boundary which has been ascertained. For this purpose the legislature of British Columbia has passed an act, chapter 8 of the statutes of British Columbia, 1931, and the legislature of Alberta has passed an act, chapter 6 of the statutes of Alberta, 1931. The British North America Act, 1871, provides in section 3 as follows:
The parliament of Canada may from time to time, with the consent of the legislature of any province of the said dominion, increase, diminish, or otherwise alter the limits of such province, upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed to by the said legislature, and may, with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase or diminution or alteration of territory in relation to any province affected thereby.
The boundary of the province of British Columbia was originally determined by the Imperial Act, 29 and 30 Victoria, chapter 67. That was a topographical boundary. The two provinces 'now desire the boundary as surveyed to be confirmed by the parliament of Canada, because monuments have been set up and a complete survey made over the area covered by the proposed bill, although there may be a little increase of territory here, or a slight diminution there. Therefore I move the second reading of the bill.
Motion ^agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Geary in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Charles A. Stewart: Did I understand my hon. friend to say there remain 170 miles to be surveyed in the north?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes, 174 miles.


Charles A. Stewart: That would be between the Yukon and the Northwest Territories?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Boards of Trade Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill amending the Boards of Trade Act has in view preventing persons or organizations from using the names "board of trade" or "chamber of commerce" in a district where 'there is a duly constituted board of trade or chamber of commerce, without giving the existing board of trade an

opportunity to present reasons against the incorporation of the second organization in that district, if it is desired so to do.
The first request made to the department of the Secretary of State for this change came from the Toronto Board of Trade, Which has been organized as suoh and has carried on as a board of trade since 1845. An organization advertising itself as the Bloor-Bathurst Board of Trade assumed the functions of a regular board of trade in the district in which the Toronto Board of Trade was operating. The Toronto Board of Trade objected to the operation of this organization on three grounds: First, that it had no authority for styling itself a board of trade; second, that it was not a representative institution, and third, that its existence created confusion in the public mind, and was misleading.
This request of the Toronto Board of Trade for an amendment to the statute was supported by the Ontario Associated Boards of Trade, by chambers of commerce throughout Canada, and also by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, and came before 'the department of the Secretary of State for the first time more than a year ago. Finally the following resolution was adopted by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce at its last general convention:
Resolved that: The Canadian Chamber of Commerce petition the Dominion government to amend the Boards of Trade Act, chapter 19, R.S.C., 1927, to provide that no person or persons shall use the name "Board of Trade" or "Chamber of Commerce" unless incorporated as such under the provisions of the Boards of Trade Act or of any special act of parliament; and that before granting an application for incorporation, the Secretary of State shall afford any existing boards or chambers in the district affected, an opportunity of showing cause why such incorporation should not be allowed, and providing a suitable penalty for the unauthorized use of such name.
It seemed to me that this request was reasonable, that before a second board of trade in the same district should be incorporated by any statute under the supervision of the Secretary of State, the minister should necessarily give the existing 'board of trade an opportunity to make representations as to whether a second board of trade or chamber of commerce should be incorporated. This bill has that purpose in view, so that if the bill is enacted, in cases where a district is already occupied by an incorporated board of trade, no part of that district could be occupied by any other board of trade which might apply for incorporation without an opportunity being afforded to the existing board to show cause why the proposed change should not be made.

Boards of Trade Act
The Boards of Trade Act also mentions the Dominion Board of Trade, which was incorporated in 1873 and which, for a number of years, functioned as a dominion board of trade. For many years, however, the Dominion Board of Trade has ceased to exist, and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which was incorporated in 1929, has been fulfilling the same functions. Various boards of trade throughout Canada have asked that the act be so amended that -any board of trade may become affiliated with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce for the same purposes for which, in times past, they became affiliated with the Dominion Board of Trade, which is no longer in existence.
Another section of the act provides forcer-tain returns to foe filed with the Secretary of State, containing certain details. At the present time the aot requires that this return shall be signed fey the president and secretary, duly verified by their affidavits. That is a provision of the statute of very long standing, and it is sometimes difficult to have these details verified properly. I suggest that hereafter the signature of the secretary of the board of trade to these returns, without an affidavit, is quite sufficient to satisfy all public purposes.
Charles A. Stewart: 
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: They may.


Charles A. Stewart: Under this
bill they have not that privilege.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Should this bill pass, the
existing board of trade would be afforded an opportunity to show cause against the proposed change and the certificate for the new board would be recorded only with the sanction and authority of the governor in council.


Mr. POWER:: Do I understand that under the provisions of this bill the new board would have to ask for the sanction of parliament whereas under the old legislation it was sufficient to obtain a certificate from the governor in council?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that the house is not now in committe.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Geary in the chair.
On section 1-Use of names restricted.
Charles A. Stewart: I notice
that subsection 3 of this section provides for penalties. Why the necessity for penalties? Have abuses grown up under the provisions of the act governing boards of trade whereby unauthorized bodies are using the name?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I understand that in the city of Toronto the name "board of trade" has been used for the carrying on of transactions in foreign countries. For their own personal advantage, individuals have been implying that they are the board of trade of a district when in fact they have no authority so to do.


Charles Gavan Power: The bill reads:
No person shall within any district in which there is a duly constituted board, use the words "Board of Trade," or "Chamber of Commerce."
In the city of Montreal there is a board of trade as well as a chamber of commerce, and I assume that under this bill the body which was first constituted would be the one entitled to use the term "Board of Trade", while the other body would be liable to a fine of $500.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I do not think the hon.
gentleman is correct. The chamber of commerce is constituted under a special act while the board of trade comes under this act. I do not think subsection 2 is properly drafted, and I shall ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) to move an amendment to make the subsection read "under a general or special act of the parliament of Canada."


Charles Gavan Power: The point I am trying to
make is that there are two boards in Montreal, one the chamber of commerce and the other the board of trade. One of them would be the junior body and under this bill would be precluded from using that name.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I think not. The subsection reads:
-unless they are incorporated as a body corporate and politic under this act or under a special act of the parliament of Canada.
I intended to insert "under a general or special aot of the parliament of Canada." I am advised that the chamber of commerce and the board of trade in Montreal both are constituted under dominion acts.


Charles Gavan Power: I was under the impression that the chamber of commerce was incorporated under a provincial act.
Boards of Trade Act

Mr. CAHANI am advised also that the chamber of commerce is one of the bodies which approve of this proposed legislation.


Charles Gavan Power: They might approve of it without knowing what it was all about. I do not object on their behalf; I was objecting to the way the bill is drafted.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the hon. gentleman thinks there is any doubt I will move that the committee rise and report progress.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh, no.


Mr. HACKETT:: Will the minister advise
the committee as to how boards of trade in small villages will be affected? Most of these organizations are unincorporated.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If an organization in any
village desires to assume the functions of a board of trade it should be incorporated under the Boards of Trade Act.


Charles Gavan Power: As I understand it, if there
was such an organization as the Eastern Townships Board of Trade, the town of Stanstead could not incorporate its board of trade without first consulting the other body and then obtaining a certificate from the governor in council.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The Boards of Trade Act
is administered by the Secretary of State, and if a second board of trade in a particular district desired to be incorporated and applied for incorporation, the officials of the department would notify the existing board which would be afforded an opportunity to show cause against recording the proposed cer-i tificate. After having shown cause, the certificate instead of being recorded at the option of the Secretary of State, as under the existing law, would be recorded only with the sanction and authority of the governor in council. Those are the provisions of section 6 of the act which are incorporated into section 2 of this bill. The bill provides that the words "board of trade" or "chamber of commerce" shall not be used by another body which has not had such a certificate recorded. Chambers of commerce (throughout the country object to other chambers being organized in their respective districts.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it not a fact that boards of trade in the small villages now will have to be incorporated under the act?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It has always been so.


Charles A. Stewart: No.
(Mr. Power.]


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is true. At the present time any group of thirty individuals can form themselves into a board of trade.


Charles A. Stewart: They will now have to register or be liable to be fined.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Subsection (2) of section 1
says:
No person shall within any district in which there is a duly constituted board, use the words "board of trade," or "chamber of commerce," as part of the name under which they are incorporated or doing business, or any other words so similar as to be liable to be confused therewith, unless they are incorporated as a body corporate and politic under this act or under a special act of the parliament of Canada.
That means that hereafter they cannot simply mil themselves the board of trade. They must be incorporated under the Boards of Trade Act.


Charles A. Stewart: In every
small village where there are half a dozen business men who wish to set up a board' of trade, they will! now have to register.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Why should they not? There is no expense to it. It is purely a matter of form in sending in a certificate and becoming registered, after which they are under some supervision, very slight, and they have to make returns from time to time. This is to prevent people from using the name "Board of Trade" for Montreal or for some other town or village for purposes other than those for which boards of trade are constituted; for instance, using the name "Board of Trade" for the purpose of smuggling liquor or entering into other illegal practices.


Mr. RALSTON:: With deference, I submit to the Secretary of State that the amendment suggested does not meet the evil that he is trying to remedy. What is suggested by the amendment is that provided there is what is called a duly constituted board within a district, then another body of persons cannot use the name without being incorporated.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is the second section.


James Layton Ralston: That is the section we are at now. Subsection 2 which it is proposed to add to section 3 of the Boards of Trade Act reads:
No person shall-
It does not say: "shall use the words 'board of trade' or 'chamber of commerce' without being duly incorporated under this act," but shall use those words if there is some other duly constituted board within the district, which is quite a different thing.

Boards of Trade Act


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My 'hon. friend is not quoting the section. In section 1 of this bill, subsection 2 reads:
No person shall within any district in which there is a duly constituted board, use the words "Board of Trade" or "Chamber of Commerce" as part of the name under which they are incorporated or doing business or any other words so similar as to be liable to be confused therewith, unless they are incorporated-
And so forth. My first provision is that they must be incorporated.


James Layton Ralston: No. That brings up the
point, if my hon. friend will permit me: they must be incorporated before they can use the term, provided there is another duly constituted board within the district. The section does not say "shall not use the words 'board of trade' or 'chamber of commerce' if there is no other board there," so that the evil which the Secretary of State is endeavouring to eliminate is not quite met by this amendment. I can imagine a judicial district in which there is no board of trade at all, and a group of persons being formed for the purposes which my hon. friend suggests, who are not hit in any way by this amendment. That is my point.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: As I have already informed the hon. member for West Edmonton, I have not gone so far as to say that no persons shall call themselves by the name of "Board of Trade" unless incorporated. I am going simply this far, that where there is an incorporated board of trade, no other body shall set itself up and call itself a board of trade unless it is incorporated; and second, that when an application is made for incorporation, it will be the duty of the Secretary of State or the officials of his department to notify the existing board of that application, allow them to show cause against the granting of the certificate, and then, if the certificate is granted, it can be granted only with the approval of the governor in council.


James Layton Ralston: I am submitting to my
hon. friend that there is a real evil in the practice here suggested of people using the term "board of trade" for improper purposes, but I am saying that evil has not been eliminated by providing that nobody at all shall use the term "board of trade" without being registered. I suggest that difficulty has not been met by this section.
That brings me to the second point. If my hon. friend is endeavouring, as I agree he is, to prevent competition, let us say between an incorporated board of trade and an unincorporated body, then I think my hon. friend, on looking at the drafting of the section, will agree that it ought to be changed. In the first place the use of the term "duly constituted board" does not mean anything under the statute.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does not the Boards of
Trade Act define it?


James Layton Ralston: The act defines "board
of trade" but does not define "board," and a duly constituted board I feel quite satisfied would be regarded as a body of people who had met together. I am thinking of my own constituency or province. In the town of Amherst or Truro or Lockeport or Wedgeport if a number of people gather together and form themselves into a board of trade, I think they are entitled to say that they are a duly constituted board. The Secretary of State will admit there is no law to prevent men from associating themselves in that way. Therefore I submit he ought to go further and say "duly constituted board of trade incorporated under this act," or perhaps "duly constituted board of trade" would be enough.
The second point is this: I suggest to my hon. friend that the word "district" ought to be done away with. As the matter stands now, "district" is defined as a judicial district. I think this section would mean that if there were a board of trade in a district, you could not have another board of trade in that district without its being incorporated. My hon. friend knows judicial districts cover a pretty large territory.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My hon. friend has just
stated that all boards of trade should be incorporated.


James Layton Ralston: If my hon. friend wishes to accomplish that object, he has not gone that far, I did not say that all boards of trade should be incorporated. What has been said with regard to the smaller boards of trade ought to be considered by my hon. friend and they ought not to be asked to go through the formality of sending an application to Ottawa and receiving incorporation. The minister could insert a clause which would render punishable with a fine persons who are using the name for wrongful purposes. There are very few men who would know the provisions in regard to incorporation and it is imposing a little too much hardship on people to require them to go through this formality. I am thinking of a judicial district in which there are two, three or four towns, where if you had a board of trade in one town, there could be no board of trade in any other.
Boards of Trade Act


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Geary):: Did the hon. member look at the section with regard to interpretation?


James Layton Ralston: Yes. It means any
judicial district or any town or village. The moment you use the word "district," if you have a board of trade in a judicial district, then you have that district preempted by that one board of trade. I think the Secretary of State will agree with me that the words "town or village" in the interpretation section do not mean very much.


John Thomas Hackett: The hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth has put forward the views that I wish to express. I should like, however, to make certain that boards of trade which now exist in large numbers in parts of Quebec and which are not incorporated are not outlawed by any amendment to this act, because incorporation, unless there be some special provision in the act, is an expense which many of those small communities, especially in these days, can ill afford.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the words "board of trade" should not be used except for a commercial purpose, as the hon. member has stated.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have no desire to crowd this bill through, Mr. Chairman. It is nearly eleven o'clock, and there is no prospect of passing the bill through committee to-night. It will be necessary for me to refer to several other sections. I move that the committee rise, report progress, and, ask leave to sit again, in order that the objections which have been made may be further examined.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Friday, February 12, 1932