1932-04-27

[Stage Direction]
Third report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.
Second report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament.- Mr. Robinson.

Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of laying on the table of the house copy of the correspondence in connection- with the contracts cancelled without notice since September, 1930.


Mr. DUPUIS:: More unemployed!
New Zealand Trade Agreement


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The mill is working!


Arthur Sauvé: Owing to precedents and the act.


Ernest Lapointe: You do nothing else.


Arthur Sauvé: Future will tell.



NEW ZEALAND TRADE AGREEMENT


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to lay on the table of the house a copy of a trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand. I shall at the same time lay on the table, for the convenience of members, should they desire to peruse it, a copy of the customs tariff of New Zealand; and I should also like to lay on the table, for inclusion, with consent of the house, in the votes and proceedings and for the convenience of members, copies of two schedules, duplicates so far as items are concerned, of those that are in the agreement, but setting forth the Brtish preferential rate, the intermediate rate, the general rate and the rate to New Zealand, so that members may have before them printed in the votes and proceedings a comparison of rates in the schedules.
It might be appropriate for me, in laying this agreement on the table, to make a few observations in regard to it.
The history of trade relations between New Zealand and Canada dates back a considerable time. Certain minor arrangements were made between the two dominions during the period between 1900 and 1925, but it was in 1925 that the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia completed a trade agreement, and on October 1, 1925, by order in council, the provisions of the Australian agreement were extended to New Zealand. But on April 12, 1930, notice was given to New Zealand for the cancellation of the said order in council, this cancellation to come into effect at the end of a period of six months, or on October 12, 1930.
The withdrawal from New Zealand of the privileges of the Australian treaty resulted in New Zealand on October 20, 1930, withdrawing the British preference applicable to Canadian motor cars, engines and tires. On June 2, 1931, New Zealand further withdrew from Canada the British preferential tariff on all

remaining items. This resulted in a decline of trade. I have before me the figures from August, 1930, down to March, 1932, showing a decline in trade to the month of December last and from December to March a considerable increase in exports to New Zealand. It is of course, expected, with great assurance, that as a result of the consummation of this treaty, that trade will again rapidly increase.
I might point out that the treaty is of a form similar to that with Australia. The main feature is that each of the dominions extends to the other the British preferential rate, with the exception of certain schedules
(a)	and (b) set forth in the agreement, and under these schedules each country extends to the other certain rates of duties specified therein. But I think the main emphasis should be placed upon the fact that the British preferential rate applies to all the other items not specified in the two schedules.
I shall refer briefly to the main features of the articles of the agreement. Article 1 sets forth where Canada agrees to give New Zealand the tariff treatment specified in schedule (a). Article II provides for concessions to Canada by New Zealand of the British preferential rate with the exception of certain items set forth in schedule (b). Article III is an interpretation clause. Articles IV and V suspend the anti-dumping laws of Canada and New Zealand respectively as regards each other, with this proviso: if one country notifies the other of importations of any goods which would prejudicially or injuriously affect producers or manufacturers of similar goods in the importing country and remedial measures satisfactory to the importing country are not put into effect by the exporting country within thirty days, then the dumping law of the importing country may be applied.
The difference between this procedure and that provided by article IX of the Australian treaty is that the dumping law instead of the general tariff is applied to prevent the importation of goods detrimental to the importing country.
Article VI corresponds to article VI of the Australian treaty in allowing each country to levy special duties such as primage, excise and special charges. That is a more or less formal article. Article VII enables each contracting party, upon giving three months' notice to the other, to increase the rate of duty on any goods in the schedules and in form gives, I might say, to the schedules flexibility which does not exist in the Australian treaty.

Questions
Article VIII extends the concessions to New Zealand to the products of western Samoa. Article IX extends the privileges of the agreement to the Cook islands. These two are either mandatory territory or territory annexed to New Zealand, and with respect to these two protectorates of New Zealand Canada gets the British preferential rates.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Will the
minister explain the meaning of primage duty?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a duty that New
Zealand imposes similar to the excise tax which we impose in Canada. It is applicable to all goods. I may say in regard to that article the duties or taxes that are imposed must be applied to all countries irrespective of where the goods come from or what the agreements are. This, briefly, is an outline of the agreement. In a moment, under the next order, I shall ask leave to introduce a bill.



INTRODUCTION OF BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 62, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and New Zealand.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Is there anything further to add by way of explanation?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might explain the bill
very briefly. Clause 2 provides that the trade agreement is approved and declared to be in force and the law of Canada. Clause 3 empowers the governor in council to make such orders and regulations as may be necessary to give effect to the agreement. Clause 4 is the usual provision that in case of there being anything inconsistent with the agreement, the agreement shall prevail. Clause 5 provides that the act shall come into force on a date to be fixed by proclamation by the governor in council and published in the Canada Gazette.
Our understanding is that New Zealand is anxious that the treaty shall come into force at the earliest possible day, as soon as the two governments can agree to fix a date. I might add that New Zealand tabled this agreement at ten o'clock last night, which would synchronize with three o'clock Wednesday in New Zealand. It was our intention to have tabled the agreement last night but it will be recalled by hon. members that that opportunity was not presented. I may add by way of explanation that the statement appeared in the press this morning because
we had fully anticipated the tabling of the agreement last night, and in courtesy to the Canadian Press a copy of the agreement was handed to them in time for publication. But as I said, circumstances did not permit of our tabling the agreement last night.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 1.	Was a quantity of wheat purchased in 1931 to be made into flour for relief purposes, if so, how much and where was the grinding done?
2.	AVas a quantity of flour purchased by or for the relief commission in Saskatchewan, if so, from whom purchased and what amount?
3.	Were tenders called for the work of grinding the flour and for the purchase of flour, if so, what are the names of tenderers, the prices quoted in each case, and amounts purchased from each?
4.	A A7 ere purchases made by the government or by the commission, and were tenders received by the government or by the commission?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Originally, options were secured for
1,672,000	bushels of wheat, 'which would produce 380,000 barrels of flour, on the basis of 4 bushels 24 pounds to the barrel. On September 5, the quantity was reduced to 250,000 barrels, and options for 1,100,000 bushels of wheat were retained. The option price of wheat was 53 cents per bushel. The order for grinding was placed with the Canadian National Millers, and they advised the order
was distributed as follows:
Barrels
Quaker Oats Co., Saskatoon	 23,409
Spillers Limited, Calgary	 9,545
Lake of the Woods, Medicine Hat. 43,409 Ogilvie Flour Mills Co., Medicine
Hat	_	 43,409
Western Canada Flour Mills,
Calgary	 43,409
Maple Leaf Milling Co., Medicine
Hat	 43,409
Robin Hood Mills, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon	 43,409
Total	 249,999
2.	The relief commission in Saskatchewan advised that quantities of flour have been purchased by the commission from local sources
Questions

in Saskatchewan. The government has not particulars indicating from whom it was purchased and in what quantities, but efforts are being made to secure the same.
3.	No. See answer to No. 1. The price agreed upon was 83.40 per barrel on the basis of the options supplied f.o.b. the mill, with a milling in transit rate supplied by the mill to the ultimate point of destination.
4.	The arrangements made to secure the wheat for milling purposes were made by the government before the prorogation of parliament last session, but the details were not completed until September. The deliveries were directed by the commission, which paid the accounts therefor.


ST. VALUER, BELLECHASSE COUNTY, POSTMASTERSHIP
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Did the Civil Service Commission hold an examination to replace Mr. Eusebe Marceau, as postmaster of St. Vallier, county of Beliechasse?
2.	What is the name of the person who was
recommended by the Civil Service Commission to replace Mr. Marceau as postmaster of St. Vallier?	. .
g. Was the person recommended by the Civil Service Commission appointed as postmaster of St. Vallier to replace Mr. Marceau, if not, why?
4. What is the name of the person who was appointed postmaster of St. Vallier as successor to Mr. Marceau, by whom was the appointment made and why was said person appointed?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Alphonse A. Berube was assigned to the vacancy on the 19th January, 1932.
3.	Mr. Berube was rejected by the department under section 24 of the Civil Service Act, as unsuitable.
4.	Under the act it then became necessary for the commission to make another assignment to the vacancy, and accordingly a certificate for the assignment of the candidate next in order of merit, Mr. Leopold Boulanger, was issued on the 21st March, and the department has advised the commission that this gentleman reported for duty on March 31, 1932.


OFFICIAL HISTORY OF THE WAR
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	How many volumes of an official history setting forth Canada's participation in the great war have been published to date?
2.	How many have still to be published?
3.	How long has this work been in progress?
4.	When will it be completed?
5.	Who wrote:	(a) whatever volumes have
already been published; and (b) the volumes, if any, that have not yet been published?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	One volume has been issued to date, namely the History of the Medical Services, written by Sir Andrew Macphail.
2,	3, 4 and 5. The material necessary for the writing of a general history of the war is being compiled by the historical section, general staff. The exact number of volumes to be published cannot, at the present time, be determined, nor is it possible to say when this history will be completed.


CUSTOMS DUTIES COLLECTED-AUTOMOBILES
Mr. COOTE:: 
FORT FITZGERALD AIRPORT
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Is there a Royal Air Force airport at Fort
Fitzgerald ?
2.	If so, what sum of money has already been spent on it?
3.	What sum is expected to be spent at Fort Fitzgerald during 1932?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: 1.	There is a Royal Canadian Air Force sub-station at Fort Fitzgerald.
2.	$25,696 has been spent on this sub-station up to March 31, 1932.
3.	The sub-station at Fort Fitzgerald is being kept on a care and maintenance basis during 1932, the cost of such maintenance is not expected to exceed $500. No provision has been made for any other expenditure in connection with the sub-station.


POST OFFICES-CHANGE OF SITES
Mr. POULIOT:: How many postmasters, in each province, since August, 1930. lost their position owing to change of site of the post office, ordered by the Postmaster General?


Arthur Sauvé: Ontario	 Quebec	 Nova Scotia	 New Brunswick		.... 3 .. .. 23 .... 23 .... 12
Prince Edward Island.. ..	.. .. Nil
Manitoba		.... 2
Saskatchewan		.... 4
Alberta		.... 5
British Columbia		75


POST OFFICES-ABOLISHED
Jean-François Pouliot: How many post offices were abolished in each province, since August, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: Nova Scotia	 85
Prince Edward Island	 2
New Brunswick	 54
Quebec	 91
Ontario	 49
Manitoba	 19
Saskatchewan	 57
Alberta	 49
British Columbia	 30


POST OFFICES-ESTABLISHED
Jean-François Pouliot: How many new post offices were established ill each province, since August, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: Nova Scotia	 4
Prince Edward Island	Nil
New Brunswick	 4
Quebec	 44
Ontario	 41
Manitoba	 11
Saskatchewan	 33
Alberta	 57
British Columbia	 16


POSTMASTERS-DISMISSED
Mr. BARIBEAU:: How many postmasters have been dismissed without any investigation or without being given the opportunity to submit a defence before being notified of their dismissal: (a) from January 1922, to July, 1926; (b) from 25th of September, 1926, to 7th August, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: (a) 65; (b) 320.


Jean Louis Baribeau: How many postmasters have been dismissed: (a) from January, 1922, to July, 1926; (b) from September 25, 1926, to August 7, 1930?


Arthur Sauvé: (a) 450; (b) 682.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCIL;
For a copy of all reports, letters, telegrams aud other documents relating to the appointment, by the Civil Service Commission, of Leo Labreeque, a veteran, to the position of lighthouse keeper at Carleton, county of Bonaven-ture, Quebec; also a copy of all documents in connection with the dismissal of said Labreeque by the Minister of Marine, and the appointment of Mr. J E. Martin, of Carleton, Quebec.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCIL (for Mr. Ralston);
For a copy of all paysheets, stock bills, reports, correspondence, and other documents in connection with the repair work done under the Department of Public Works, at Sanford, Yarmouth county, in March, 1931.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 26, consideration of the motion of Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance) that Mr. The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
[Stage Direction]
Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Ralston.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, last night I had not intended to speak for more than a very few minutes although I said nothing about "five" minutes. Perhaps the Speaker misunderstood me. I can quite understand that because very often I find it difficult to hear him from this end of the chamber. When it became impossible to secure order last night it seemed that the only thing that could be done was to wait until to-day. May I express my appreciation of the attitude of members opposite at this end of the chamber who did make an effort last night to maintain order while I was speaking. Since the debate has gone over until to-day I should like to extend my remarks a little further.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in the earlier part of his speech yesterday gave a survey of the whole economic situation, and whether or not one agreed with him ha every detail, I think we must all admit that it was a very fine presentation from his point of view. However, after that, although he had deprecated party politics in view of the crisis that exists, he himself proceeded to discuss matters in a most partisan way, even descending to ordinary ridicule of the positions and speeches of those of us on this side of the house. He referred to Mr. Massey and to an organization known as the League for Social Reconstruction. I think someone must have been telling the Prime Minister some cock and bull story; for he evidently thought to explode a bomb in the house: it proved to be only a dud. He said that Mr. Massey had travelled through the west ostensibly for the purpose of addressing Canadian Clubs, but in reality after his addresses gathering together the faithful in order to reorganize them and to present to them another program. In the words of the Prime Minister:
Po plans for the future were reduced to writing, and as a result I hold in my hand a typewritten copy which was left by Mr. Massey with those whom he had called into conference in western Canada
The Prime Minister then proceeded to read into Hansard the manifesto as issued some two months ago by the League for Social Reconstruction. In answer to a question by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) the Prime Minister said:
This is by Mr. Massey, the new organizer of the Liberal party. This is the parlour socialism of that party.

Now, so far as I have been able to ascertain Mr. Massey had nothing whatever to do with the drawing up of that manifesto. It may be that he left some copies of it with some of his friends, for there are printed copies. I am very glad indeed to think that this kind of program has appealed to Mr. Massey, and I hope it will appeal to a great many members of this house, but certainly Mr. Massey is not an organizer for the League for Social Reconstruction, and the program of this organization is very different, I would say, from that of the Liberal party.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: May I
ask if Mr. Vincent Massey is a member of the league?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Not so far as I
know, but I really do not know. May I say that this term, social reconstruction, seems to have rather stuck in the crop of the Prime Minister. It was first used here in Canada, if my memory serves me, by the late Sir John Willison, or at least he was one of a group that had a great deal to say about social reconstruction just after the war. I do not think that the program of the group under discussion is just that which Sir John Willison would sanction, but the phrase it seems to me is a perfectly good one.
Last night I attempted to read an editorial which had appeared in the April number of the Canadian Forum giving something of the history and purposes of this organization. It is not a political party, but rather an educational organization, and seeks to draw into its membership those who are not content with the existing social order, but are trying in some constructive way to draw up plans which will help to reestablish a better social order than we have to-day In fact it is working along the lines of the Fabian society of earlier days.	.
I can remember over thirty years ago while doing some reading at Oxford attending a meeting of the local Fabian society when Mr. Bernard Shaw came to address the students of the university. There is no doubt whatever that he and Sidney Webb, who is now Lord Passfield, and Mrs. Webb did an enormous amount toward collecting information concerning social conditions in Great Britain, and disseminating that information among the people. The new organization to which I have referred proposes to do in Canada a similar work. I read a few more lines from the editorial:
It is intended to publish pamphlets on various aspects of our Canadian problems, and gradually to build up a 'body of information on such

The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth
questions as public ownership and the social services, about which there is so much material available in England and the United States, but so little in Canada.
The article goes on to speak of the membership, and then follows the concluding paragraph as follows:
Mr. J. S. Woodsworth, M.P., has accepted the honorary presidency of the league. A provisional executive committee is in charge of its activities for the first year. Its members are Professor F. R. Scott of the faculty of law, McGill imiveirsity; Professor King Gordon of the Union Theological college; Professor E. A. Havelock of Victoria college, Toronto; Mr. J. F. Parkinson of the department of political economy, university of Toronto; and Professor F. H. Underhill of the department of history, university of Toronto. The secretary is Miss Isabel Thomas, 760 Spadina avenue, Toronto. The following manifesto is being issued by the league. . . .
Then follows the manifesto which the Prime Minister read into the record and about which he spoke with such scorn. On account of the bearing of this manifesto on the very points we are discussing in this debate, I should like to offer a few comments. I read from the manifesto the following:
The league for social reconstruction is an association of men and women who are working for the establishment in Canada of a social order in which the basic principle regulating production, distribution and service will be the common good rather than private profit.
It does seem to some of us in this house, as to a great many people outside the house, that we are approaching a time when the profit motive in industry will have to be replaced by something else. That is the firm conviction of a group in parliament but also that of a great many people in different parts of the world to-day. We take it the present system is showing its bankruptcy through the unemployment, the seeming over production and general stagnation prevailing at the present time. Reading again from the manifesto, I find the following:
The present capitalist system has shown itself unjust and inhuman, economically wasteful and a standing threat to peace and democratic government.
May I point out that with nearly half a million people unemployed we have a most wasteful system in Canada. Nothing could be more wasteful than to have all these idle workers, and have our machinery working only part time. Undoubtedly such conditions are a standing threat to peace and democratic government. That is true locally, because we find on the order paper to-day provision for the securing of a larger force to protect us, for the enlistment of more constables. If such
measures are necessary it must be that present conditions are a menace. When we look at the world at large any careful student of international affairs must recognize that rivalry in economic affairs is a distinct menace. Turning again to the manifesto I read:
Over the whole world it has led to a struggle for raw materials and markets and to a consequent international competition in armaments which were among the main causes of the last great war and which constantly threaten to bring on new wars.
Can anyone controvert that statement; I think it is perfectly sound. Almost every historian of any standing recognizes that the main causes of wars in modern days are of an economic nature. I read on:
In the advanced industrial countries it has led to the concentration of wealth in the hands of a small irresponsible minority of bankers and industrialists, whose economic power constantly threatens to nullify our political democracy.
This manifesto was written before the Manitoba provincial savings office episode. It would seem, however, that nothing could better illustrate the truth of the passage I have just read than the fact that the banks dare dictate to a provincial premier when he is to call a legislature together. We thought that was a prerogative of the crown, or the crown as represented through the Lieutenant-Governor. We find now however that the banks can dictate when a legislature is to be called, and what is to be put on the statute books or to be removed from those statute books. Reading again:
The result in Canada is a society in which the interest of farmers and of wage and salaried workers, the great majority of the population, are habitually sacrificed to those of this small minority.
That is what hon. members in this corner of the house have been trying to say in connection with the budget which has been under debate, namely that essentially it is a rich man's budget, and the poor people are being taxed into greater poverty. Essentially it represents the transfer of wealth and power from the poor to the rich. I read on:
Despite our abundant natural resources the mass of the people have not been freed from poverty and insecurity.
Can anyone deny that. And, further:
Unregulated competitive production condemns them to alternate periods of feverish prosperity, in which the main benefits go to speculators and profiteers, and of catastrophic depression, in whiicth the common man's normal state of insecurity and hardship is accentuated.
I think that manifesto well describes the situation we have in Canada to-day-and not
The Budget-Mr. Woodsworth

only in Canada, but in the world at large. I think that the gentlemen who drew up this manifesto, some of whom have had excellent opportunities to study economic conditions and to know the histories of various nations, have put their finger upon the sore spot in our present civilization. To continue reading:
We are convinced that these evils are inherent in any system in which private profit is the main stimulus to economic effort.
That of course is an opinion, and I admit any man is free to deny that interpretation of the situation. Then comes the last sentence:
We therefore look to the establishment in Canada of a new social order which will substitute a planned and socialized economy for the existing chaotic individualism and which, by achieving an approximate economic equality among all men in place of the present glaring inequalities, will eliminate the domination of one class by another.
Then there follow some of the steps which, it is considered, will help towards the realization of the ideals above set forth.
I pause for a moment, Mr. Speaker, if possible to get a little better hearing. I know that this subject is not considered to be of vital interest by a great many men in the house, although I venture to say that within the next twelve months a great many more hon. members, as well as people outside the house, will be giving more careful consideration to the fundamental ideas outlined in the statement I have just been reading.
The Prime Minister spoke of some industries that exist in Canada to-day. Unfortunately in a speech lasting over two hours he said nothing whatever about the greatest industry we have, that is the care of the unemployed of Canada, which far transcends any other industry in this country, for we are told we have some 500,000 unemployed. If that estimate is at all nearly correct, it means that their care, together with that of their families, is the biggest responsibility that lies upon this country at the present time. The Prime Minister was very careful to go into details of the way in which he had, as he thought, established the credit of Canada, but he did not go into details as to how our destitute people were going to be saved from the dreadful situation in which a great many find themselves to-day. An editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of April 25, contains this passage:
Winnipeg's biggest individual industry-in numbers of persons on its rolls, in amount of money expended on its upkeep, and in its general effect on the rest of the city-is undoubtedly the business of unemployment relief.

The article goes on to state that from January 1 to April 6 the total administration costs for the married men's section, the single men's department, and the women's section was $39,484.97-nearly $40,000 for administration alone in the past three months. No municipality can very long carry a burden of that kind. In addition to that, on April 20 there were 1,147 men laid off from the Transcona and Fort Rouge shops. We in AATnnipeg are at our wits end to know what to do with these great masses of unemployed men.. The situation in AVinnipeg is more or less typical of almost every section of the country. Yesterday I had people in to see me from Hamilton and Stratford. In this morning's Citizen I noticed an editorial entitled AArork for Destitute A\romen, from which I quote two or three sentences:
. . . Relief of destitute women in Ottawa has been carried on during recent weeks by the Local Council of Women. . . . AVork has been provided for about six hundred women week by week. . . . There are at present no prospects that more work will be given out to Ottawa's needy women next Tuesday. They received none yesterday. They are desperately asking themselves what can be done. . . . This Christian community can hardly face with equanimity the sight of women walking the streets, hungry and without means of existence. There is surely something more to be done. But, with no constructive lead from those in authority to provide the workless and poverty-stricken in this land of stored granaries with even a bare existence, it remains with the public to see that at least their women are protected.
It is an appalling thing that here in the capital there are six hundred women absolutely without proper sustenance.
I wish I had the time to answer some of the arguments put forward by the Prime Minister. He went to a great deal of pains to justify his position with regard to the so-called favourable balance of trade. I believe that the Minister of Finance stated that that stood for the year at $25,000,000. Neither he nor the Prime Minister has since pointed out that the March returns show an adverse balance of $17,000,000, which would seem to cut off the greater part of the so-called favourable balance that had been laboriously built up during the preceding year. I do not think there is a great deal in the trade balance in any case. Again the Prime Minister, while he carefully analysed the relationships between our trade and that of Great Britain, pointing out invisible items, did not analyse the trade situation existing between the United States and this country in which there are also some very important invisible items.

The Budget-Mr. Irvine
The Prime Minister quoted with great approval the Macmillan report, but I wonder whether he would be prepared to stand by all the conclusions in that report.


Charles A. Stewart: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quote one paragraph :
We are emphatically of the opinion that, even if a further fall of wholesale prices be avoided, their stabilization at approximately the present level would be a serious disaster for all countries of the world alike; and that the avoidance of such an event should be a prime object of international statesmanship.
Again the Prime Minister quoted very approvingly the last book by Sir Arthur Salter; in fact the fore part of his address was very largely based upon this book. I almost wondered before he got through whether he had read the book himself or simply followed a memorandum that someone had given him, because he spoke in the most glowing terms of Sir Arthur Salter and said of him that he ranked "as one of the foremost authorities in the world at the moment." Now, what does Sir Arthur Salter say? Let me quote:
To what goal shall any new reform be directed, and by what methods will it best be achieved?
As to the ultimate goal, an economist could only give one answer-the lowest possible, uniform, and stable tariff-levels.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Apart from "revenue" as distinct from "protectionist" duties, there are perhaps two kinds of desirable exceptions, one economic, one social. First, emergency tariffs or prohibitions are justifiable against sudden and temporary dumping, designed to kill a competitive enterprise; and, secondly, for social or similar reasons, some countries might foster certain activities which they consider a desirable element in the national life. It may be, for example, that it is worth while for a given community, in the interests of a varied social life, to sustain some economic loss in order to avoid the specialization in a few activities which complete freedom would involve.
But, if we believe in world trade at all, its economies and advantages, a tariff to compensate for differences in wage-level, or in cost of production is mere nonsense.
Again.
A so-called scientific tariff usually means one which is based on the principle of compensating for differences in costs of production. This either represents a mere fallacy, or it is a policy destructive of international trade in anything except the few things that cannot be produced at home at any cost however exorbitant.
And again
Indeed, if we believe in international trade, the only mitigating circumstance about what are
usually called "scientific tariffs" is that they never are in fact scientifically framed and applied, for if they were trade would disappear. But if this is not their principle, what is? Let us face frankly the fact that the operative principle underlying the flexible, varied and changing system is usually just this, and nothing more:	that those interests which are so
organized as to exercise the strongest political pressure get protection, or the highest rates of protection, at the expense of the rest of th.) community.
The evil consequences are illimitable. Time energy, attention, money that should be devoted to improving processes, are devoted to persuading politicians. The system offers the highest rewards, the richest spoils, to those who can most successfully corrupt the government. The machine of government itself-in the widest sense, including the ministry, the civil service, the parliament, and the electorate,-cannot under these conditions, and does not, remain honest and competent enough to perform its primary tasks.


George Gibson Coote: Is that Sir Arthur Salter?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes. ,


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I say that Sir Arthur Salter is the man whom the Prime Minister quoted and of whose words he said:
That is the firm and considered conviction of one who. having had perhaps greater opportunities than any other through being in the very centre of the world movement, is able to express an opinion of value.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I know the house is very anxious to vote, and so am I.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Irvine: I knew you would all agree. But I want to ask the indidgence of the house for, I hope, not more than ten minutes. I want first of all to make a statement with regard to the amendment now before the house, since it happens that we have to vote upon it in a very few minutes, and in view of the remarks made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) in that regard yesterday afternoon. In the second place I want to correct what really amounted to a misrepresentation of the position taken by this group with respect to financial credit as expressed in the subamendment which was defeated last night.
With regard to the amendment, the right hon. leader of the opposition wondered how it was that we of the Independent groups could not attach our subamendment to the amendment. I want to read one section of
The Budget-Mr. Irvine

that amendment, which will make clear our position:
.	.	.	. this house is of the opinion that
increases made by the present administration in the customs tariff . . . have had the effect of stifling agriculture.
Whether agricultural conditions are worse or better as a result of the alterations in the tariff by the present government is a fitting subject for debate. It might be very well contended by the right hon. leader of the opposition that agricultural conditions have been aggravated by tariff increases, but we do not hold the view that tariff increases by the present administration have stifled agriculture, because agriculture was stifled before this government came into office. The point in the amendment to which we take exception is this, that the entire emphasis is placed upon tariffs, and we do not think tariffs, higher or lower, can solve the problems of agriculture to-day. We therefore advanced a suggestion which we in this corner thought would come nearer to the heart of the problem. Of course we may be wrong in that, but we are just as much entitled to our opinion in that regard as hon. gentlemen to our right are to theirs. I think that will make clear why, from our point of view, though many may have agreed with the amendment, we could not agree with that part of it which says the tariff is either cause or cure of all our economic ills.
For a few moments I should like to answer what I think must be regarded as misrepresentations made by the right hon. leader of the opposition and acquiesced in, in one particular, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), in regard to the suggestion on finance and credit advanced in the subamendment by the group in this section of the house. Of course I do not charge either of these right hon. gentlemen with having deliberately misrepresented us; I say that their interpretation of our position in effect misrepresents our attitude. I readily agree that there is much room for differences of opinion on questions of finance and credit, but while we are willing to have honest disagreements we do not wish it to go out to the country that we were advocating what was suggested yesterday afternoon by the right hon. leader of the opposition. He objects to the nationalization of finance. We put forward the point that a matter so vital to the economic life of the state as finance, financial credit and real credit, if you like, cannot safely be left to the guiding hand of private interests for private profit, and we do not see any other institution in Canada but this parliament and this govern-

ment that is in a position to speak or act for all the people. The right hon. leader of the opposition in effect approved of this principle when he put forward his tentative suggestion, which is very interesting and with ivhich I quite agree, in respect to the joint control of industry. There he recognized the necessity of taking from the control of one particular class the whole destiny of the industrial life of the state. We recognize the same principle in connection with finance, and we say this government is the only institution in Canada that has the power to speak for all the Canadian people or to take charge in their name of such a thing as finance, which means much to industry.
Then the right hon. gentleman asked who should do it. He wanted to know if the present government should be entrusted with that task. Our reply is that if the present government will control finance as effectively as they have increased tariffs we are willing to let them do it. If hon. gentlemen to my right should come into power, and if they will effect the control of finance as adequately as they brought about deflation after the war, we will gladly give them the opportunity to do it. If the party in this corner of the house comes into power we will show you how to do it, whether you like it or not.
The right hon. gentleman also objected to the issue of money in sufficient quantities to bring the value of the dollar to the point where it was when the major portion of our debts was contracted. We brought forward that suggestion in the subamendment, and referring to this point the Prime Minister said, "It is suggested- that we cut our bonds in two, that is, that the man who had $200 should have only $100." That really is not the true position; for if inflation were to be carried out even on the grand scale misrepresented by the right hon. leader of the opposition, it would not mean that a man with a $200 bond would be paid off with $100. It would mean that the man who had a $200 bond would be paid $200, just as he would be to-day. But where would the difference come in? In effect what the Prime Minister said is true, but unfortunately the reverse is true also. That is to say, if we deflate, then the man who has a $200 bond will be paid $400, and unfortunately that is where the trouble comes in. The right hon. leader of the opposition was in power when that was done, when we went back on the gold basis, which is deflation. The war debts of Canada, as well as our private debts, which were contracted under an inflated dollar, were doubled. We want to correct that mistake. I do not know

The Budget-Mr. Irvine
whether or not the Liberal party have come to the point where they admit that it was a mistake, but from this corner we warned them before they took that action; we told them it was a mistake. England knows now that it was a mistake, and everyone admits it. We want to correct that mistake in Canada, but not by a wild inflation. As a matter of fact it would not be inflation at all, were price levels raised by the issuance of credit; because in the first place it would counteract the deflation which was carried on in this country after the war. In the next place, inflation is not necessarily brought about by issuing more money; inflation is a condition only brought about when more money is issued than there are goods to stand opposite it on the business counter. In other words, so long as price levels remain reasonably stable there cannot be inflation, so that to charge us with asking for wholesale inflation is not the truth. We do not propose to start paper mills issuing money ad lib. to anyone who wants to come and get it, which is about what was suggested yesterday afternoon. We propose to correot a mistake made by the previous administration, and to bring the dollar that we have to pay back to the value of the dollar when we contracted our debts, or, as it might be stated, to raise price levels. Nobody would wish to stabilize price levels where they are now. The section of the Macmillan report just read by the previous speaker (Mr. Woodsworth) points that out very clearly; it Shows that we cannot think of stabilizing the price level where it is. If you are going to increase that price level to a reasonable point for stabilization, you can do so only by the issuance of more money. There is no other way of doing it and we provide in our amendment, and have advocated in this debate, that this should be done deliberately in Canada, the state taking over the issuance of money; for that is the only institution that should control it. The leader of the opposition made much of the word "immediately" in the subamendment.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Suppose I owed a thousand dollars to a loan company. How could I pay that debt more easily if we had inflated money? How would inflation affect a debt that I already owed?


William Irvine: The question is, of course,
a fair one, and I should like to take time to answer it quite fully. But surely my hon. friend will see without much debate that if he borrowed one thousand dollars when the price of wheat was one dollar per bushel, then he could pay one dollar of his debt 41761-153
with one bushel of wheat; but if later on deflation took place and the price of wheat dropped to fifty cents, he would have to give two bushels of wheat to pay a dollar of his debt. The converse is true with respect to inflation; that is, raising the price level to where it was when the debt was contracted, the farmer, instead of having to give three bushels of wheat to pay one dollar of debt contracted during the war, will be in a position where the amount of wheat required to pay the debt when the debt was contracted will pay the same amount of debt now. That is the thing we are trying to accomplish. There may be better ways than the one we have suggested, but no one has proposed such ways. I want to be careful that the interpretation of our point of view which the leader of the opposition placed upon our amendment should not go unchallenged into the country. He was very particular about the word "immediately," and spoke about the danger of doing anything suddenly to change the values of currency and credit. He suggested that if we did not administer the doses of medicine to the patient very gradually the patient might die on our hands. Apparently it would satisfy the leader of the opposition to let the patient alone, but if so, very shortly he would have to inject some embalming fluid into a corpse. We think it would be better to start to give the patient the necessary medicine at once. All we mean by the word "immediately" is simply that the time has come for us to make a beginning. We do not expect to cure all the evils of our present system in a few minutes, but we say that a beginning must be made and made as soon as possible.
In answer to the question I put to the right hon. gentleman, as to whether or not the issuance of money as prescribed in the subamendment would assist the people of Canada to pay their debts, he said:
I cannot believe any course that is not fundamentally sound is going to be of lasting benefit to anybody.
That is a fine statement; but agreeing with that principle, I cannot understand how it is that the right hon. gentleman would lend his abilities to sustaining a system which is fundamentally unsound. For if the financial system had not been fundamentally unsound, it would not now be necessary for us to make proposals to improve it. Is it a sound system to double debts so that they cannot be paid at all? Surely no one will say that is sound. Is it an unsound system to bring the values of money to the point where debts were contracted, so that people can pay back those debts in equal value? Surely that is a sound

The Budget-Mr. Irvine

principle. And that is all we asked in the subamendment. Or, to express it another way, we want to bring the price of commodities up to that level where it was when our debts were contracted. That is an honest policy; it is a sound policy, and to do otherwise is unsound. We did otherwise and it was unsound, and that fact is very largely responsible for the position in which we find ourselves at the present time.
In dealing with inflation, I think that the leader of the opposition became a little confused, because in quoting from Keynes he read an extract dealing with deflation, which entirely proves our point and disproves the point which he was trying to make. He said:
Would inflation increase the purchasing power of any one overseas? Would not inflation, if it is carried to the point indicated in the amendment, help very much the holding classes to-day as compared with others? Let me read a statement by Mr. Keynes, Whom lion. gentlemen to my left have often quoted:
"To restore the value of pre-war holdings by deflation means enhancing at the same time the value of war and post-war holdings, and thereby raising the total claims of the rentier class not only beyond what they are entitled to, but to an intolerable proportion of the total income of the community."
Precisely; but that is deflation, not inflation. That is what was done, and we want to correct that by the very opposite action. The bondholders of this country, by manipulation of finance, have doubled the debts of the people and made it impossible for them to pay. We want to do the very opposite. Price levels must be raised, or to express it in another way, issue sufficient money to bring commodity values back to where they were, so that every person in Canada would be able to meet his contractual obligations, and where the nation might ultimately hope to extricate itself from the burden of debt which is now upon it.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the for London (Mr. White). Had voted for the amend-


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
41761-153i	[DOT]_
The Budget-Division


Mr. LENNOX:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BELL (St. Antoine):: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DUBUC:: I was paired with the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outrement):: I was paired with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BOULANGER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. CAYLEY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted I would have voted for the amend ment.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: I was paired with the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was paired with the hon. member for North York (Mr. Lennox). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Julien-Édouard-Alfred Dubuc: I was paired with the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Frederick William Gershaw: I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


George Gibson Coote: I was paired with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Beynon). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


George Washington McPhee: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I was paired with the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Smoke). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.

Ways and Means-Customs Tariff


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. MeDade). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. BROWN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: I was paired with the hon. .member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. OHEVRIER (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of ways and means, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
1. Resolved, that schedule A to the customs tariff, being chapter forty-four of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as amended by chapter seventeen of the acts of 1928, chapter thirty-nine of the acts of 1929, chapter thirteen of the acts of 1930 (first session), chapter three of the acts of 1930 (second session) and chapter thirty of the acts of 1931, be further amended by striking thereout tariff item 409q, the several enumerations of goods, respectively, and the several rates of duties of customs, if any, set opposite thereto, and by inserting the following item, enumerations and rates of duty in said schedule A:
Tariff Item	-	British Preferential Tariff	Inter- mediate Tariff	General Tariff409q	Complete parts for repairs, if imported on or before the thirty-first day of March, 1933, under regulations prescribed by the Minister. . (i) For the implements of machinery enumerated in tariff items 409c, 409e, 409f, 409g, 409j, 409o,	Free	10 p.c.	10 p.c.(ii) For the implements or machinery enumerated in	Free	7* p.c.	7* p.c.(iii) For the implements or machinery enumerated in	Free	6 p.c.	6 p.c.(iv) For the implements or machinery enumerated in	Free	10 p.c.	15 p.c.(v) For the implements or machinery enumerated in	Free	17* P-c.	17* p.c.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that the calling of the item is purely formal and that it is not intended to continue?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Mr. BENNETT:: In the absence of the
Minister of Finance, who unavoidably is still detained at his house, I move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



FISH INSPECTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Acting Minister of Fisheries) moved the third reading of Bill No. 6, to amend the Fish Inspection Act-.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) moved the second reading of Bill No. S3, to amend the act of incorporation of the Frontier College.
On section- 1-Power to confer degrees.
Charles A. Stewart: Would the minister explain the bill?


Mr. CAHAN:: In the year 1922 parliament passed an act to incorporate the Frontier College, by chapter 77 of the statutes of that year. The objects of this college were defined in section six of the statute, as follows:
(a) To promote education among Canadian working men and women and Canadian immigrants; -(b) To promote higher educational training and instruction for teachers and social workers among Canadian working men and women and Canadian immigrants.
The objects were very praiseworthy indeed, but under section ten of the act the college was authorized to confer degrees. The college has recently applied to the government of the province of Ontario to be brought under the operation of the Education Act of Ontario and to secure certain

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
rights, privileges and emoluments which may be conferred under that provincial statute. In order that the college might be brought under that statute an agreement was entered into on the nineteenth day of December, 1931, between the Frontier College and His Majesty the King in the right of the province of Ontario as represented by the Minister of Education for Ontario. One provision of the agreement was that section ten of the act of incorporation should be repealed, and so at the request of the government of Ontario concurred in by the Frontier College, I am simply asking by this bill that section ten be repealed in order that this college, which was incorporated by a federal statute, may be brought under the operation of the Education Act of Ontario. All parties have agreed, and I have formal agreements signed to that effect.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act to provide for the appointment of a deputy commissioner, and the employment of extra constables in emergencies, and to make further provisions respecting the counting of service in the great war and in the civil service and customs-excise preventive service by officers and constables, for the purposes of pension.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as is pretty generally known, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have now entered into agreements-probably I should say the government has entered into agreements on their behalf-with the three prairie provinces and the three maritime provinces to take over the ordinary provincial police forces of those six provinces. The police forces of the provinces are being consolidated with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The agreements in respect to which these forces are taken over are practically the same, with the exception of soipe very slight variations. There is a fixed sum of so much per man allowed as payment by the provinces to the federal government. Then there is a fixed amount for expenses in connection with the transportation of prisoners and the like.
These agreements are all based on the Saskatchewan agreement passed three years ago. In the act authorizing the Saskatchewan agreement there is provision for the inclusion

of other provinces. In the view of the commissioner commanding the force it is necessary to have a deputy commissioner to assist him in his work. That is the main object of the present bill, but in addition there are other minor proposals. The bill which will be introduced is quite long, and by reason of the amalgamation a great many amendments have been made necessary. As a result of the amalgamation there will be a considerable saving to the government of Canada, brought about by the abolition of double overhead which has existed heretofore in all the provinces affected, and particularly in those in the west. When the estimate for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is before the house-and I expect it will be either to-morrow or the next day

I shall give the details of the proposed expenditures, and I think I shall be able to satisfy the house that compared with the expenditures in the past there will be a very large saving in expenses in the administration of the force.
I think that is all I need explain at this time.
Mr. HEAPS:: Can the minister tell us what increase there will be if the amalgamation of the various forces becomes effective?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: An increase in what?


Abraham Albert Heaps: In the personnel of the force?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the personnel will be in the neighbourhood of 2,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But the 2,000 will not represent the increase in the force brought about by the amalgamation.


Hugh Guthrie: No; the force was about 1,250 strong; it was increased by 200 or 250 last December. The full increase will bring the whole force up to about 2,000. However I shall have exact information when we are considering the estimate.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: That is for the six provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must remind hon. members that we are not in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Have any representations been made by the province of British Columbia?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. During last summer and autumn there were negotiations. Indeed, they were continued until quite recently this spring. I was under the impression that similar arrangements would be made with the province of British Columbia, but up to the present time that province has not agreed to come in. Within the last four or five weeks I have received communications from that province, but at least for the present they have rather definitely refused. They say they will maintain their own constabulary at the present time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the same situation prevail in regard to Ontario and Quebec?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes; they have not come in.


Charles A. Stewart: Is there any arrangement in the agreement providing for the taking over of the constables now employed by the provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. All the constables
now employed will' not be required in the force. As my hon. friend knows, however, in the force there is a record of the work hitherto performed by each constable, and they are being selected having regard to their services, their adaptability and their past record. Speaking from memory, I will say there were 115 in the Manitoba force, and 85 have been taken over. The same proportion would follow in regard to the other provinces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In regard to seniority, will the old members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the various provinces affected by this legislation have seniority over the new members of the old provincial police forces now being taken in?


Hugh Guthrie: I think the old members
will continue to hold their seniority. However, I should like to give a more definite statement when the estimate is before the house.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no reduction in the number of constables employed in the various provinces, as a result of the forces being taken over by the federal authorities?


Hugh Guthrie: No; I do not think there will be any reduction in the number.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Will the
customs-excise preventive officers be reengaged at the same salaries?


Hugh Guthrie: They will be engaged as
enlisted men at the regular pay of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A list of preventive officers has been prepared by the Department of National Revenue. It is on the recommendation of that department they have been taken in. I believe about half the staff of the preventive services will be absorbed in the mounted police; the rest will not be required.


Mr. VENIOT:: How many of the provincial police in the province of New Brunswick have been brought in under this service? Probably the minister would prefer to answer under the estimate.


Hugh Guthrie: I should think about
ninety per cent.


Peter John Veniot: In the province of New
Brunswick there is a difference between provincial police and constables.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, there is in every
province.


Peter John Veniot: Yes. Two years ago the
provincial police of New Brunswick were put under a pension system. Will the pensions of those drafted into the Royal Canadian Mounted Police begin two years ago, or only from the time they were drafted in?


Hugh Guthrie: In each province the
provincial government must make good any deficiency in regard to the pension fund. The only province that has undertaken to do so is Saskatchewan. For instance, in Alberta the fund which has been accumulated by the province up to the present time is not sufficient to carry the pensions in force in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Unless Alberta is prepared to pay the additional amount, the pensions will have to be reduced to bring them into harmony with the amount of money that is now available in the hands of the province. The provinces are to hand over such funds as they have accumulated for the purpose of pensioning their own men in the new force, but only so far as the funds will extend. In the agreement with Saskatchewan the province has undertaken to pay it all; their men will be placed upon the same plane as the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in respect to pensions. The other provinces have not yet agreed to do so; they may eventually. But the expense of doing so will have to be borne by the provinces.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Will the time served in the provincial forces be counted as service in the new force?

Royal Canadian Mounted Police


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, if the necessary amount of money is forthcoming it will be.


Eugène Fiset: Is a specific establishment to be provided for each province?


Hugh Guthrie: No. A plan is being
worked out by the commissioner to carry out in each province under the mounted police the scheme which heretofore has been working in the prairie provinces only. There will be a headquarters in each province, and I suppose there will be various posts according to the localities that are deemed most desirable.


Eugène Fiset: Then the service
will be interchangeable?


Hugh Guthrie: Oh yes; that is one of
the merits of the system we believe.


George Gibson Coote: Under this agreement will
the same number of police be maintained in Alberta? I understand from letters I have received from High River that the police station at that point has been closed, although located there for forty-five years. The people are rather alarmed, and an effort is being made to have it reopened. Will the number of police to be maintained in the province be reduced compared with the number of provincial police formerly?


Hugh Guthrie: No, there will be practically the same number in every province as heretofore. With regard to High River, I am sorry to say it is the intention to close the post. These posts are selected by the provincial administration, and Edmonton has advised us that the High River post should not be maintained any longer.


George Gibson Coote: The provincial government
has advised that?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Mr. MALCOLM:: The minister stated that in some instances the amount of the pension fund standing to the credit of the provincial police would not be sufficient to carry out the agreement which these men had with their respective provinces. These men having made a contract with the provincial authorities, it seems to me very unfair that they should be transferred to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the provincial governments relieved of the responsibility of carrying out their bargains. Apparently the men because of this transfer are going to suffer after having contributed their share to the provincial pension fund.


Hugh Guthrie: I fancy it is a matter between the men and the provinces. I under-

stand that practically all the men are in favour of the arrangement. They do not look to this government to make it good.


James Malcolm: Naturally not.


Hugh Guthrie: It is purely an actuarial
matter, and the amount can be definitely ascertained.


James Malcolm: Quite.


Hugh Guthrie: But to pay the scale of
pensions payable to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would require a greater amount than is now in the hands of the provincial governments. We cannot bind the provincial governments to make up that amount. Saskatchewan has done so; Alberta and Manitoba have not done so as yet. However, that is a matter between the former constabulary of the provinces and the provincial governments. It is now under consideration, and I think in the case of one province there is only a difference between them of $20,000.


James Malcolm: The minister does not
state the amount of money they will receive from the provinces. Will it be less than the amount required to carry out the agreement which the provincial police had with their provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: It will carry out the
agreement they had with their provinces, but it will not pay the pensions payable to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


James Malcolm: Then I withdraw my
objection.


Mr. GARDINER:: What is the scale of
pension in each case?


Hugh Guthrie: It is higher in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Mr. HEENAN:: What rates of pay were
the men receiving under the provinces, and what will they receive under the dominion?


Hugh Guthrie: I know the policemen
get $2 a day and certain allowances. I do not know what they got from the provinces. We agree to maintain, say, 150 men at $1,000 a man, and we receive from the province $150,000; in addition we receive the actual expenses in connection with the transportation of prisoners and the like. In some cases that has been fixed at a definite sum, but in the case of Saskatchewan we have had to do a lot of accounting, and we obtain the actual expense that we incur. It would be far better if we could arrive at a definite sum in each case. Last year we received from Saskatchewan $25,000 for the transport and care of

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
prisoners. We have fixed a definite sum with Alberta of $50,000, and I think the same with respect to Manitoba. Saskatchewan is now anxious to have a definite sum fixed in regard to its prisoners, but we have not yet been able to agree upon an amount.


Mr. POWER:: Does this legislation cover
the amalgamation, if I may so call it, of the customs preventive service with the mounted police?


Hugh Guthrie: No, this legislation does not.


Charles Gavan Power: Is it the taking over by the mounted police of the entire preventive service?


Hugh Guthrie: This legislation does not
cover it; that is done by order in council under the act which authorizes rearrangement of departments of government. This provides for the preventive service in this respect, that time served heretofore in the preventive service shall be counted to the credit of these men when they join the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Charles Gavan Power: For pension?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I was under the impression
that a large number of employees of the preventive service were on a purely temporary basis, and consequently were not entitled to pensions. Am I right in that?


Hugh Guthrie: There are some temporaries no doubt, and they are not entitled to pension.


Charles Gavan Power: They were not under the
Civil Service Commission?


Hugh Guthrie: A lot of them were not.
A great many of them are going to be let out of the service as unnecessary.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister some
kind of statement to make as to the procedure to be followed with respect to employees of the customs preventive service generally? I am asking that question because I have heard from Quebec that a number of former employees are being let out of the service, and are not being given an opportunity to join the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Whether they are not being given that opportunity because they are too old, incompetent, or for some other reason I do not know. Perhaps the minister could make a statement with regard to that.


Hugh Guthrie: I think perhaps that is the reason-that they are too old, or some of them may be incompetent. At all events,
they have been selected on their records with the department by the officials of the Department of National Defence. Then these names, which were approved by that department, were submitted to the commissioner of the mounted police, and I think to-morrow I will be able to answer the question which more immediately concerns my hon. friend and which is on the order paper, as to the names of those in the province of Quebec who are being retained. I think there are fifty names on the list. I should have it here to-day, but I left it in my office. I will bring it to-morrow, and the names of the fifty selected are all given.


Charles Gavan Power: On what is this selection based?


Hugh Guthrie: On the records in the Department of National Defence. The selection vras made by that department and the names were submitted to the commissioner.


John Livingstone Brown: Have you that for every province?


Hugh Guthrie: That is the system for all the provinces.


John Livingstone Brown: Will you have a list of the selections in all the provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: That list has not been compiled as yet; the selection has not been completed.


Charles Gavan Power: What is to become of the people who have been in the service for some considerable length of time? Have they been given notice or a gratuity in lieu of notice?


Hugh Guthrie: I assume they will be treated as - other officials of the service are treated. Temporary employees will be allowed to retire on the terms applied to similar retirements in other departments. I do not know just what they are. Those who are entitled to retirement allowance will receive it, but as a means of economy as much as anything we have decided not to take over all the members of the service. We do not require them all, and in that way a very large saving will be made.


Peter John Veniot: Under the general act or regulations ten years service is required before any return is made in connection with superannuation. A person leaving the service before completing ten years does not get back the five per cent he has put in. Under the regulations adopted two or three years ago the customs preventive service was brought under the pension system. Some of these men will be let out under this reorganization. Would the minister look into the matter and

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
let us know later on, if he has not the information now, whether these men will lose the amount they have paid into the pension fund, or whether that money will be returned to them.


Hugh Guthrie: I will look into the matter. I cannot say offhand, but they will be given whatever is provided by the law.


Mr. YENIOT:: If I am not mistaken there is.no provision for them when they are retired by reason of their services not being required.


Hugh Guthrie: I think in that case they get a gratuity, and not a pension.


Peter John Veniot: But they may have paid in more than the amount of the gratuity.


Hugh Guthrie: My recollection is that they get what they paid in, with some interest.


Peter John Veniot: If that is so it is satisfactory.


Hugh Guthrie: I believe if they are dismissed they do not get anything.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask if the counting of service in the great war for pension purposes is a new principle being incorporated in the act?


Hugh Guthrie: It is a new principle in the mounted police act.


Charles Gavan Power: Formerly when persons
joined the police after having served in the great war, that service was not counted for pension, as I understand it, but it will be counted under this new legislation. Is this going to be a sort of blanket provision, taking in those who were members of the police force prior to the amalgamation of the customs preventive service, or will it deal only with those who are to benefit by this particular legislation?


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend probably knows that a great many members of the mounted police joined the forces and participated in the great war. Up until they left for the war their time counted for pension, out while they were away it did not count, and on their return a great many of them rejoined the police force. The provision is that such men who served in the great war shall be able to count the three or four years thus spent in connection with pension, and the same privilege will be given those in the preventive service. Any time they spent overseas will be counted towards pension, just as if they had served in the police force.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. I quite understand the situation in connection with those mentioned by the minister, that is, men who prior to the

war were members of the mounted police. It would be a very curious anomaly indeed if the time they spent at the war could not be counted for pension; I think we all agree on that. But I was asking the minister whether or not the time served overseas by a recruit who may join to-day, or who joined t-wo or three years ago, will be counted with his police service, in connection with his pension.


Hugh Guthrie: The case could hardly
arise under the present regulations, because they provide that no one shall be taken in who is over twenty-eight years of age. A man who is twenty-eight years of age to-day would have been a very young man at the close of the war; he would not have been able to serve.


Charles Gavan Power: Did the same regulation
apply in the preventive service?


Hugh Guthrie: No, but the preventive
service would be included under this provision, and any member who served in the great war would be able to count that time.


Charles Gavan Power: I understand that civil
servants who served in the war had that time counted for pension.


Hugh Guthrie: That is right.


Charles Gavan Power: If a member of the customs preventive service served during the war, and is now incorporated in the mounted police, his time in the servioe and his war service would both count for pension?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Now take the case of a
man who joined the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, say, in 1925 or 1926 when, so far as I know, the regulations were not so severe and when the age limit was not twenty-eight years. Would the time he served in the war be counted for pension?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, certainly.


Charles Gavan Power: That would not be so under the legislation previously in force?


Hugh Guthrie: No. That will be provided for in the bill which I propose to introduce.


Charles Gavan Power: Then I want to congratulate the minister.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Under whose jurisdiction will the police in the provinces come? Will they report to and be directly controlled by the officials of the Dominion government

Royal Canadian Mounted Police
or the officials of the provincial government, or will they come under a dual control in respect of the different acts which they may enforce? That is, would they come directly under the control of the dominion in regard to the enforcement of purely federal laws, and would they report to and come under the control of the provincial authorities in respect of provincial matters?


Hugh Guthrie: They will be directly
under the control of their own officers, and under the immediate control of Major General MacBrien, the commissioner. My hon. friend will see under the act that for certain purposes the force is under the Department of Justice, and for the time being the Minister of Justice is designated as the minister in control. But in each of the provinces where the system is now in operation we have a divisional officer, a superintendent, who is *directly in touch with the attorney general of the province, and the administration of law is largely carried on through that superintendent .and the attorney general. The supreme control of the force, however, is certainly with the [DOT]commissioner at Ottawa.


Alfred Speakman: But in the actual working out of the act the control, for ordinary every day purposes, will be divided in accordance with the particular law which may be enforced?


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is a fair statement of what is taking place.


Ernest Lapointe: Where will the deputy commissioner be located-in Ottawa or somewhere in the western provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: I think in Ottawa. I had a discussion with the commissioner to-day and he said that the pressure had been so great here that he would have to have someone with more authority than now existed and that the deputy commissioner would be stationed here with himself.


Ernest Lapointe: I think that is an additional plum.


Mr. HOWDEN:: Will the age regulation be observed in the transference of men from the provincial police to the Royal Canadian
service ?


Hugh Guthrie: Not as regards the men already in the service.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Regarding the division of work, and the men in the preventive service of the provincial police who have been taken in in each province, will there be a sharp division or will they work in cooperation? Are their duties the same? Will the duties of the provincial police be defined by the province?


Hugh Guthrie: They will be under one control, and I should think there would be cooperation in every respect between them; but that is a matter about which I could not give definite information.


Paul Mercier: What will become of the heads of the provincial police in each province?


Hugh Guthrie: Those who have been favourably reported on as good officers are retained.


Paul Mercier: In what capacity?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot tell; that will be under the control of the commissioner too,
I fancy.


Paul Mercier: Will they receive the same salary?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot say. They will be police force salaries.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the salary of the deputy commissioner?


Hugh Guthrie: It has not been fixed; it will have to be fixed in the bill.


Robert Gardiner: Where the mounted
police have taken over police duties in the provinces, which of the two governments will determine the number of police required for all
purposes?


Hugh Guthrie: They have been determined by the provinces on the basis of a three-year agreement. They name the number and pay one thousand dollars per man.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Guthrie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 63, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 42, to amend the Criminal Code. (Trustees defined. Disposition of fines).
Criminal Code
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-Payment of fines in Ontario to municipalities.
Hugh Guthrie: I desire to withdraw this section. The circumstances, 'briefly, are these. Section 2 was placed in the bill at the request of the government of Ontario. The effect of passing the section would 'be to allow the government of Ontario to dispose of all fines which are recovered in that province, as is permitted in all the other provinces of Canada to-day. In 1922 the government of Ontario induced this parliament to pass a special clause applying only to Ontario, which provided that these fines should go back directly to the municipalities. I received a request early in the year, asking me to go back to the old system that prevailed prior to 1922, and allow the fines to go directly to the province, the province to deal with them. Since I introduced the bill I have received word from the attorney general of Ontario that he proposes during the summer or autumn to call a conference of the municipalities of Ontario in regard to this question. A great many of the municipalities are not agreeable to the section now proposed. He says he will confer with them, and he has asked me to withdraw this clause of the 'bill for the present session and will advise me at the next session whether the province of Ontario desires it. Under these circumstances, if the committee is agreeable, I would move that it be withdrawn.
. Mr. ELLIOTT: There is no relationship between the two sections of the bill?


Hugh Guthrie: None at all.
Motion agreed to and section withdrawn.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time and passed.



NATURAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to provide that the governor in council, upon the recommendation of the Minister of the Interior may authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of any sums of money received in connection with the administration of the natural

resources prior to the transfer thereof to the western provinces, which His Majesty is under any legal or equitable obligation to refund, and that an annual statement be laid before parliament of all moneys refunded hereunder.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Ernest Lapointe: Will the minister explain the resolution?


Mr. MURPHY:: When the Department of the Interior was . administering the natural resources of the western provinces, the regulations and practice in many instances called for the payment of moneys to the department in advance of the granting of rights. In some cases the moneys were tendered as guarantee deposits; in other cases, as advance payments; in other cases, the regulations provided a drawback. In all these cases, it was customary to refund any over-payment as speedily as determined.
In addition to the foregoing, there were cases where settlers made improvements on homesteads which they afterwards abandoned. Re-entrants for the same land paid the department the value of the improvements and it was customary to refund this amount to the cancelled entrant as soon as it had been collected from the reentrant, provided the municipality in which the land was situated certified that no unpaid taxes had accrued meanwhile.
Again, under the authority of an order in council of May 29, 1925, certain regulations governing the conversion of patented preemptions or purchased homesteads into soldier grants were established. Under these regulations, which were subsequently continued, settlers who had paid in full or in part for their preemptions or purchased homesteads, and who were entitled to soldier grant entry by reason of their military service, were permitted to convert their preemption or purchased homestead, as the case might be, into a soldier grant and obtained a refund of the purchase price.
So long as the department was receiving the revenue from dominion lands administration, no question arose as to the policy followed consistently by succeeding administrations. The refunds were made from current revenue. However, with the passing of the control of the natural resources to the provinces, the source of revenue disappeared.
Generally speaking, the applications may be roughly classified as follows:
(a) Petroleum and natural gas prospecting permit deposits: in addition to the prescribed rental, each applicant for a permit was re-

Natural Resources
quired to make a deposit of forty cents an acre, which was returnable upon evidence being submitted that an equal expenditure had been incurred in prospecting operations on the location held under permit.
(b)	Dominion lands: when homesteaders gave assignments to railway companies for areas acquired for right-of-way, the railway company, at the request of the department, instead of paying the consideration money over to the entrant, forwarded it here to be held in trust, pending the issue of patent. When the department ascertains that the entrant has become entitled to patent, it has been the practice to refund the money to him.
(c)	Moneys paid to the department in connection with yearly licences and permits to cut timber on dominion lands: this department is holding certain sums which have been received in connection with the disposal of timber rights on dominion lands in the four western provinces, either in the form of deposits made as a guarantee that the permittee will pay the prescribed charges and conform with the timber regulations, or of credit balances which have arisen in favour of the permittee or berth-holder during the course of his operations.
(d)	Seed grain: an occasional settler who has paid an instalment on seed grain indebtedness charged against the land for which he obtained entry, upon abandoning such entry has been permitted to obtain a refund of the sum so paid by him.
(e)	Preemptions converted into soldier grants: the practice there has been as previously mentioned.
(f)	Improvements left on cancelled homesteads or leases: the explanation is the same as was given under another heading.
(g)	Soldier settler timber permits: refunds of dues paid in connection with settlers' timber permits on soldier settlement land from time to time as patents are issued by this department.
(h)	Timber permit issued-no timber cut: refunds of dues paid on timber uncut under permits issued prior to the transfer of the resources, as the refunds are applied for.
(i)	Grazing leases: moneys paid for improvements in connection with grazing leases which are refunded to the party who left the improvements on the land.
(j)	Hay permit refunds: where no hay has been cut or where amount covered by permit is not available.
The total amount applied for to date is $51,140.75, although that may not be the
total amount applied for as applications may come in now or later.


Ernest Lapointe: The language of the
resolution is rather broad in the authorization it gives to the governor in council to pay sums of money which the crown is under any legal or equitable obligation to refund. Will the various cases which my hon. friend has mentioned, be indicated in the bill, or will it be rather in the nature of a blank cheque, leaving it to the discretion of the government as to whether the crown is under any equitable obligation to pay the sums which may be claimed from it?


Charles Murphy: The language of the bill
follows pretty much that of the resolution-


Ernest Lapointe: That is pretty broad.


Charles Murphy: -but the intention is to continue to make payments out of the consolidated revenue fund on the authority of the governor in council on the same principle as that on which payments have been made, as a matter of legal right or of grace, during the past number of years. The hon. member will understand that these payments have been made for many years out of moneys which were received when the dominion was administering the resources and the department was in possession of current funds. Now that that revenue has dried up owing to the transfer of the resources, this simply gives the minister power, under authority of the governor in council, to make these payments out of the consolidated revenue whereas formerly they were made out of the current revenue of the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No power conferred under the bill to be founded on this resolution will be greater than that exercised by the minister before the resources were turned over, that is, the power conferred upon the governor in council will not be greater than that exercised by the governor in council heretofore.


Ernest Lapointe: The power exercised by the minister is under what law?


Richard Bedford Bennett: When the resources were administered by the dominion, the minister exercised his power through an order in council and returned moneys by order in council as regards claims that were sometimes equitable with respect to homesteads and matters of that kind, and sometimes purely legal. There is no longer a fund except the consolidated revenue fund out of which the moneys can be paid. This is to authorize the same order in council upon the recommendation of the minister for the payment of
Natural Resources

moneys that might be held in trust or otherwise on an order in council and that heretofore were paid out_ of departmental funds.


Charles A. Stewart: Will this
cover all claims originating prior to the return of the resources?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is intended, as the
minister has said, to cover those claims which have not yet been adjusted, but which must be settled in some way because they arose prior to the time the resources were turned over. The money is now in the possession of the dominion. In some instances a legal claim exists; in some cases it is purely equitable. This is to enable the minister now to deal with those moneys out of the consolidated revenue fund through an order in council just as heretofore he himself used to have an order in council passed and a cheque could be issued accordingly. That cannot be done except by the authority now conferred, owing to the resources themselves having been turned over to the provinces, and the moneys formerly in the departmental fund being in the consolidated revenue fund.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: Is it proposed
that this legislation shall apply to the railway belt in British Columbia and the Peace River block?


Charles Murphy: It gives the minister power under the authority of the governor in council to make refunds out of consolidated revenue fund which were formerly made by the minister through order in council.


John Anderson Fraser: And it would
apply to the railway lands in British Columbia?


Charles Murphy: Any individual heretofore entitled to a refund in connection with lands or grazing or hay or timber permits would still be entitled to it, and the minister under this legislation would be able to make such refund under the authority of the governor in council.


John Anderson Fraser: What I have in mind is the case of a preemptor who took up a piece of land. On that land there was timber, and when he cut the timber and disposed of it he was obliged to pay a royalty on it. The royalty was imposed on the distinct understanding that when he had secured his patent the amount of the royalty would be refunded to the settler. They have had difficulty in British Columbia since the return of the natural resources in getting a refund, and I suppose that this legislation is to give the minister authority to pay back amounts of this nature. Is that correct?


Charles Murphy: That is correct.


Frederick William Gershaw: As the question of interest has come up, I would ask if the department pays interest to a man where there has been delay for months or years in paying the principal?


Charles Murphy: To the best of my knowledge there would be no interest paid to an individual. He would get his principal back without interest.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Murphy thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 64, to authorize the refund of mone3's received in connection with the administration of the natural resources.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



EASTERN BANK .OF CANADA BANK CIRCULATION REDEMPTION FUND-PAYMENT TO ESTATE OF THE LATE ANGUS MCLEAN

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (for the Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, That the Minister of Finance be authorized to pay to the executors of the estate of the late Angus McLean, of Bathurst, New Brunswick, the sum of $5,000, being the amount of the bank circulation redemption fund at the credit of the Eastern Bank of Canada, which was incorporated by chapter 28 of the statutes of 1928, but did not commence business.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: There are a number of non-contentions resolutions and bills standing in the name of the Minister of Finance, none of which I would ask the house to consider if they dealt with controversial matters. This particular resolution is non-eontentious, perhaps the committee will deal with it.
Shortly, a bank was incorporated called the Eastern Bank of Canada, and into the bank circulation redemption fund there were paid certain sums of money, including $5,000 by the late Angus McLean. The bank did not function. All its bills have been paid and certificates to that effect have been given. Mr. McLean is dead and his executors are entitled to this money, but it requires a statute to take it out of the fund.


Peter John Veniot: The bank was not incorporated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was incorporated by this parliament.

Eastern Bank oj Canada


Peter John Veniot: A bill was passed by the Senate and came to this house in 1929. Mr. McLean was not the original incorporator. Mr. Taylor was the promoter. The only question I want to ask is, have the interests of others been fully protected who were as deeply interested in this bank as Mr. McLean was when he was alive? Are they clear of all responsibility?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The moneys paid in were returned to everybody except Mr. McLean, and had he been alive the sum mentioned in the resolution would probably have been returned to him. With the lapse of time this money went into the fund, and it is now possible to withdraw it only by the authority of a statute. The necessary releases and so forth will be furnished to the minister before payment is made. The money is not that of the government; it belongs to Mr. McLean's estate.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 65 respecting the Eastern Bank of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. BENNETT moved the second reading of the bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This, of course, is being proceeded with now only by consent. Is the bill printed, Mr. Chairman?


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury) :: Yes, but not numbered.
On the preamble.
Mr. COOTE; What is the number of the bill?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury) :	It is not numbered and not distributed. The present procedure can be had only by consent.
Mr.	MACKENZIE	KING:	Is the bill
printed?
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury) :	Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it printed
in English and French?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
The	CHAIRMAN	(Mr.	Hanson,	York-
Sunbury) :	As hon. members have not the
bill before them I shall read the preamble which we are now discussing:
Whereas the Eastern Bank of Canada (hereinafter called "'the bank"), was incorporated by chapter seventy-eight of the statutes of 1928; and whereas the bank did not commence business; and whereas the subscribers to the capital stock of tire bank, other than the late Angus McLean, deceased, of Bathurst, New Brunswick, have been refunded the amount paid by them on their respective subscriptions; and whereas the affairs of the bank have been wound up and the executors of the estate of the said Angus McLean, deceased, have made application to the Minister of Finance for the payment out of the bank circulation redemption fund of the amount at the credit of the bank; and whereas the sum of five thousand dollars deposited by the bank under the provisions of the Bank Act in the bank circulation redemption fund represents moneys subscribed and paid for shares in the capital stock of the bank by the said Angus McLean, deceased; and whereas it is expedient to obtain the authority of parliament for the payment of the amount of the bank circulation redemption fund at the credit of the bank to the executors of the said Angus McLean, deceased; Therefore His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Olof Hanson: Section 1 is as follows, and comes
under the heading "Payment authorized":
1.	The Minister of Finance may pay to the executors of the estate of the late Angus McLean, of Bathurst, New Brunswick, the amount of the bank circulation redemption fund at the credit of the Eastern Bank of Canada.


Charles Gavan Power: Under what authority were
other subscribers paid?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Other subscribers were
paid their money in their life time. When the bank was wound up, the money not having been placed in such a position, it was no longer available to honour the cheque of the individual who gave it. In other words this fund is really in the consolidated revenue fund, having been transferred there, and it is technically part of the bank circulation redemption fund, but cannot be withdrawn except with the authority of the statute, which was legal authority for the other payments. That is my information, but I shall speak to the minister about it.


Ernest Lapointe: Are there any other
parties claiming it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, there is no claim of
any kind. It is as much their money as it is possible for anything to be their money.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported.
[Stage Direction]
Empire Parliamentary Association
Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the circumstances, I will not ask for a third reading of the bill to-day, but shall have inquiries made so that I may answer the question of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) as to the exact authority under which other payments were made.



EMPIRE PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it being nearly six
o'clock, I desire as a matter affecting the privileges of this house, to refer to an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, April 27, 1932. The editorial is headed "A Nice Little Joy Ride." The last paragraph is as follows:
There will be hard cynical people, of course -perhaps some of them have been feeling the economy axe-who will complain; who will think this is just a nice joy-ride at the country's expense. And there may be some even who will wonder why the grand passion for economy didn't reach out to include votes for a Parliamentary Association to help some of its members golf amid zephyr breezes that kiss the breakers on coral reefs. But they really mustn't. Our tired legislators, and particularly those who have been attending the strenuous sessions of the Senate, need this little vacation; especially as they are going to kill two birds with one stone and help save the empire while saving themselves.
I may say that Bermuda sent invitations, through the Clerk of the House as secretary of the Empire Parliamentary Association, inviting a certain number of members of the Senate and the House of Commons to visit Bermuda at the expense of the government of that place. No money of this country has been voted for the purpose. The sum appearing in the estimates that is paid to the Empire Parliamentary Association is paid for publications and is remitted in its entirety to the secretary of the association for that purpose. It is wholly incorrect and absolutely unfair to say or suggest that those who have been selected, or have agreed to go to Bermuda as guests of the Bermuda government have been taking money from this country for that purpose. The report is as inaccurate as it possibly could be; it is unfair to this parliament and to the gentlemen who have gone from this chamber and the Senate to Bermuda. It is a little difficult to understand why such a statement should have been made.



PARLIAMENTARY LEADERS


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I
have just been reading an editorial appearing in the Ottawa Journal of Wednesday, April 27, 1932, immediately below the one to which my right hon. friend has just referred. It may affect the privileges of the house, and certainly is a matter of personal privilege. The article is headed, "Mr. Bennett and Mr. King," and begins as follows:
According to despatches sent out to Winnipeg and Toronto papers, Premier Bennett and Mr. Mackenzie King have ceased to be on speaking terms, have no personal nor social contacts. This, if it be true, is a pity.
The article continues at some length. So far as I am concerned I was not aware that I had ceased to be on speaking terms with my right hon. friend. It is quite true I have not felt able to accept some of the invitations he has kindly extended, but beyond that I have not been aware of any personal difference with the Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the right hon. gentleman has made the observations to which we have just listened. I have had no occasion to speak to him and therefore I cannot be said not to be on speaking terms with him. The last occasion I had the opportunity of speaking to him I did not observe anything in his conduct which would indicate that he was unwilling to speak to me. Perhaps I spoke first on that occasion, but inasmuch as there have been very acute differences between us, in connection with which he said he would not accept any statement made by me, I assume the newspapers concluded that as a matter of intelligent discrimination I might decline to make any.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 5.45 p.m.
Thursday, April 28, 1932