1933-02-27

Mr. J. L. DUGUAY (Lake St. John) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, the following
news item was published on Saturday last by the newspaper Le Canada:
Air. Duguay went to St. Leon to meet a settler by the name of Jeffrey Levasseur-
I wish to state, sir, that I never met any settler, at St. Leon. Moreover, I have never been to St. Leon. The settler alluded to called to see me at my office. I wish to add that I am amazed at the statement made by the Hon. Mr. Laferte, Minister of Colonization of Quebec. He is entirely wrong in seeking to justify his agents by throwing the blame on me. Within the last ten days settlers from St. Leon-the latter is not in the county of Lake St. John but in that of Chicoutimi-have come regularly to my office with grievances against Mr. Maltais. I
devised edition
24S4
Questions

replied to Mr. Levasseur that he should first communicate with the Minister of Colonization at Quebec.


Mr. PARENT:: Mr. Speaker, I think the
hon. member is out of order.


Mr. SPEAKER:: No, he is not; he is speaking to a question of privilege.
(Translation): Mr. Levasseur stated that he had already written to the minister but had not received a satisfactory reply. I finally told him that if he wished to communicate with Ottawa, he was at liberty to do so. I, myself, wrote the dispatch, Mr. Levasseur signed and sent it. I am unaware who paid for this dispatch. The amount of $40 mentioned in the article was paid to Mr. Levasseur after the dispatch was forwarded. Mr. Jeffrey Levasseur admitted to me in the presence of a witness, in my office,. that on his return to Chicoutimi they had made him sign a statement similar to the one which appeared in the newspaper article. I can therefore state, sir, that I acted within my rights, and1 that in the future, under similar circumstances, I shall act the same way. It matters little whether the Quebec Minister of Colonization approves of my conduct, I shall act as in the past.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. GORDON:: I desire to lay on the
table of the house certain orders in council passed pursuant to the relief legislation.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	Are the rayon industries in Canada subsidized by the government in any way?
2.	If so, to what extent?
3.	What profits or dividends have been declared by rayon or celanese products corporations from the years 1928 to 1932, inclusive ?
4.	What is the scale of wages paid to men and women employed in these industries?
5.	How many hours constitute a worker's week in this industry?
6.	What percentage of these products are used for military purposes?
7.	How much did the Canadian government buy from these firms from 1928 to 1932, inclusive?
8.	Can rayon factories be turned into munitions factories in case of war?


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Speaker, I should
like to point out that apparently there is an idea abroad in this house that questions may be asked which can be answered only by the government writing to the people concerned.
[M. D'uguay.l
This could be done just as well by the member as by the officials of the government. The fourth question concerns the scale of wages paid to men and women employed in these industries. This is a matter of provincial legislation as well as of contract between the employee and the company and all the government could do would be to write a letter and ascertain what the scale might be. The same could be said of the next question dealing with the worker's week in the industry. This is purely a provincial matter. The custom of asking the government to send out communications to various people in different parts of Canada in order to answer questions is not what is needed to take up the time of parliament.	,


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Speaker,
I agree largely with the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in what he has just said regarding questions which relate to private industries and the obtaining of information by the government when such information can be obtained just as easily by members of parliament, but I should like to know whether the right hon. gentleman's remarks extend to the giving of information with respect to matters related to bodies immediately under the control of the government. I refer particularly, for example, to harbour commissions and bodies of that sort which operate indirectly if not directly under a department of government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the leader of the
opposition had occasion, I think, to indicate some years ago, the truth is that with respect to some of the operations of harbour commissions and other bodies of that character which receive money from the government, the government can exercise some control, being compelled to give approval of certain matters before contracts are entered into, but in what one might call the ordinary administrative side of the question, the government has not any more control of the matter than has someone on the street. I did not, however, in the observations I made a few moments ago dealing with the type of questions to which I referred, intend to deal with those bodies at all. The policy of the government has been immediately to send to the bodies affected the questions that have been asked and to seek from them replies which it tables in the house as indicating the best information available with respect to such questions, and we shall continue to do that.


Mr. SPENCER:: It will be satisfactory
to me if the government cannot give the information. I simply withdraw questions 3, 4 and 5.

Questions


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard
to the reply which the Prime Minister has just made, I understand some questions have been asked with respect to harbour commissions, but they have been ruled out of order. I hope they will be reconsidered in view of the statement that has just been made by the Prime Minister, because I think they are covered by what he has said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I dio mot want to take up time unnecessarily, but with respect to the sixth question:
What percentage of these products are used for military purposes?
How can the government answer the question How does it know what the product of any particular factory is amid how can it compare what is used for military purposes with the total output? As regards the seventh question:
How much did the Canadian government buy from these firms from 1928 to 1932, inclusive?
This is a proper question, although it is very general. As regards the eighth question:
Can rayon factories be turned into munitions factories in case of war?
It might be Said with respect to any factory in the world that it could be turned into a munitions factory in case of war.
I dlo not wish the right bon. gentleman to misunderstand me. There are questions which obviously the government would not think it fair to ask commissions to answer. Eor instance: Did John Smith work for the harbour commission and did he receive $2.50? You spend a dollar in time and energy in getting that question answered and the answer cannot be of any real value, nor is it the intention of the government to aisk the commission for it. I do mot, however, think my right horn, friend referred to questions of that character.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
question might be permitted to appear on the order paper in case there should be any criticism of anyone for not allowing it so to appear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At the risk of being tiresome, I might point out to the right hon. gentleman that on one occasi on in the house during recent years it was indicated that some discretion must be exercised by the Speaker as to what should appear on the order paper. I fancy the incident to which he refers is one in which the Speaker, in the exercise of his discretion, thought the question should not appear on the order paper. That is as far, I understand, as the matter has gome; that is, the Speaker is responsible for what appears on the order paper.
53719-158J


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman is quite correct, but I think if his honour the Speaker would reconsider the question in the light of the statement as made by the Prime Minister this afternoon, he would allow it to appear on the order paper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In view of the attitude
of the government at this session regarding questions 'asked as to 'the internal management of harbour boards, certain questions along the same lines have not been put on the 'order paper, the government having announced its intention of not answering such questions. As to question I on to-day's order paper, the first question seems fair enough and depending on the answer to that, questions following might or might mot be properly asked. I should say questions 1 and 7 might properly be asked, the others to be dropped.


Mr. CAIIAN:: I give the answer to this
question so far as we have information. The answer is very meagre.
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No information.
4.	Wages;
Per hour
Males-	Cents
Skilled	 50-80
Semi-skilled	 35-50
Labourers	 25-35
Youths	 15-20
Females-
Adults	 18-30
Girls	 15-21
5.	Hours: Standard hours of labour: 50 to 55 per week.
6.	Nil.
7.	Nil.
8.	No information.


RADIO COMMISSION
Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Has the position of assistant to the chairman of the radio commission been established?
2.	If so: (a) what will his duties be; (b) what will his salary be; (e) will he be appointed by the Civil Service Commission; (d) will he _ be appointed after competitive written examination?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: The following information has been furnished by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission:-[DOT]
1.	No; no such position is contemplated.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


ROYAI. CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in the province of Nova Scotia, for the calendar year 1932?
.2486
Questions

2.	How many officers and how many men are employed on the force in that province?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	$461,129.78.
2.
Officers	 10
Non-commissioned officers and
constables	192
Special constables	 99
Note:- Of the above-mentioned special constables, 94 are members of the marine section, employed as crews on preventive service vessels.
unemployment insurance


Mr. NEILL:: Will the government be in a position at this session to bring down legislation dealing with unemployment insurance as referred to by the right honourable, the premier, in debate in this house on November 22nd last?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is no.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-HULL LAND PURCHASE
Mr. FOURNIER:: 1.	Has the Federal District Commission acquired a piece of land on Laurier street in the city of Hull?
2.	If so, from whom has the commission purchased such land?
3.	For what purpose will it be used?
4.	What price did the commission pay for such land?
5.	If such land has not been acquired, does the commission intend acquiring same?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	From the Canadian International Paper Co., Ltd.
3.	For park and playground purposes.
4.	The price paid was $20,000-19 acres.
5.	Answered by 1.


TOBACCO STATISTICS
Mr. HEPBURN:: 1.	How many pounds of raw and stemmed leaf tobacco were imported into Canada in the years 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1932?
2.	How much duty was paid each year?
3.	How much was paid in drawbacks?
4.	How much imported leaf tobacco is held in bond without duty being paid?


Mr. RYCKMAN:: 1.
Fiscal year-	Pounds
1928-	29	
18,726,6181929-	30	
17,113,4721930-	31	
16,580,3941931-	32	
13,075,335

No separate figures are kept for stemmed and unstemmed raw leaf tobacco.
2.	Imported raw leaf tobacco for manufacturing purposes in Canada is transferred to excise bond without payment of customs duty, but when ex-warehoused for excise purposes 40 cents per pound standard weight is collected on unstemmed and 60 cents per pound standard weight collected on stemmed tobacco. The following statement gives the amount of these excise duties which are tantamount to customs duties on imported raw leaf tobacco:
Fiscal year	Unstemmed Stemmed
1928-	29	
$6,852,402	60	$405,112	401929-	30	
6,596,128	35	410,960	751930-	31	
6,339,399	78	356,325	501931-	32	
5,460,943	38	210,241	803.	There is no drawback payable on unmanufactured foreign raw leaf tobacco taken out of excise bond and exported. A refund is allowed, however, of excise duty paid on foreign raw leaf tobacco (less ten per cent allowance for moisture) contained in manufactured tobacco, cigars and cigarettes exported by licensed manufacturers. The following statement gives the amount of refunds paid under this heading:
Fiscal year
1928- 29	 $ 59,915 69
1929-	30	
21,087	531930-	31	
101,351	051931-	32	
115,908	864.	Raw leaf tobacco held in excise bond on the 31st of January, 1933:
Standard weight Lbs.
TJnstemmed	 7,288,351
Stemmed	 470,576


FUNDED DEBT
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What was the total funded debt of Canada as of March 31, 1914?
2.	What was the total amount borrowed under funded debt from March 31, 1914, to March 31, 1932?
3.	What was the total amount of interest paid on funded debt from March 31, 1914, to March 31, 1932?
4.	What was the total amount of Canada's funded debt as of March 31, 1932?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	$294,415,943.42.
2.	$4,411,604,300, including refunding loans.
3.	$1,741,285,858.37.
4.	$2,502,859,760.34.

Motions jor Papers


J. A. BRIERE
Mr. MARCIL:: How much was paid to J. A. Briere by the Public Works Department for his services as overseer in the reconstruction of a wharf at St. Charles de Caplan. Bonaventure county, during the shears 1932 and 1933?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1932, S409.50;
1933,	nil.


DREDGE P.W.D. 128
Charles Marcil: To whom was paid the sum of $393.22 out of the sum of $560 authorized by the Department of Public Works for the maintenance of Dredge P.W.D. 128?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: P. Cain, caretaker, $10.45; A. Langlois, captain, $69.53;
O.	Roussey, labourer, $30.24; J. L. Anglearite, labourer,	S6.30;	J.	Roussy,	labourer,	$6.30;B. Duguay, labourer. $6.30; A. Huard, labourer, $6.30; V. Huard, labourer, $6.30; H. Duguay, labourer,	$6.30;	P.	Dore,	labourer,	$6.30;L. Chedor, labourer, $7.56; E. Mallet, labourer, $7.56; D. Morin, labourer, $7.56; O. Duguay, labourer, $7.56; I. Langlois, labourer, $7.56; J. A. Allain, labourer, $7.56; B. Allain, labourer,	$7.56;	R.	Chedor,	labourer,	$7.56;J. Allain, filsl labourer, $7.56; A. Roussy, labourer,	$7.56;	A.	Morin,	labourer,	$7.56;J. B. Anglearte, labourer, $7.56; C. Morin, labourer, $7.56; W. Langlois, labourer, $5.04; Absolon Roussy, labourer, $5.04; A. Huard, labourer,	$7.56;	D.	Morin,	labourer,	$5.04;
Alcide Roussy, labourer, $5.04; M. Langlois, horse and cant, $3.60; O. Chedor, horse and cart, $9; O. Anglearte, watchman, $40.32; L. Vignet, repairing machinery, etc., $2.25; Robins, Jones & Whitman, Ltd., roofing, paint, hardware, etc., $42.26; S. A. Huard, paint and gasoline, $14.72; R. Roy, trip to deliver telegram, 75c.-$393.22.


CAP-DE-LA-MADELEINE UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Mr. BARIBEAU:: What sum has the federal government contributed, since 1930, for works in the town of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Quebec, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, public works, $15,000; Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, public works, $33,927.79.


Jean Louis Baribeau: What sum has the federal government contributed. since 1930, by way of direct relief, to the town of Cap-de-la-Madeleine, Champlain county ?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The following accounts
have been received and paid:	under the
Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, direct relief, $6,655.62; under the Unemployment and Farm
Relief Act, 1931, direct relief, $11,423.46; under The Relief Act, 1932, direct relief, $7,841.31.
In addition to the above accounts for direct relief distributed under the provisions of the Relief Act, 1932, amounting to $7,194,88, have been received from the province. These accounts have been audited and a cheque covering same will be forwarded to the province within a day or two.


BATISCAN, QUE., UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
Jean Louis Baribeau: What sum has the federal government contributed, since 1930, for works in the parish of Batiscan, Quebec, under the terms of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Under the provisions of
the Unemployment Relief Act, 1930, the federal government contributed $1,250 towards the cost of public works carried out by the parish of Batiscan.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	What work has been done by dredges, Manseau Nos. 101 and 103 for the government, directly or indirectly, since 1928?
2.	For what departments has this work been
done?	_
3.	What quantity of material has been lifted by these dredges?
4.	What is the class of material-rock, clay, etc.?
5.	What payments have been made to owners of these dredges for any and all work dope since 1928?


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF CAMPS
Mr. TETREAULT:: 1.	How many camps for unemployed have been established in each province under the terms of the Unemployment Relief Act, 1931?
2.	What amount does the federal government contribute to their upkeep?
3.	Have any representations been made to the province of Quebec respecting tbe establishment of such camps?
4.	Has the Quebec government made an agreement with the federal government in tbe matter ?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. COOTE:: For a copy of all correspondence passing between the city of Calgary and tbe Dominion government, or between the government of Alberta and the Dominion government, since September 1, 1932, regarding the payment of certain bonds of the city of Calgary in New
Motions for Papers

York; or with reference to the securing of gold by the city of Calgary for the purpose of making payment of said bonds.



DOMINION NOTES-PAYMENT IN GOLD

George Gibson Coote: For a copy of all letters, or instructions, issued to the Assistant Receivers General since September 21, 1931, with reference to the payment of gold for Dominion notes.



PRINCEVILLE, QUE., UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Mr. LAFLECHE:: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, correspondence, petitions, and other documents exchanged between the federal unemployment relief office and the municipality of Princeville, respecting money disbursed for direct relief in said municipality.



MAYVIEW, SASK., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. VALLANCE:: For a copy of all telegrams, complaints, petitions, reports, communications and other documents, respecting the dismissal of E. G. Christie as postmaster of Mayview post office in the province of Saskatchewan, and the appointment of Mrs. Scotland in his stead.
Also copy of all telegrams, complaints, petitions, reports, communications and other documents, respecting the removal of the said post office from the home of E. G. Christie to the home of D. W. Scotland.



SIMCOE, ONT., POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. TAYLOR:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and ratings of the Post Office Department and Civil Service Commission, respecting the appointment of postmaster at Simcoe, Ontario.
walker's CUTTING, ARTHABASKA, MAIL CARRIER


Mr. GIROUARD:: For a copy of the reports made following the complaints lodged against the present mail carrier on rural route No. 1, Walker's Cutting, in the county of Arthabaska.



LAKE ST. JOHN UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Wilfrid Girouard: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, requests, or other correspondence received since July, 1931, by the government, or any of the ministry or officials, respecting the investigations held in connection with unemployment relief work carried out in Lake St. John county.



KILLAMS MILLS, N.B., POSTMASTERS HIP

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence between the Post Office Department or any of its officials and any person or persons in the province of New Brunswick, regarding the dismissal of B. H. Lounsbury as postmaster at Killams Mills, and the appointment of his successor.
Also a copy of all evidence and a copy of the commissioner's report and all other corre-

spondenee incident to the investigation preceding dismissal of said postmaster.



HULL, QUE., POSTMASTERSHIP

Henry Elvins Spencer: For a copy of all documents, reports, letters, telegrams, recommendations, and all other papers on the files of the Civil Service Commission and the Post Office Department, concerning Alphonse Payette, postmaster, Hull, Quebec, now under temporary suspension.



LAWSON, SASKATCHEWAN, POSTMASTERSHIP

Mr. BOTHWELL:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, reports and other documents passing between the Post Office Department or any official or employee thereof, and any other person or persons, since January 1,	1932,
respecting the postmastership at Lawson, Saskatchewan.



BAY DU VIN WHARF, N.B.

Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, pay lists and other documents in the possession of the government, in connection with the construction of a building and grading done at Bay du Vin Wharf, Northumberland county, New Brunswick, during the years 1931 and 1932.



LOUISDALE, NOVA SCOTIA, POSTMASTERSHIP

William Duff: For a copy of all telegrams, letters, memorandums, correspondence and other documents exchanged between the Postmaster General or any of his officials and any person or persons in the province of Nova Scotia, relative to the suspension of Thomas T. Sampson, Postmaster at Louisdale, Richmond county, Nova Scotia.
Also a copy of all reports and evidence in connection with said matter.



INDIAN ACT AMENDMENTS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST-PERE (for Mr. Dupuis):
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, reports and other documents, exchanged since July, 1930, to date:	(a) by the Superintendent
General of Indian Affairs; (b) the Department of Indian Affairs, respecting amendments to the Indian Act presently submitted to the House of Commons.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ST-PERE (for Mr. Dupuis):
For a copy of all telegrams, letters, reports and all other documents received or sent since July, 1930, to date, by any of the federal departments, respecting the Dominion Elections Act and the expediency of granting the franchise to the Indians of Canada, and particularly to the Indians of the Caughnawaga reservation in the province of Quebec.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: As the first
of April is rapidly approaching, may I ask

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Butcher
the Minister of Finance if he has received any communications from farm organizations or others interested in relation to repair parts for farm implements.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I have received certain communications, but I am unable at the moment to indicate from just what sources. An announcement will be made in due course with respect to the subject matter in question.
PELEE ISLAND CABLE SERVICE On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): I would ask the Minister of Public Works if he has received any report as to the cable service between Pelee island and the mainland, and whether one or both of the cables are down, and whether there is no communication; and if so, what is being done to maintain the sevice.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to the hon. gentleman I
am able to inform him that unfortunately both these cables are out of commission. The one between Pelee island and Leamington went out of commission on February 20, and the one between Kingsville and Scudder went out of commission on the first of January. These cables are repaired and maintained under the provisions of a yearly contract for the service, and the repairs will be made as soon as possible.
INQUIRY INTO COAL PRICES On the orders of the day:
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):	May I ask the Minister of Labour
if the investigation into coal prices has been concluded, and if so when we shall have the report; and if not, when will the inquiry be concluded?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: So far as the coal investigation in eastern Canada is concerned, I believe that the evidence has all been taken and that the report of the registrar under the act is in course of preparation. I anticipate that it will be only a very short time before the report is concluded.
REPORTED SALE OF RAILS TO JAPAN On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I would ask the Minister of Railways if he can inform the house whether the press report is true, that the Canadian National Railway is selling rails to Japan, and if so, may I ask whether they are old rails or new stock?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I cannot give the hon. member any information as this is the first I have heard of the matter. I presume that the Canadian National Railways can sell rails to whomsoever they wish, but I know nothing whatever about the matter.



COOPERATIVE COMMONWEALTH

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Woodsworth:
Whereas under our present economic arrangement large numbers of our people are unemployed and without the means of earning a livelihood for themselves and their dependents;
And whereas the prevalence of the_ present depression throughout the world indicates fundamental defects in the existing economic system;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
Mr. HARRY BUTCHER (Last Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes before the house rose on Thursday evening I had invited you to attend with me at an imaginary meeting to be held by the directors of the organization owning the ship of state to which I had formerly referred. At this interview we heard an imaginary salesman for an imaginary shipbuilding firm endeavouring to secure a contract to build a ship without giving any details or any plans and specifications. I had been prompted to use this illustration by certain statements made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) who had said that he and his party might be asked for details of their plan and that his reply would be: We are not called upon to give details. We are not in the dock; it is the old system and the old political parties which are on trial.
I have since been charged, Mr. Speaker, by very candid friends, with endeavouring to pour ridicule on the resolution submitted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth). If that is the general impression, I much regret it. Nothing was further from my thought than a desire to ridicule a resolution sincerely proposed by any hon. member of this house. I simply wished by that illustration to point out how unreasonable it is to expect men who like to have at least some idea of the road they are invited to travel to accept so vague a proposition as that contained in the resolution.
It may be said that the hon. member for .Winnipeg North Centre has definite views
2490	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Butcher
on the subject and that he gave expression to them in the Walker theatre in Winnipeg on January 18. I have taken the trouble to read carefully the report of that meeting as it is found in the Western Producer of January 26, and I find myself very heartily in agreement with many of the statements made by the hon. member, but I find nothing whatsoever which in my opinion justifies either the assertion or the belief that an entirely new social order is necessary in order to remedy such evils as those to which the hon. gentleman referred. I am going to quote two or three of the statements that he made. He said specifically:
Someone asks, tell us exactly what you would do if you were in power. I do not think it is really possible for anyone to answer such a question. Events are moving so rapidly both here and in other countries that no one can tell precisely what should be done at any given moment in the future.
Of course, everyone knows that the hon. member could not tell exactly what he would do, and it would be unreasonable to ask him to do so, but he could and he should tell the members of this house something of the methods that he would employ to effect the improvements he had in view. He might at least give us a broad outline and perhaps some of the major details of his scheme. Among other subjects I would suggest he should tell us how he would proceed with the public utilities at present owned and operated by private corporations. Would he expropriate them? If so, would he compensate the present owners or would he confiscate their interests? If he would compensate, on what basis would he make settlement.
What is his plan with regard to the principal and interest of the bonded indebtedness of Canada? What is his plan with regard to those bondholders resident without the Dominion of Canada as well as those domiciled within? Then, the hon. member proposes, among other things, to take over the ownership and control of natural resources; to guarantee security of tenure of land; in some way to provide for the adjustment of debts; to fix hours of labour and, if necessary, to limit them; to fix rates of wages to some extent, and to provide crop insurance. All of these matters are referred to in the speech made by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer).
But, Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly the British North America Act all of those subjects, by virtue of that act, are under the jurisdiction of the provinces. The hon. member should tell us how he intends to imple-

ment- his platform in these respects. Especially would we like to know how he would proceed if the provinces, having sole jurisdiction in these matters, decide to repudiate his right to interfere. Would he say, "We will in any event pass laws, and will proceed to enforce them." If he would enforce them, how would he proceed to do so? These are just a few matters in connection with which the house should have definite information, before hon. members are asked to approve of the resolution. A little later in his speech he stated:
First of all there is the growing recognition that we cannot proceed along the old haphazard lines.
With this we must couple his former statement:
Events are moving so rapidly both here and in other countries that no one could tell precisely what should be done at any given moment.
It would appear that under the new system we would merely proceed along new haphazard lines, instead of along old haphazard lines. From what I had heard, I thought the hon. member had proposed to mould and control events, instead of having events control and mould us. If I have read correctly the statements by hon. members we are under their plan to become the masters of our own destiny, not the victims of circumstances. Then the hon. member said:
Before a doctor ventures to prescribe he makes a thorough study of the system and of the history of the ease.
I am not a doctor, but I presume his statement is true, as far as it goes. I suggest however that it is not the whole truth. Before a doctor prescribes he very carefully studies remedies as well as diseases. He learns the effect of drugs. I imagine he does not prescribe the use of a new medicine until he has a precedent, that is the experience of others to guide him for so doing. In a prescription of his own compiling, he makes use of no. drugs with the effect of which he is not familiar. Then, again, the hon. member said:
Our wheat growing in the west has been built, up on an export basis. We cannot possibly consume in Canada all the wheat that is produced. If we market abroad we must meet competition. Obviously the only possible solution is either to cut down the costs or to raise-prices or both.
We are all agreed upon that. We must, remember however and admit that prices are determined in purchasing countries and are based upon the law of supply and demand. Therefore we cannot control the price. We still have the possibility of affecting it by inflation, and I must state that the hon. member did refer to the possibility of a slight.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Butcher
inflation. However, I understand that two of his lieutenants have repudiated the idea, and we are confronted with the question as to whether he or his lieutenants are going to have the right of way.
The only matter we have left is that concerning reduction of costs. What are the items which enter into the cost of production and marketing of wheat? There are taxes, and in many but not all cases, interest. How are taxes to be reduced? Obligations have been incurred. Services are required, but it may be possible to reduce taxes slightly. The farmer needs clothing for himself and his family; he has to purchase implements and parts therefor. He finds he must repair his machinery at home. He has to pay wages to farm employees, and finally has to pay freight on outgoing and incoming goods. But the 'hon. member says to the farmer, "We will help you to reduce costs." Then he turns to labour and states, "If there is not enough work to go around, the work shall be distributed and incomes maintained." I know it is the claim of labour that costs of labour do not figure largely in the costs of manufactured goods. However no one would suggest that raising wages would have the effect of reducing cost of goods.
A director of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation states that the wages paid to railway men must be maintained. He states, further, that if it is necessary to raise freight and passenger rates to accomplish this end, then, those freight and passenger rates must be raised. I do not know how this can be done if, at the same time, the promise to the farmers is fulfilled.
Recently some of the newspapers have been accusing Liberals and Conservatives of combining in order to trample on the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. In my view that is a most unfair statement. While on both sides of the house hon. members have criticized the new movement, I contend that the avenues of approach have been as far apart as the poles. The criticism of the Liberal party has been sympathetic while that of many hon. members opposite has been hostile and unsympathetic. It seems to me that the difference in viewpoint is clearly illustrated by quoting two statements made in the house, one by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth) and the other by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre 3aid this:
It is the first duty of any administration adequately to feed, clothe and shelter its people.
The hon. member for Toronto Northwest said:
What is our major business to-day? The major business of this house is to do something to encourage the investment of capital in factories, buildings and land.
There we have an illustration of the great diversity of opinion; I believe the Liberal party, in the main, finds itself much nearer the viewpoint of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre than that expressed by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
spoken forty minutes.


Harry Butcher: I believe I had thirteen minutes remaining to me, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with the consent of the house I would like to state my conclusions. They are:
First-That a large number of our citizens are suffering from want and privation, principally because of unemployment or underemployment.
Second-That it is the duty of the state to adopt such policies as are best calculated to relieve that situation, in order, as far as is humanly possible, to afford to every man the opportunity of earning a good living for himself and his dependents.
Third-If for any good and sufficient reason any citizen is unable to obtain, or is physically incapable of doing, work, in order to obtain the necessaries of life for himself and his dependents, then it is the duty of the state to liberally provide those necessaries.
Fourth-Though there are grave defects in our present system I believe that those defects can be remedied without changing the system itself, and furthermore I contend that it is the imperative duty of the state to remedy them, and as rapidly as possible.
Fifth-That a sudden transition from the present system to a socialistic state would bring about a condition of chaos and suffering even worse than the present condition.
Sixth-That, whatever the future may bring, at present the majority of the citizens in Canada still want to have at least as much individual liberty as they now enjoy: they still want to own a home, lands and personal possessions, and do not want to substitute a system of state ownership, the like of which has hitherto only been briefly and spasmodically tried and as promptly discarded.
In view of these conclusions I shall vote against the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, it
is important that we should have a clear con-
2492	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
ception of what the resolution before us means, and exactly what it proposes. For this reason I hope the house will permit me again to read the text of the resolution. Before doing so I wish to say that we should distinguish very carefully between the concrete proposition which the resolution embodies and proposes, and the preamble and other words by which it is accompanied. I would like hon. members to note in particular the preamble, and then the proposition itself. I submit that as respects the preamble it is one which any political party might apply to any other political party at almost any time. Indeed it is one which might be applied by parties other than political in commenting upon the failures or inadequacies of policies or principles which they oppose. The resolution reads:
Whereas under our present economic arrangement large numbers of our people are unemployed and without the means of earning a livelihood for themselves and their dependents;
And whereas the prevalence of the present depression throughout the world indicates fundamental defects in the existing economic system;
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not the benefit of the few.
The first two paragraphs find fault with the existing economic system. So far as hon. members in this house are concerned, I think we might as well declare at once that there is not an individual here who for one minute would say that the present economic system is perfect. Indeed, if it were perfect, it would be different from almost everything else in this world. Certainly the present economic system is very far from perfect. Evidence is abundant that it has failed in certain, possibly many particulars. But the point that is important for us to consider at the moment is whether that failure is due exclusively to what might be described as a social order based upon the institution of private property which has prevailed in the past, and which exists at the present time, and which is the one aimed against in the resolution, or whether it has failed as a result, in part at least, of some of the weaknesses and faults of human nature; weaknesses and faults which I submit will not be changed by a transition from one particular form of government or state control to another. Also, it is important to consider whether a change to the socialist state, which is what the resolution advocates, would not only serve to make present conditions worse than they are.

The preamble, as I have said, might have been applied in past election contests by either of the historic political parties in reference to its opponents with as much force as it can be applied to either or both of these parties, by the group that is citing it with reference to existing conditions, I remember, at the time the Liberal party appealed for office and was returned to office in 1921, conditions were not unlike those at the present time. The depression then existing was not world wide as it is at the moment; conditions were not as bad; so far as Canada was concerned it was nevertheless a great depression. I need not remind the house that conditions were certainly very serious. For a year or so after the Liberal administration came into office we heard from one of the leading Conservative journals in Montreal of little else save "the whispers of death," as though the end of all things had come under the then existing economic conditions. We had pointed out in the campaign that we believed the then existing conditions were in part due to the policies which had been in force under hon. gentlemen opposite while they were in office. I think we drew attention to the fact that they were in part due to the war and the consequences of the war, but we also pointed out that they were due to mistaken policies, and we indicated that if returned to power we would change those policies and substitute others which we hoped would bring about a better condition of affairs.
And that is exactly what we did, and what happened. After we came into office we reversed in many particulars the policies of hon. gentlemen opposite. They had been raising tariffs, we immediately lowered tariffs. They had been introducing other measures which were restricting trade; we took steps to remove those restrictions, and in a short time, as hon. members know, instead of huge deficits and increased taxation and continued depression, this country had for seven years in succession surpluses instead of deficits, reductions in the public debt accompanied by reductions in taxation, and a great increase of trade and employment with consequent prosperity, throughout the dominion.
I might say that my right hon. friend in the last general election, in opposing the then Liberal administration, adopted very much the same course, only he went a great deal further in what he promised. We were then at the beginning of a part of the present world depression. My right hon. friend stated that it was due to the mistaken policies of the administration. He put it all down to the policies of the administration then in

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
office, and he sought to win the support of the electors by stating that if returned to office he would alter those policies and put others into effect which would end unemployment. Indeed, he did immediately change those policies. At the time of making the statements he did in the general election, and again in this house, a year after having made the statements, he said that he expected his policies would have the effect of removing the depression ' and changing the distressing conditions. As a matter of fact up to the present his policies have not had that effect. His policies have been applied, trade has become more and more restricted, business has become more and more depressed, unemployment in the country has increased more and more. So much has this been the case that it would now appear that the policies of the right hon. gentleman, who leads the government, had been at fault rather than any particular economic system.
What then does the hon. member who proposes the present resolution offer as a remedy for existing conditions? Having said that economic conditions are not satisfactory, having by implication inferred that the policies of neither of the old historic parties are sufficient to meet the situation, he proposes a concrete remedy quite different from anything hitherto tried. It will be found in the following words:
-the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth . . .
That is the proposition that we in this parliament, that the country as a whole is called upon to consider, the setting up immediately of a cooperative commonwealth. Nothing else in this resolution is as significant as that particular portion of it, or indeed has any real significance in comparison. That is the concrete proposal, and if we oppose the resolution it is not because we are opposed to any wording of the preamble; much less is it in consequence of any opposition to the words which follow the substantive proposal; it is because we do not see, admitting that conditions may be bad at the moment, how they are going to be improved by immediately setting up a cooperative commonwealth as suggested.
Now notice the words that follow the proposal of my hon. friend, because they might seem to imply that there are different kinds of cooperative commonwealths. He says:
*-the government should immediately take measures looking to the setting up of a cooperative commonwealth in which all natural resources and the socially necessary machinery of production will be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few.
Those words might be construed as qualifying words, but I submit that if they are to be used as qualifying words with respect to the cooperative commonwealth, they might equally be used as qualifying words with respect to any policies which might be introduced by any political party. My right hon. friend will claim for his policies, as I claim for ours, that they are intended to be used in the interests of the people and not for the benefit of the few. Simply attaching those particular words to a concrete proposal does not free the proposal itself from the significance that must be attached to it by those who understand its real import.
It might be said these words may be intended merely to express the hope that when a cooperative commonwealth is established matters will be so arranged as to be more in the interests of the people than for the benefit of the few. There again, as I say, is a hope of which no political party has the right to claim the monopoly. I believe my hon. friends are quite sincere in the hope they entertain, but I say of hon. gentlemen opposite, and I want to say it of my own party as well, that I believe with respect to our several policies we are all inspired by similar hopes. We may hope our policies are going to make things better for the many rather than for the few, but the fact that we are adding those qualifying words to our policies does not alter the effect those policies are likely to have once effect is given to them.
No, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the only way those words can be properly interpreted, in connection with the proposal set forth, is as they are understood in the language of political philosophy and economics. They are words which are intended to mean that instead of society continuing on a basis of private property and competition, 'such as governs in the affaire of the world at large, the structure of society in Canada is to be completely changed and there is to be an end here to private property; it is to pass into the possession of the state. Hon. gentlemen may say that all property is a pretty large order. That really is what the socialist aims at in his advocacy of socialism, but if you wish to modify it to the extent to which hon. gentlemen to my left have modified it, it means, in the exact words of the resolution, all the natural resources and all the socially necessary machinery of production. What are all the natural resources? They are all the mines, all the forests, all the fisheries, all the fields, all agricultural and other resources. These are all to pass immediately into the possession of
2494	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
the state, in addition to all the so-called socially necessary machinery of production. This must include all that is needed in order to supply the food, the fuel, the clothing and the housing of a nation. Those certainly are all socially necessary requirements, and the suggestion that is being made by this new party, the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, is that all these things, as well as all agencies of transportation and communication which are essential factors in production shall be immediately transferred to the ownership and active management of the state.
I submit that the simplest way to get a true perspective of that proposal is to ask ourselves at once how this parliament, this government or any government that may be in office in Canada at any time would ever conceivably carry out a proposal of that kind. At the present time we have before us a very considerable problem in the possession of only one great public service utility, that is, the national railway system, and it comprises but one-half the railways of this country. Under this proposal all the railways would come immediately into the possession of the state, and in addition all other agencies of transportation by land and by sea. We would have the state managing, of necessity, all the dif-erent agencies that are used for the transportation of the commodities necessary to supply human needs, for they are a part of the socially necessary machinery of production. According to this program all these are to be taken over and managed by the state.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe the thing is possible for one moment. I cannot conceive any intelligent man or woman in the country for a moment believing that the government of Canada could immediately-because that is what the resolution calls for-take over what is meant by the socially necessary means of production and administer them on the part of the state. Assume, however, that such a thing were possible. Would conditions thereafter be any better than they are now? If we had all the great industries of the country controlled by the state to-day, do hon. members believe that conditions would be better for the great masses of the people than is the case at the present time? We may admit that conditions are bad now; we must admit it. We cannot have the hundreds of thousands of unemployed there are, without knowing conditions are bad, but have we any guarantee that if the state were controlling everything conditions would not be infinitely worse? If State ownership and control is going to be the answer to our problems, why cannot the
[Mr. Mackenzie King.l
state at present make our national railways pay? Why cannot they fill up all the blanks in the railway field by taking on increasing numbers of unemployed and giving them employment? I need not elaborate the point. It must be apparent that an attempt to socialize the various industries of the country or to nationalize production and distribution as a whole will simply have the effect of drying up the lifeblood of industry itself.
May I ask this all-important question: Who is going to select the leaders of this new state which is to control everything? After all, there must be someone at the head of it, and if all industries are to be managed by the state, who is going to choose the different heads of the various industries? How are they to be selected? On what basis are they to be selected? We are to do away with the institution of private property-because that is the proposal; we are also to do away with the system of rewards for services rendered, as they have been made in the past and are being made at the present time. Indeed, that is the significance of the qualifying words the resolution contains. Stop for a moment and think what the method of production at present is. Necessarily there are different contributing factors, of which land is one, using the word in the broad sense to include all resources. Labour is another contributing factor; capital is another, and managerial ability is a fourth. These four factors, working together with and as a part of the community, produce the wealth of human society in the form of various products, and under the present system they get their rewards in different ways. Labour gets its reward in the form of wages, capital in the form of interest, and managerial ability in the form of salaries. The community at large gets its reward, I presume, in the supply of essential commodities and in some control of prices. These rewards are all by a process known as distribution, taken out of the proceeds of total production to which the original parties to production have contributed. Under the socialist plan, proposed by hon. members who support the resolution, these rewards will no longer be based on the present method of valuing service according to the nature of and the demand for it, but on some artificial standard which is to be invented by the state itself. There is to be no more interest under socialism; there is to be no more rent, and no more profits to managers. The only thing that is to remain is that everyone will get some remuneration from the state in the form of wages. But how are those wages to be determined? One assumption might be the

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
basis of need, another the basis of service, or another the basis of efficiency. Who is going to determine the need, the efficiency or the sacrifice that has been involved, under a state controlled system of socialism as vast as it would have to be if it were to operate over the country as a whole? That is a point that has to be considered.
My hon. friends who have proposed this plan must not think that those of us who object to it are not sympathetic with the aims they may have in view, or with what they would like to see effected in the way of improved conditions. Above alll, they must not think that we do not sympathize with what they .may be saying as a protest against existing conditions; because, surely, protests are justifiable under conditions as they are. What we do object to is their seeming to take advantage of distressed conditions throughout the country, to play upon them, and, to use the language of socialism, to exploit this distress in order to further the interests of a political party.
Let there be no mistake about this proposal which my hon. friends have put forward being intended as the platform of a new political party. I say "friends" because it is not the resolution of one member only; there is a group supporting this proposal. The proposal they have put forward constitutes a new political platform, and it is a political platform aimed against the other political platforms in this country. It is directed openly and avowedly against the policies of the historic political parties in this country. I want to make that clear-if I am mistaken I should like hon. members of the group to correct me-their purpose is to establish a new political party to oppose both the existing parties in this country. If that is the case, then I say to my hon. friends who are responsible for the resolution that they cannot be surprised if all of us in this parliament excepting themselves vote against the resolution. How can we do anything else? We cannot, unless we are prepared to say that what they are suggesting is something better than what we stand for in our principles and policies. If there was virtue in the proposal which they are now making, I do not think it would have remained until 1932 before it was put forward. There is nothing new in it. It has been put forward here and there in different countries at different times, but there is one very significant fact, t has never been put forward in good times, it has always been brought forward in bad times. I have not the least doubt that the party which now bring it forward sincerely believes that it is in position by means of the proposals it is making to be able to effect a change which
the other parties have not been able to effect in their efforts. In that, however, I think they are mistaken.
In order that there may be no possibility of any feeling that I am doing my friends an injustice by describing their program as the program of a political party, let me quote from one of the pamphlets which has been issued by those who are responsible for this party and which I hold in my hand. It is entitled, " A Call to the People. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation'. Farmer-Labour-Socialist." Another interesting heading to the pamphlet is in these words:
New national movement launched at Calgary conference on August 1: Challenge to existing social order.
There is no mistake about it, it is a challenge to the existing social order. It is not merely a challenge to the political parties, it is a challenge to the existing order, that is to say, the order of society based upon private property and competition. The pamphlet states that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is to establish an economic and social system based upon new principles and a new plan. That is what the people are being told. Here is a challenge to the existing social and economic order, a 'ehaililenge based upon new principles and a new plan. We have not however, been told what these new principles are. So far as the new plan is concerned, I think I have correctly described it, ownership by the state of all socially necessary means of production and all natural resources, and administration of these by the state, whoever the state may happen to be. I submit that before this House of Commons is asked to change the whole existing social order, we ought to have, as the last speaker has just said, something more in the way of a concrete statement from those who are supporting the resolution. We Should know how they are going to effect this change, and how they would administer affairs if they themselves came into office.
If R is a challenge to the existing social order and we are going to have everything turned over to the state, as has been said, the most pertinent point in regard to the proposal is: how is that transition to be effected? Is private property going to be taken away from everyone, simply expropriated without any reward or any compensation? We ought to be told that.


Mr. HEAPS:: Are not people losing their
properties to-day without receiving any compensation whatsoever?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Answering one question by asking another is not an answer. The question just asked would indicate there
2496	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
is to be no compensation. I am prepared to deal with our policies, and will have something to say about them before I get through this afternoon.
The point I wish to bring out at the moment is this:	One of the essentials of what
is proposed is a complete change in the social order by doing away with private property as already indicated. We ought at least to know how those whose property is to be taken away are going to be dealt with. If property is simply to be expropriated, if all the socially necessary means of production and the natural resources now in private hands are to be taken possession of by the state in virtue of power to be exercised by the government, which is to put this new plan into operation, then we should be told about it. The people should know what they are supporting when they are asked to support it. On the other hand, if it is not going to be expropriation by force and violence, because after all a proposal of this kind would involve power and force to see that it is brought about, if private property is not going to be expropriated by arbitrary means, then it must be assumed that those who are possessed of private property will be remunerated. If that is so, where is the money to come from to compensate those whose private property is to be taken over by the state? How is it to be raised? It is difficult enough to-day to raise money by loan or taxation to carry on the ordinary business of government, but if the business of government is to include all that is signified by the socially necessary means of production, and all natural resources that will mean a pretty large order to be filled. Before people can be expected to support a proposal of this kind, they have a right to demand an exact and full statement of how the change is to be brought about.
Let us ask ourselves:	Exactly what is
socialism as here proposed in contrast to or in comparison with some other things with which it is sometimes contrasted or confused. I hope I have made clear the nature of the change which it would involve. Something has been said about socialism as it is here proposed being in the nature of communism. I have listened to this debate from its beginning-what I have not heard, I have read -and I have been struck by the extent to which hon. gentlemen on the other side have contended that the proposals being made are the same as communism. I do not agree with them in that statement, I do not think that what is proposed in this resolution is communism. It may have certain features common to communism, but as socialism is known in economic parlance it has an entirely

different significance. I do not think that the hon. member who has proposed this resolution intends to do away with the state much less to effect any change by violence. He intends to increase the functions of the state very materially. Communism would constitute an effort on the part of the workers themselves to take possession of everything, the state and all included, and to run things as they themselves might wish to organize them. Under a system of communism there need not be any organized state, and, moreover, communism proposes direct action involving violence as a part of its methods.
I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is wholly sincere when he says that he is as much opposed to violence and the use of it as is any other hon. member, and I think other hon. members in his group are equally sincere when they make similar statements. I do not believe anything will be gained by trying to make the situation out to be worse than it really is. As I understand the matter, hon. members in the far corner to my left are opposed to communism. Certainly all in the Liberal opposition are opposed to communism, and I am also sure all hon. gentlemen opposite are opposed to it. Why should we not say to the country that at least in their opposition to communism all parties in this House of Commons are a/t one? It is an asset, so far as the country as a whole is concerned, to be able to make such a declaration, and it is something of which Canadians may well boast that there is not seated in the Canadian House of Commons a single member who will rise and support communism as a system which for one moment ought to be countenanced. But while I disagree with hon. gentlemen opposite when they seek to make out that the change proposed by my hon. friend is one to communism,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: One was a delegate to
the third intemationale where the declaration was made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -I agree with hon. gentlemen opposite when they say that if what this resolution proposes were carried into effect, it would involve a change in the constitution of this country. That is something which should be put before the people when the change is being advocated. It would be impossible for the federal parliament, without a change in the constitution, to control all the socially necessary means of production, all the natural resources of the country. It surely is well known that matters affecting property and civil rights are under the jurisdiction of the provinces; the

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
provinces have to do with all questions affecting master and servant, employer and employee, the factory acte, the mining laws and similar matters. All of these would immediately have to be brought into the federal arena and the provinces, under our constitution, would have to be parties to the change. Is it conceivable that the various provincial administrations and the people in the different provinces will, at the instance of a new party that has been formed for less than a year, suddenly yield all their control over their natural assets and the power's and rights they exercise as provinces over property and civil rights in order that a federal socialistic state may be formed in Canada? That phase of the matter ought also to be made quite clear by those who are advocating this system. I heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre say that he did not wish to argue the question whether it was the crown in the right of the dominion or the crown in the right of the provinces, but if you are going to have a federal socialistic state,^ you must argue this question, and I submit there is no other form of socialistic state that would meet what my hon. friends have in mind.
May I point out another feature which I think is important? We should not confuse opposition to socialism as stated in the resolution as being at all indicative of opposition to public ownership as such. The hon. members who have had to do with introducing and supporting this resolution have felt that there is a strong sentiment throughout the country in favour of public ownership. I think they rather hope that their socialistic state will receive support from those who favour public ownership. But may I say that public ownership is not only wholly [DOT] possible, but to-day is actually operating under the system of private property and the social order that at present exist and which they say must be changed. A change to a socialistic state is not required in order to further public ownership. The wisdom of public ownership depends entirely upon the particular need that it is sought to serve, and what in time and place may most effectively serve that need. It does not follow that because public ownership may be good in one field, it will be good in every field. It depends entirely on conditions as they exist at any time and place. Let me illustrate. Those supporting the resolution speak of the post office as a fine example of what industry generally would be like if it were under complete state ownership and control in a state of socialism. The post office, when one stops to think of it, is a great utility which can
best serve, under state control, the interests of a community. The reasons are obvious. In the nature of things, the collection and distribution of mail matter, in order properly to serve the community, must become a monopoly; it would be intolerable to have fifty different operating postal agencies in a country. It is because any competitive arrangement would inconvenience not only the individual citizen but the entire community, that all postal agencies have been brought under one control. That, after all, is the real test whether there should be public ownership and operation with respect to any utility or anything. How is the greatest good for the greatest number likely to be brought about? There are some utilities that are very largely in the nature of natural monopolies. The public interest in such cases may best be served where there is an actual monopoly formed, not a monopoly left to operate as it pleases, but one that will be owned and controlled by the state or subject to state regulation as may best serve the purpose. Because there is a monopoly, it does not necessarily follow that those who own or control it will have everything their own way; they become subj ect to such control as the state places upon the monopoly. In the case of the post office there is a very special reason why the monopoly should be a state one; the postal service has to do with communications passing from country to country; it is an international organization, and being such, having dealings with governments of other countries, that particular monopoly and social service can in the nature of things best be performed by the state itself.
But the same is not equally true of everything else, true for example of the manufacture of boots and shoes, or of the clothes or of the construction of the houses or of the supply of the food necessary for the people of the country. Because a post office can best be managed by a state monopoly, it does not follow that all the great social services that are ministering to the needs of the people in the way of clothing, food, fuel, shelter, transportation and so forth, should also be made into monopolies and managed by the state. The same arguments do not apply; these services are not in themselves natural monopolies; it is believed that controlled competition serves the public need as a whole better than would a gigantic monopoly in the case of those particular services.
As regards tram cars, there was a time when the public ownership movement had gone only a certain length, that it was felt it would 'be a good thing to have rival tramway
249S	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
systems. Various states and municipalities sought 'to further that particular idea, but it came to be seen that the convenience of the public would be better served by having one system in a community; this meant creating a monopoly. In some cities, these utilities which have been made into monopolies, have remained in private hands or passed to the ownership, or to the ownership and control of the state or municipality, as the needs of the people generally could best be served. The point, however, I wish to brio* out is this: where you. have government ownership or control to-day, you have something that is being operated in accordance with the prevailing social order and economic system, not something being operated as it would be under the socialistic state that is proposed. Under public ownership as it is carried on to-day there remains the payment of interest to those who have invested their means and savings in particular industries; there remains the payment of salaries to managers according to the ability and availability of managers, and there remains the payment of wages under a competitive system whereby wages may differ in accordance with the quality and the amount of the service rendered. But if we had public ownership under a socialist state such as is proposed, public ownership would be changed in all of these particulars because, as I have already indicated, it is part of the doctrine of socialism to do away with the payment of any interest and the payment of any salaries and to bring everything down to a level of remuneration on a basis that those who control the state would themselves determine. I think it is important that that distinction should be made very clear.
Then there is another distinction which I think should be made clear. It is that opposition to socialism or a socialist state is not to be regarded as implying opposition to so-called social or humanitarian legislation. Neither is it to be inferred that because humanitarian legislation is a desirable thing, and because the state has gone a long way in enacting so-called social legislation with regard to such matters as workmen's compensation, unemployment invalidity or accident insurance, old age pensions, mothers' allowances and the like, that because one favours legislation of that kind which is not infrequently termed "socialistic," one necessarily favours a socialist state.
Social legislation of the kind I have mentioned is based on the assumption that individual initiative and enterprise will continue under the existing social order. These are developed under the system of private

property with its reward for service which permits individuals to take great risks with the possibility of great reward or great failure. It is thought, that on the whole human society is apt to progress more where that opportunity is given. The fact however, that this form of legislation has been enacted is evidence that society is wholly alive to the need of competition being controlled and alive also to the necessity at all times of seeking the greatest good for the greatest number. Unrestrained or unrestricted competition is no longer believed in anywhere. Freedom cannot exist, except where competition is in some manner controlled.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if these facts are thoroughly understood, much of the support that many are inclined to give to this resolution will not be forthcoming. I think there are many well-meaning men and women throughout the country who to-day are supporting my hon. friends in their advocacy of state socialism in the belief that it will mean more in the way of social and humanitarian legislation and more in the way of public ownership. But I would point out that all that there is of public ownership up to the present, and all that there is of social legislation up to the present, has come about under the system of private property and competition and under a social order based thereon such as we have to-day. What I submit is necessary, and quite self-evidently necessary, is not that we should in order to remedy existing conditions seek to change the whole basis of our social and economic structure, but that we should go on with our social and humanitarian legislation, and go on with our public ownership and operation in the directions in which they may appear to be desirable and necessary, considering each .proposed measure on its merits, in the light of conditions as they exist at the particular time.
May I say that that has been the method of Liberalism through the years. Most of the social legislation on the statute books of different countries throughout the world to-day is the result of great Liberal battles, great battles in which the particular interest has been, subordinated to the general interest, great battles to give first place to the well being of the many, rather than to the privileges of the few. While it may be, and undoubtedly is true, that we have not yet reached the end of the need for legislation of that kind, I submit that we shall improve conditions infinitely more quickly and more effectively in the end by continuing in that way, a step at a time, as the opportunity presents itself, than by at-

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
tempting instead thereof anything so revolutionary as a complete change of the existing, social order.
There is another distinction which I think should be kept in mind, Mr. Speaker, and thait is that socialism as set forth by its leaders, or as set forth in this resolution, is not to be regarded as being synonymous with cooperation as cooperation is generally understood. The cooperative movement, again, is an individualistic movement, not a socialist movement. The cooperative movement in the different countries has developed as it has done under the order of society as it exists at the present time. It has recognized that there is need to control greed. It has recognized that it is desirable for men to work together in as many ways as may be possible in order to serve their mutual interests, and that has been done by the formation in many countries of great cooperative societies of	one	kind	or
another. Onie example with which everyone I think is familiar, and perhaps the outstanding example of cooperation in the British Empire, at least, is the English and Scottish wholesale cooperative societies. May I point out that these wholesale cooperative societies and others continue to carry on their business on a basis similar to thait which exists under a social order based on private property; that is, interest is paid on investments, managerial salaries are paid, and there are differences in the rate of wages according to the nature of service that is rendered. The one outstanding difference is that instead of leaving matters to competitive groups which are fiercely competing with each other, an effort is made to bring together into one vast association those who are consumers as well as those who are producers, so thait when it comes to a question of distribution all may share in a more equitable way than would otherwise be possible.


Miss MACPHAIL:: Would the speaker
allow me one question?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Has he read No. 6 in
the eight points of the cooperative commonwealth, which says:
Encouragement of all cooperative enterprises which are steps to the attainment of the cooperative commonwealth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I have
read that, and it bears out just the point I am seeking to make. My hon. friends speak of favouring cooperative enterprises, and by that they would have the people believe that anyone who is encouraging cooperative enterprises is encouraging the socialist state. I 53719-159
wTant to make perfectly clear that I stand here strongly in favour of cooperative enterprises. I would like to see them furthered as much as possible, but I favour them, not because I believe that they will lead to a socialist state, but because I believe that they will help to avoid the possibility of a socialist state. They are based on self help, not on reliance upon the state. They retain all the merits of individual initiative and individual enterprise which would be lost under a socialist state.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: May I say just a
word?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: If the speaker permits
the question, I think the house should rest easy. May I point out that the words used are, "the cooperative commonwealth." While the leader of the opposition may say that we want everything owned by the state and all private property taken away, I am pointing out that No. 6 points out that that is not true. What we are looking for is voluntary cooperation which will lead to the cooperative commonwealth.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Again I want
to make clear that I favour cooperative enterprises, not because they lead to a cooperative commonwealth at all, but rather because they lead away from the cooperative commonwealth as the term is used in this resolution, being synonymous with socialism, and that is where I think my hon. friends are mistaken in taking the course that they take. I support them in advocating cooperation for all they are worth, but when they say that cooperation is a monopoly of the socialist party, I claim they are quite wrong. I say cooperation has made the great headway that it has under the individualist system, as it has existed up to the present time. For evidence of that one has only to take a list of the cooperative organizations in the world, and he will realize that they are being maintained under a system of private property and competition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except in Russia.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it not a fact that in Great Britain cooperative societies are affiliated with the Labour party?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Some of them may be affiliated with the Labour party. But, affiliation with the Labour party does not necessarily mean that all their members would go the length of advocating a socialist state. Many of the best Liberals have been born of the cooperative movement. What I should

Cooperative C ommonwealth-
COMMONS -Mr. Mackenzie King
like to make clear to hon. members is this- and if they are interested in the general good of human society, as I believe they are, they will admit it-that there are many places in which it is possible for all political parties to cooperate towards the improvement of conditions. At least there are some. There are many instances where, although members of one political party may not be prepared to support all the policies of another political party, nevertheless they can support some of them. The fact that one cannot support all the policies of another party is no reason why parties with certain policies in common should not work together towards their fulfilment. I submit that hon. members who are in favour of and believe in cooperation might much better spend their time working together to further the ends of cooperation, than in fighting each other by advocating cooperation as leading to a socialist state, and to serve the ends of another political party. There have been times when it has been possible-not many I admit-to work with hon. members opposite in respect of some of their policies. Personally, I have never ceased to welcome opportunities of the kind, although I confess they come but seldom. And there have been measures put forward by those of the cooperative commonwealth group which I have been perfectly prepared to support, because they were in accord with the principles in which I believe. What I want them to understand at the moment is that I am opposing what they are standing for to-day in advocating socialism under the name of a cooperative commonwealth because it is diametrically opposed to those policies for which I stand. May I say that their policy seeks to increase the power of the state, so that the state may serve the ends of a particular class. In my view, in that respect, it is on all fours, so far as my opposition is concerned, with the opposition I have against the program of hon. gentlemen opposite. They also, in their way, seek to have the state exercise more power, not so much in the interests of a particular class but in the interest of privileged groups or a privileged few. And in that particular with respect to their present programs the two parties to which I have referred are, in my view, more closely allied than are any other two political parties in the house. I say that because each of them, in order to carry out its policies, has to work towards the development of a bureaucratic state. Under socialism there must be a bureaucratic state, and there cannot be a bureaucratic state unaccompanied by force, and all the rest of it, to command control by the state. Hon. fMr. Mackenzie King.]
gentlemen opposite know very well the extent to which they have gone in the development of a bureaucracy. Our opposition to them is based in large part on the fact that at present in this country they are developing a bureaucratic system.


Mr. McINTOSH:: They are all in the same boat.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I have made clear, so far as the Liberal party is concerned, that we stand for many of the measures which might be included in a socialist program, and also that in so doing we are true to our past and our present, but that is vastly different from standing for the socialist slate.
W ith regard to the ownership of railways the Liberal party in Canada has stood consistently for government ownership and operation of the Canadian National system. We stand for the maintenance of the integrity of the Canadian National Railways publicly owned and publicly controlled service, not because we favour a socialist state, but because we believe that under existing conditions the interests of the Canadian people will be best served by having that one system owned and controlled by the state, paralleling as it does a system of almost equal size operating under private ownership. We feel very strongly that to create one monopoly out of the railways, especially a privately owned monopoly, would not be in the public interest, and we believe that the public interest at the present time will be better served by having some competition at least between these two great systems.
I believe I have clearly indicated what I see in the way of objections to the system of socialism as it is being proposed by the resolution before us. Let me repeat that "the socialization or nationalization of production and distribution, and the extinction of what is called capitalism-by whatever name the ideal, and the process for its attainment, is called-would starve the resources, and, in time, drain away the lifeblood of the great productive industries which depend for their efficiency on the free play of initiative and enterprise." That statement I have quoted in its exact words in order that I may bring to its support the name of its author, the late Right Hon. Earl of Oxford and Asquith who, I believe, has fought for Liberal principles and for the rights of the people as bravely as any man who ever sat in the British parliament. Liberals in the old country have had to contend against the advocates of socialism. The grounds of their

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
opposition are set out in the quotation I have just read. Those reasons are just as pertinent and apply equally as much in this country as they do in the old country.
Let me say that I believe the chief aim of those who are supporting the socialist state is that of effecting a more equitable distribution of wealth. In my view a more equitable distribution of wealth is all-important. The Liberal party recognizes that the problem of distribution has become more important than that of production. It believes that personality is more sacred than property. In all its policies it has been guided by that principle, above everything else. It will continue to devote itself to finding ways and means of effecting a fair and just distribution of wealth with increasing regard to human need, to the furtherance of social justice and to the promotion of the common good. I submit that human need, social justice and the common good have been the constant aims of Liberalism with respect to the distribution of wealth. These ends are not necessarily attained under a socialist state.
While the problem of distribution may be a difficult one, we are very fortunate that it is the one major problem in connection with the matter we are considering, and that we do not have to consider as another major problem, that of production itself. Fortunately the problem of production in a large measure has been solved under the so-called and much berated capitalist system. To-day there is plenty. The hon. member might have added to his resolution the observation that one of the anomalies of the present situation is that there is distress and poverty in the midst of plenty. That plenty has been brought into existence not under a socialist state but under the system of private property and competition as it exists to-day.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: And it is
choking the system.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member says it is choking the system. No, it is not. It is the men administering the system who are choking it. I thank the hon. member for reminding me to say a few words about the difference between a system and those who administer it. The point I wish first to bring out is, that under a socialist state your problem of distribution would be infinitely increased, because almost certainly you would fall down on production. Under a socialist state production would be very far from what it is under the present system; there would not be nearly so much to distribute. The fact that production is so great to-day, that 53719-159$
there is more than enough for all if it were properly distributed, makes the problem that remains a very simple one relatively to what it would be if the problem of production were the great thing we had to face.
My hon. friend the member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has just said something about clogging the system, and inferentially has been blaming the system for what has taken place. A very excellent address was delivered in the city of Toronto last week before the Empire Club by Professor Jackson of the University of Toronto. Professor Gilbert E. Jackson is Professor of Economics at the University of Toronto and a leading economist. In the course of that address he spoke as an economist with reference to the present economic system. The question Professor Jackson in a word asked his audience was this, and it is the one which I put before this house this afternoon: If the men administering the affairs of industry to-day were actuated by a different motive than that by which they are actuated, would there be any reason to find fault with the system? May I point out that motive is a matter of individual character; it is not a matter of external form of social or economic organization, it is what actuates the individual himself. The central point of Professor Jackson's address was this, and I think he is perfectly right, that the system that we have to-day has spoken for itself in what it has done in the way of producing the plenty that there now is, that it is men who have made this depression, men in their greed, seeking to monopolize for themselves the largest part of what has been produced by the existing system. Overcoming greed is not a question of economics, it is a question of morals. My hon. friends may debate this question from the point of view of an economic issue pure and simple, but that is where I take exception to their point of view. Throughout the generations and the ages the world has been looking for some better order of things, and there have been those who have sought to find it in a changed social or economic system, but those people have never been able to bring about the change, because no change in external structure will bring it about. Others have gone a little deeper, feeling that what is needed is not so much a changed social or economic system as a change of heart. They have pointed out that if the heart of man can be changed, and some of its selfishness and greed eradicated, we will not need to worry much about the particular form of organization which industry or the state may take. I believe that is a true analysis of the situa-
2502	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
tion. And I must say that I think our friends of the cooperative commonwealth group owe it to themselves, because I know they all cherish that thought very deeply, to bring out that idea when they are expounding their views to the people. Nothing can be more misleading, it seems to me, than to try to have people who are not accustomed to thinking deeply on matters of this kind believe that by some change of an external character, by some economic adjustment, you are going to improve human and social relations. It may be brought about if you change with it at the same time the human heart, and the motives which actuate men in their relations with each other. As far as I can see it will not be brought about in any effective way short of that. That point is one I wish to stress, because I know that the socialist does put forth this argument, and it is an appealing one, that under a socialistic state men and women will be actuated by a different kind of motive. I must say that before you reach that ideal state you will have to go a long way in changing human nature itself. If you succeed in changing human nature to the extent that under a socialistic state we are all going to be happy, I venture to say you will have gone far enough to make us all happy under whatever condition may exist, because we will all be ready to work and share together.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: May I ask a question? Cannot man's natural acquisitiveness be subordinated to social motives?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I assume he is sitting in this parliament at this moment for the very reason that he himself is actuated by a motive of public service? But he has not had to be a member of a socialistic state in order to acquire that motive. May I point out to him that he came to this country as one who formerly had very little in the way of opportunity, and to-day he has risen to be one of the great men of Canada, able to exercise a vast influence for the benefit of the people. He has been able to do that under a system of private property, under the competitive system. And I venture to say that there are thousands of others to-day who similarly owe the positions which they occupy in this country not to the fact that Canada has been a great socialist community, but rather that it is a country founded on a recognition of principles that help to make for progress, and that as a consequence those who have had initiative and enterprise have been able to get their rightful place in political and other spheres.

Mr. MaeINNIS:	I suppose the speaker
would admit that the position of the unemployed is also due to the system?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The unemployment is due to defects in the system, certainly, to maladjustments of the system. But it is due more to the greed of individuals, to human selfishness and greed. The point that I should like to emphasize, and which was stressed by Professor Jackson in his address, is this, that if we get down to the root cause of the depression we shall find that it is a man-made depression; that it has its roots in human greed, that it has come about through the greed of men; first, through the greed of individuals in its various manifestations, second, through the greed of social groups within a nation, and third, through the greed of nations. Human greed is responsible for the condition that we have at the present time. What happened? When, under the system that was prevailing, prosperity was at its highest peak, how did the individual behave? Did he seek to share that prosperity with his fellow men, did he seek to put aside reserves to meet dark times ahead? Did he seek to become more humanitarian in his efforts, as he should have done if he had been actuated by high disinterested motives? On the contrary a very large number started to take the fruits of industry and gamble with them. They began to ^peculate in the stock market, they were not satisfied with being prosperous, or helping others to share their good fortune; they wanted to make more and more and more for themselves. With what result? With the result that money was taken away from industry; the stock markets were flooded with money and industry was drained of its very lifeblood; trade channels were denuded of necessary costs and credit, as Professor Jackson pointed out, and industry was left in a position that it no longer could continue to carry on as it had formerly done. That was not the fault of the system, that was the greed of individuals. And may I point out what took place similarly with regard to groups? None of us need go back very far to recall what the press has recorded from week to week of the doings of the groups associated with the largest industrial enterprises in the world, of what there has been in the way of high finance that has helped destroy the industrial, social and economic system of our day. That was all the greed of groups, not anything wrong with the system; it has been that the few men who got control of the system acted not as good citizens or patriots, but acted, I shall

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
not. say as scoundrels, but as criminals. I venture to submit that the time has come in dealing by way of reform with some of these social and economic matters, where what is required, in some directions, is not so much a change of the social or economic order as an increase in the application of the criminal code.
May I go a step further and speak of nations? What has been the behaviour of nations since the great war? What has been the behaviour of our own nation? How far have we of late sought to work in cooperation with other nations? What has accentuated the depression in our own country at the present time? Is it the economic system that has served to make production plentiful? Not at all. It is the fact that nations, in their selfishness, and our own country in particular, have put up tariff barriers to a point which has prevented anything in the nature of intercourse with other countries; they have not been allowing the economic system to operate as it should for the wellbeing of the people. Coming down to root causes, it is the selfishness of nations, of groups and of individuals that is responsible for this depression. How far selfishness can be eliminated or controlled by legislation is problematical, I believe we can go very far in restricting its operations, but until this attitude is changed there will be no solution of the present great industrial problem or of similar problems which may arise in the future.
There is one other point to which I should like to refer; it is an argument which has been advanced by some hon. members who have supported this resolution. They have suggested that we should have change simply for the sake of change. Of all the futile arguments in the world this perhaps is the greatest. We have been told by members of the group who have spoken on this resolution that they are the only ones who have suggested anything new. One hon. member even went so far as to say that the plan might be bad, it might be a step in the wrong direction, but after all it was different from anything that has been suggested by anyone else. May I ask why we have been given, the faculty of reasoning and of judgment if they were not intended to help to guide us? What is the sense of jumping from the frying pan into the fire if one cam avoid such a step? Why should we go headlong over a precipice into a condition that would be infinitely worse than the position we are in to-day, when we have the experience of at least a thousand years to warn us with respect to the dangers of some of the pitfalls from
which we should keep away? I think little more need be said about changing for the sake of change, I hope it will not be advocated to any considerable extent hereafter.
Coming back ito the economic system, so called, may I take the analogy of the human system, the human constitution or the human mechanism, whichever you wish to call it. Would my hon. friends say that because a man ate more than he should every day, or because he drank more than he should, or because he abused his health in other ways, the human constitution as such should be condemned? The truth of the matter is, as we can see by looking over the world to-day, that Providence has given us plenty for all. Providence has done its part, but men are not doing their part. They are abusing the system which has helped make everything plentiful. The remedy is not in destroying the system but in putting an end to the abuses that are undermining it.
Now I should like to say a word with respect to one other point which hon. members supporting the cooperative commonwealth resolution have put forward. It is that we should judge their political program by the aims they have in view, also that they alone of the political parties have a program. Here I come to a word as to Liberalism in its relation to socialism. I have already pointed out that their aims, so far as they are humanitarian, and so far as they seek to have regard for the interests of the many as against the privileges of the few, are aims which have been foremost in Liberal policy from the very beginning of political controversy. The Liberal party itself is founded on an effort to further the well being of the many as against the privileges of the few, founded upon continuous effort to subject the particular interest to the general interest. I perhaps cannot do better than to record statements by two or three outstanding Liberals as to what the principle of Liberalism is, and because some of these hon. members have said that we have not stood for any particular principle, show wherein that principle is the one to-day applied in all our policies. I should like them to see that the principle for which we stand is the one that right down through the ages has more than all else been responsible for the reforms that have come about. I want to make clear that with respect to existing conditions we are standing to-day for the application of very definite principles. Let me cite first the broad principle of Liberalism as it has been stated in a very concise way by perhaps the greatest of all Liberal leaders; I refer to the Right Hon.
2504	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
William Ewart Gladstone. The statement helps to make clear the Liberal principle in contrast to the Conservative, by which it is opposed; it may not be wholly pleasing to some hon. gentlemen opposite, but nevertheless I think it is true. Gladstone said:
The principle of Liberalism is trust in the people, qualified by prudence. The principle of Conservatism is mistrust of the people, qualified by fear.
There you have the dividing line between the old political parties. The Liberal party has consistently trusted the people; it has sought legislation in the general interests of the people, butt it has qualified its course by prudence. That is what I am seeking bo advocate should be done at the moment; while we are striving for improvements in otur economic order let us trust the people butt let us also be guided by prudence. Consider on tthe other hand the legislation that has been enacted and the course followed by hon. gentlemen opposite since this present parliament came into being; let me ask them if anything they have done contradicts Mr. Gladstone's statement that the principle of Conservatism is mistrust of the people qualified by fear. They have taken away, as they well know, from this House of Commons, which represents the people, all control of expenditures that have been made in connection with unemployment relief. They have dealt with these expenditures, as they also have with most matters affiecting the tariff, through an autocratic executive, thereby depriving this parliament of the control which parliament should have as the representatives of the people over taxation and all fiscal matters. I could mention numerous other instances of unwillingness to trust even the people's representatives in parliament, but perhaps the ones I have mentioned are sufficient to illustrate my point.
Let me quote from another gmeat Liberal leader, the Right Hon. the Earn! of Oxford1 and Asquith. I shall quote from ithe last address made by Lord' Oxford as leader of the Liberal party. It was delivered ait Greenock at the time Lord Oxford tendered his resignation of the leadership of the party. He chose as the theme of his farewell address to those who over many years 'had been his supporters and friends what in his opinion Liberalism in its essence stood1 for, and 'had stood for during the many years he had led his party. It was as it were a handing on of the torch. Having regard to the occasion, and having regard to the vast experience of Load Oxford as Prime Minister of Great Britain far so many years, his words ought to carry very great weight in any popular assembly. In the course of his remarks Lord Oxford said:
{Mr. Mackenzie King.]
Both on its constructive and its defensive side, Liberalism means two things-the preservation and extension of liberty in every sphere of our national life, and the subordination of class interests to the interests of the community. Those two ideals were and are the life-breath of the Liberal faith. And liberty, in our understanding of it, means liberty in its positive as well as in its negative sense. . . .
It is in the same large sense that you must understand our other root principle-the supremacy of the general interest over particular interests. It matters nothing for our purpose whether the class which is seeking for a privileged or paramount position is great or small; whether it relies upon birth, or wealth, or numbers and organization:	whether its
mouthpiece is, for the time being, the Duke of Northumberland or Mr. Cook. The good of all in our view is, in the long run, the good of each; we are all members of one another.
And a little further on:
The Liberal party has this advantage, an advantage which I claim for it as against all competitive parties in the state, that it can point to the richest record of actual achievement in the removal of abuses and the extension of freedom, in securing step by step, that predominance of the general over the particular interest, which I have described as one of its great principles.
There is one other quotation I should like to give in setting out the principles of Liberalism which govern our party in Canada to-day as they governed Liberalism in the old land in its best days. This quotation comes also from an especially interesting source. As hon. members well know, there was a time when the late Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain was an ardent Liberal, when Mr. Chamberlain stood and fought for the principles for which Liberalism stands. I want to give to the members of the house Mr. Chamberlain's definition of Liberalism as he understood it in those days:
Progress is the law of the world; and Liberalism is the expression of this law in polities.
Through its agency we have gained all that free men may justly prize in our existing institutions, and to it we look for the further changes that will bring them into complete harmony with the needs and aspirations of the people.
True Liberalism seeks constantly the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and will attain its end through the wise cooperation of a self-governed commonwealth.
I have Chosen that particular quotation because of the concluding words, "will attain its end through the wise cooperation of a self-governed commonwealth." Not a commonwealth where the state is going to govern everything, but a self-governed commonwealth where those who are members share each other's needs, rights and responsibilities.
May I add a few words which may further serve to indicate wherein I share some of the views which are held by those who are

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
supporting the resolution. Though I do not agree for one moment with what they propose in the way of a remedy for existing conditions, I think they are right in believing that the great question of the present day is the social problem, the problem of how the masses of the people are to live. They have been stressing that point, and rightly so, but may I say to them that they are not the only ones who feel keenly about it. There are many men and women in this country who have not attached to themselves any particular label and who are not making any professions but who nevertheless are deeply exercised over the question of how the great body of men, women and children are to live under conditions as they .are at the present time. All are under obligation to those who help to bring home to this House of Commons and to the country an appreciation of the fact that the social problem is the outstanding problem before *Canada at the present time. How the masses of men and women who have very little in the way of means, some of them nothing at all, are to continue to live, is a tremendous problem. Anyone who helps to bring that question to the fore and to impress it upon the mind of parliament is rendering a distinct public service.
May I say that I agree also in their *emphasis of the fact that the problem of industry is the central feature of the social problem. The social problem is above all else an industrial problem; its root causes and *consequently its remedies are to be found very largely in industry and the organization of industry. I think they are right when they stress the condition in industry as being the all-important problem to which parliaments and public bodies generally should be turning their attention. What do we mean by industry? If I may be permitted, I would define industry as the process by which the great natural resources of the country are transformed through human effort, aided by tools and machines, in other words, by capital, into commodities and services available for human use. Production is the basis of this vast process and exchange and distribution .are derivative and contributory factors. That being the nature of industry, it follows that the problems of industry have to do with those who are carrying on these operations.
The most significant thing of to-day, next to the unfortunate conditions under which so many are living, is the fact that so far as industry is concerned with production that part of the problem presents little in the way of difficulty. That part has already been largely solved. After all, that is an amazing
fact because for many years we believed that population tended to outrun subsistence. This belief was the despair of economists and humanitarians. They failed to see how a solution of any social problems could be had because they believed that production could never keep up with population, that the one would outrun the other. To-day we have in the facts as known a direct denial of that condition; we have the knowledge that production is more than equal to the task. As I said a moment ago, Providence has done its part, and it is now for man to do his. If, under our present system we have been able to solve the major problem of production, surely the same calibre of minds and the same genius will be able to solve the less difficult problem of distribution. If there were scant production or inadequate production, the problem of distribution would be great indeed, but where production is plentiful, the problem of distribution simply comes down to a matter of the sufficient understanding of the forces at work and how to control them properly.
In trying to solve the problem of industry, in so far as the problem relates to an equitable distribution of the wealth produced, we fortunately have a key which gives us every reason to hope for a successful solution and which leaves no ground whatever for despair. The central problem of industry is the problem of the control of industry; the direction and control of industrial policy; it is essentially a problem of the government of industry. My hon. friends who support the resolution before us think that this problem can be solved by transferring the government of industry generally into the hands of the state and letting the state determine the whole policy of industry. I think they are right in believing that the control of industrial policy lies at the very heart of the solution of the whole situation, but I believe they are mistaken in their desire to transfer the determination of industrial policy to the state. May I say that in that particular the problem of government in industry is no different from the problem of government in the state itself. By fallowing what has been done in solving the problem of government in the state we shall find out what should be done in solving the problem of government in industry.
Let me illustrate. To-day eveiy man and every woman of twenty-one years of age and over, regardless altogether of the position that he or she may occupy in life, is part of the government of the country or has some right of control over the government. That control is exercised through the system of direct representation as we have it in this parliament
2506	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
at the present time, but control of the policies of a country by all its citizens was not always the case. When, in 1215, the Magna Charta was wrested from King John, absolute authority in the determination of state policy received its first blow. But it was succeeded by an authority almost as absolute on the part of a privileged group. A little later, in 1265, when Simon de Montfort called together his freemen, we had the first representative parliament. The parliament of Simon de Montfort was far from being the kind of parliament which succeeded the passing of the Reform Bill of 1832, and very different from the parliament we have to-day. All down the way there has been the effort to subject the interests of particular groups to the general interest, to cause the general interest to predominate over the particular. The result at the present time is that all classes, whether they be lords or ladies, whether they be landowners, or property owners or tenants, whether they have many possessions or few or none, so long as they are twenty-one years of age and are rational beings, they are entitled to take part in and to exert some measure of control over the government of the state. All have a share in government to-day.
If, mostly by the genius of British peoples, it has been possible to arrive at a solution of the problem of control of policy in the affairs of state, surely like qualities of mentality and ability should find it possible to work out a solution of the problems of the control of policy in industry. I submit that what is most needed to solve the industrial problem is to recognize that it is essentially a problem of government, and control of industrial policy. The reason industry to-day has become the battleground of rival contending economic interests, instead of being the common ground of cooperating human interests, is that the different groups contributing to production are each seeking for itself a monopoly of control of industrial policy instead of seeking to share a joint control in industrial policy.
How are the great industries for the most part run to-day under the present system? How is industrial policy determined? What do we find? We find that the capitalist investor exercises practically exclusive control. The capitalist investor is only one investor in industry; the worker invests not material wealth but human life itself. If material wealth is deserving of recognition because of its investment in industry, surely human life is entitled to equal recognition for its services. Similarly, take the great managers of industry, those who help

to bring labour and capital together and adjust their relations with the community; they are more or less controlled by boards on which sit only the representatives of the capital investors, and their actions in large measure with respect to policy are controlled by what the board of representative capital investors say.
Then you have the other factor, the community itself, without which no industry could be carried on. The community organized as the state supplies all the agencies for maintaining peace, law and order. In the beginning, it provides the natural resources and through its members creates the demand that there is for the products of industry. It protects invention, promotes education and does innumerable other things to help to make industry possible. It has not, in connection with a large number of industrial enterprises, the control it should have. It does have a certain but not a sufficient control. What happens as a consequence? The capital investors having so largely a monopoly of control of industrial policy, the temptation to exercise it too exclusively to their own advantage has been irresistible. It is this monopoly of control by capital investors which is the essence of the capitalistic system. It is that which has occasioned the reactions. Not satisfied with the present order of things the other groups seek to remedy it, but in what way? They see that capital has the monopoly of control with respect to the direction of policy in industry and they try to remedy that by setting up another monopoly in its stead. They seek to wrest control of industrial policy from the capital investors and transfer it to themselves organized as the state, in some form of socialism or as workers in communistic groups. That is exactly what my hon. friends of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation are seeking to do. They say: We are not satisfied with this monopoly of control which capital has. We are going to get rid of that monopoly. We who represent a class movement will transfer that monopoly of control of industrial policy to the state and say that the state shall control everything, the whole policy of the direction of industry. What happens so far as the communist is concerned? He, in his turn, being a worker, at least to begin with belonging to the labour group, says: We are making our contribution to production; we are not satisfied with the way in which this monopoly of control of industrial policy is being exercised by the capital investor; we will take industry into our own hands and as labour we will control the whole thing. May I say, 'that capitalism, socialism and communism in so far as each seeks a monopoly of eon-

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
trol of industrial policy, are all alike wrong; and I believe are all alike doomed:. In that sense I do believe the capitalistic system is doomed, but equally doomed with it is any communistic, or socialistic system which seeks a monopoly of control of industrial policy.
What is the cure for monopoly? It is not substituting another monopoly in its stead but getting rid of monopoly altogether. It is substituting a joint control for a single control. It is bringing together in the control of industrial policy in industry representatives of the different groups that contribute to industry. In the shaping and control of policy, labour should be entitled to its voice at a common table with the capital investor or his representative. The community should also be entitled to have its representative there. To some extent this has already been indirectly effected, not in a way that is immediately noticeable, but nevertheless in a real way. The community is represented by many boards and commissions that make regulations for different purposes, also by the operation of laws which are passed by parliament itself. Labour is represented in agreements that are made, for example, between employers and employees as a result of the recognition of unions and the improved situation that has come about as a consequence. But while there is that kind of representation, it is not such as will ever satisfy those who are giving their lives to the service of industry. They will be satisfied only when they find the same kind of expression in the control of industrial policy that they find to-day in the control of the policies of the state. Members assembled in the House of Commons to-day are representative of all classes, of all who go to make up the nation. I believe the direction in which all industrial reform should aim is at bringing about within industry itself a form of democratization of the control of industrial policy similar to that which has been brought about by the state in political affairs. May I say in this regard that that policy is one that has been advocated by the Liberal party for many years.


Mr. SPENCE:: And never practised.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, practised. If my hon. friend will remind me so that I may not forget, I shall give him an important instance in a moment. Let me first read to the house a brief statement of industrial policy as advocated by the Liberal party which I think all hon. members will be glad to hear and will deeply appreciate. It is a passage that I have taken from the last speech which
was delivered by the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. The last time Sir Wilfrid Laurier addressed an audience was on January 14, 1919, when he spoke in this city before the Eastern Ontario Liberal Association. As hon. members will recall, within a month of that time the great Liberal leader had passed away. The words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on that occasion come to us to-day with added force and emphasis. This is what Sir Wilfrid, referring to the problems of industry, said in the course of that address:
The other question to which I wish to ask your attention as the new condition which ought to prevail in the industrial world. We live in an industrial age. Reading the history of the last sixty or eighty years, we are simply dumbfounded at the advances which have been made in industry. Great establishments reckon their employees not by the hundred, but by the thousand and ten thousand, and the output is not limited to hundreds or thousands, but runs into millions of articles every day. But while this growth has proceeded, conditions have developed which are very unsatisfactory, even dangerous. The relations between labour and capital have never been on a sound basis, and the two have been inimical rather than friendly. Labour has looked upon capital as a master, and capital has regarded labour as a servant. In such relations as these there should be neither master nor servant, but equality, equality of right and cooperation in administration. In this new country of Canada, and in this new order of society which we are starting to build up, we must have another and a better system. Instead of labour and capital being, as they have been, inimical, they must henceforth be friendly, seeing that labour needs capital and capital needs labour, and seeing that when one is injured the other suffers. How is that to be done? You have approached this subject to-day in your deliberations and have passed a resolution which seems to me to afford a key to the solution of this problem. Let me read it: I look upon it as the most important of all the resolutions you have adopted this day.
Then the resolution follows:
The Eastern Ontario Liberal Association is of the opinion that the problem of the future is reconstruction, and that industrial reconstruction is the most important phase.	To
introduce into the" government of industry the principle of representation whereby the interests of labour and of the community may be considered in industrial control and the shaping of policies is the natural work of Liberals. It is to liberalism that we owe the transition from autocratic to representative and responsible government in the affairs of the state.	To
democratize the government of industry so as to give to the workers and consumers a larger share in the government of industry is the task that lies ahead.
That is the end of the resolution. Sir Wilfrid continues:
I call your attention to the last sentence, and I call the attention of the country to it, if my words can reach the people-"To democratize the government of industry so as to give to the workers and consumers a larger share in the
2508	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
government of industry is the task that lies ahead." Yes, that is the task to which Liberals must apply themselves.
Near the end of his speech, Sir Wilfrid added:
We do not look to the past, but to the future; only in that direction is the horizon for us as Liberals.
Perhaps I may be pardoned if I mention that, at the time, I had the honour of drafting the resolution on industrial policy of which Sir Wilfrid Laurier spoke as he did. I was not at that moment a member of the House of Commons, much less was I leader of my party, but, when I was again returned to parliament and ever since I have been leader of my party, whenever opportunity has offered, whether it has been through the agency of government itself, or by suggestions in other directions, I have done what I could to try to further the ideal underlying that resolution.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Spence) has just said that we did not carry out our policy when in office. May I remind him of what was done with respect to the national railways, the largest industrial enterprise in Canada? It was a Liberal administration of which I had the honour to be the head which was the first to give labour a representative on its board of directors. Never before in Canada had labour had its seat on the board of directors of a great national enterprise, in this instance, along with the Canadian Pacific Railway, the largest industrial enterprise in the country. That was carrying out this very policy, and may I say to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, having regard to legislation which is to come before us in the house this week, that I hope, when he comes to determine the personnel of the board of trustees which he proposes shall control the policy of the Canadian National Railways, he will be able to announce that one of the trustees on that board is a representative of labour. If the trustees of that board are simply chosen from the capitalist, investing class, it may well be said that instead of modifying it we are furthering the most objectionable feature of the capitalistic system. We shall have made no progress in the further democratizing of industry in the manner I have described, namely, the substitution of a joint for a single control. I make that suggestion at the moment in the hope that when that measure comes before the house we shall be able to get the assurance that the government of the day is alive to the necessity in industry, as in all else, of seeing that all the contributing factors so far as may be possible have a voice in the direction of policy and in the control of the industry itself.

It has been said by some hon. members of the Progressive group that there should be a new motive in industry. May I say that I entirely agree with that? I believe that once the different groups in industry are represented in the control of industry we shall come to have a very different conception of industry generally. The conception that we have to-day is too largely that industry is primarily a source of revenue; the means whereby private gains may be reaped. There is not sufficient emphasis put upon industry being, what in fact it is, in the nature of social service. Care should be taken to emphasize more constantly that industry in its nature is essentially social service, that the man who works on the railways, the men and women who work in factories, those who have anything to do with any form of industry, are performing a great social service and merit our highest respect on that account. The man who puts his capital into industry is performing a social service, and the man who has to do with the management of industry is performing a social service, but I think we should give much more honour than we do to those who give their lives to industry, as persons performing the most necessary of social services. Too often the conception of social service is associated only with those who like ourselves are fortunate enough to be members of parliament, but ours is only one form of social service. Others in industry are equally performing social service in their every act. When this conception of industry as being in the nature of social service gains recognition, we will come to place greater emphasis on personality and relatively less emphasis on property. We will come to see that human life is more sacred than wealth, and that every policy in industry as well as in the state should be directed towards seeing that human life and personality are not in any way sacrificed to property or to wealth.
I have taken longer than I expected, Mr. Speaker, but I do not want to conclude what I have to say without recording just a few of the things for which, in seeking to meet some of the more immediate existing questions, the Liberal party stands a,t the present time. I am not speaking now of general principles merely, but of existing problems, and of the policies of the Liberal party with respect to them. I submit that an application of those principles and policies will go much further in helping to bring about a better candirbian of affairs in the country than any attempt to effect a complete revolution of the existing social order.

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
To emphasize what I wish to say in thait regard, may I point out thait up to the present I have dealt with the problems of industry largely from only one angle, the question of government in industry and the human side. But industry has a world aspect as well as a human aspect. Its problems should be viewed from all sides, from the econ'ornic and material as well as the human sides. If I might take the analogy of a coin, on one side you have the head of the sovereign, symbolical of the human interest in affairs of government and of the state, and on the other side you have the numerical denomination descriptive of value, quantity and the like. So, too, in dealing with industry. Industry is one and the same, but its problems have two sides, the human side which is concerned with matters of government, and the economic side, which relates to finance and trade, to tariffs, to questions of imports, exchange, banking, credit, currency and the like. The right policy with respect to all of these is just as vital and important in the control of industry and the well-being of those concerned with it, as a satisfactory solution of the problems of government in industry. We have to keep both of -them in view. In passing may I say that in dealing with questions of trade, currency, taxation and the like, the motive that should underlie the policies of any political party in all these matters is, from the Liberal paint of view, as in all else in the wiay of policy, how the rights of the many may be maintained as against the privileges of the few, how the particular may be made subordinate to the general interest; how human need can best be served, how social justice can best be furthered, how the good of all can best be promoted. Those are fundamental principles, and in this regard I wish to give just one further quotation in order to illustrate wherein such has been the aim of Liberalism right along. I have in my hand a quotation taken from Lord Morley's Life of Gladstone. In this passage which I shall read, Lord Morley stresses the importance that Mr. Gladstone placed upon sound economic policies in solving the great social questions of the day. It is important for us to keep in mind that sound economic policies on the part of the state, have under existing conditions more to do with human well-being than almost anything else. Lord Morley, speaking of Mr. Gladstone, says:
It has often been said that he ignored the social question; did not even seem to know there was one. The truth is, that what marks him from other chancellors is exactly the dominating hold gained by the social question in all its depth and breadth upon his most susceptible imagination. Tariff reform, adjustment of burdens, invincible repugnance to waste
or profusion, accurate keeping and continuous scrutiny of accounts, substitution of a few good taxes for many bad ones,-all these were not merely the love of a methodical and thrifty man for habits of business; they were directly associated in him with the amelioration of the hard lot of the toiling mass; and sprang from an ardent concern in improving human wellbeing, and raising the moral ideals of mankind. In his "rnusdngs for the good of man," Liberation of Intercourse, to borrow his own larger name for free trade, figured in his mind's eye as one of the promoting conditions of abundant employment. "If you want," he said in a pregnant proposition, "to benefit the labouring classes and to do the maximum of good, it is not enough to operate upon the articles consumed by them; you should rather operate on the articles that give them the maximum of employment." In other words, you should extend the area of trade by steadily removing restrictions. He recalled the days when our predecessors thought it must be for man's good to have "most of the avenues by which the mind, and also the hand of man conveyed and exchanged their respective products." blocked or narrowed by regulation and taxation. Dissemination of news, travelling, letters, transit of goods, were all made as costly and difficult as the legislator could make them. "I rank," he said, " the introduction of cheap postage for letters, documents, patterns, and printed matter, and the abolition of all taxes on printed matter, in the catalogue of free trade legislation. These great measures may well take their place beside the abolition of prohibitions and protective duties, the simplifying of revenue laws, and the repeal of the Navigation Act. as forming together the great code of industrial emancipation."
That quotation, Mr. Speaker, helps to make clear what I wish to emphasize in connection with the concluding portion of my remarks, namely, that if a political party wishes to serve its fellowcitizeas it cannot hope to do so by concentrating on any single fetish or panacea, however laudable it may be, but must be prepared to deal in the most effective way with each question as it arises. That has been the method of Liberalism from the start. It is in that connection that we have taken throughout this parliament the strong stand that we have with respect to the relief of unemployment, seeking to urge upon the government the importance of that question above all others.
I shall run through-and I shall do it quickly to save time-a bare statement of the position of the Liberal party with respect to a few of the more immediate outstanding issues of the day. I do this to answer hon. members who say there is no alternative to the policy offered by them, and also to make clear to the house and country the exact position of the Liberal party with regard to these allimportant questions. I have already referred to our policy with respect to a more equitable distribution of wealth, the safeguarding of the national railways, and the democratization of industry.
2510	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
As unemployment is a matter of very great concern. I shall give it first consideration. The Liberal party believes unemployment is Canada's most urgent national problem. It would deal with the present emergent conditions through a representative national commission which would cooperate with the provinces and municipalities in the administration of unemployment relief, and in an endeavour to provide work for the unemployed. As permanent measures the Liberal party is pledged to introduce policies which will serve to provide employment by reviving industry and trade, and to introduce a national system of unemployment insurance.
Then, as to the liberation of external trade: The Liberal party believes that trade is the basis of industrial and commercial development, and that Canada needs trade. It will abolish the extravagant increases in the tariff made by the present administration, which have had the effect of strangling trade, exploiting consumers and robbing railways of business. It will abolish all unwarranted extra taxes on imports, such as the exchange and dumping duties, as imposed by the present administration. It will end the making and altering of tariffs by executive action. It will substitute stability for uncertainty in the administration of customs laws. It will promote trade with all nations and negotiate trade agreements with any countries willing to trade with Canada on a reciprocal basis. It will continue the Liberal policy of British preference by a percentage reduction in existing tariffs rather than by a percentage increase against foreign countries in existing tariffs. It will grant to British imports a real preference. I may say, further, that it will aim, always, at fiscal freedom, and will help in world movements directed towards greater freedom of intercourse in trade. It will not further any policies which serve to unite groups into units against the rest of the world.
Then concerning the liberaitiom of initeimal trade: The Liberal party will seek to end artificial price control and agreements in restraint of trade. Price fixing by agreements restrict and hamper trade internally. The internal trade of our country has become honey combed and enm eshed by secret understandings and agreements. The protective tariffs, as they obtain in Canada to-day, have fostered the formation of combines, monopolies and trusts, and under these combines, monopolies and trusts there are no end of secret agreements by which prices are being held at artificial figures. I might remind the house that some years ago a Liberal administration passed the Combines Investigation

Act which had1 for its purpose investigating combines and trusts. The history of this legislation may serve to illustrate the difference between the two larger parties in the house. After the Liberal administration went out of office the administration which followed abolished the Combines Investigation Act. As soon as wie assumed power we restored that legislation to the statute book. But the Combines Investigation' Act is but a mere beginning and does not meet the situation obtaining to-day. There should be more adequate facilities for investigations, and additional penalties should be imposed. Some conditions obtain which should he remedied by additional provisions in the criminal code. To-day we are seeking in vain to cope with these evils by milder methods.
The system of distribution of products needs overhauling. Distribution should be on a service at cost basis. The spread in prices is too great, as any comparison of prices paid to producers with prices consumers have to pay will make self-evident.
We believe that in connection with the liberation of trade there would be a great development of the primary industries of Canada. The Liberal party, by its policies, will continue to further the development of agriculture, lumbering, mining and fishing by effecting reductions in the costs of production of Canada's basic products, by obtaining wider markets therefor, by encouraging export trade, and by state assistance in the marketing of natural products.
Another important matter to which we would direct our attention is the control of investments in order to prevent exploitation of the public through the sale of unsound and worthless securities, namely, watered stocks. We believe an investment control board should be established, which would have supervision of issues of securities by companies incorporated under federal charters. That board should first control the incorporation of new companies, and carefully scrutinize the extent of their capitalization in relation to (a) the amount of stock authorized and to be issued, and (b) existing and anticipated assets. Secondly, it should pass upon supposed issues of additional stock by existing companies, with a view to safeguarding the interests of the industries so affected, as well as the interests of the investor. These measures would apply to companies incorporated under a dominion act. We believe the financial mismanagement of industry is one of the causes for dissatisfaction with the capitalist system, and is largely responsible for many conditions obtaining today. Industry has been adversely affected by

Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
the control exercised over industry, not by industrial managers so much as by promoters and financiers. We believe the interlocking of directorates is one of the factors which on the one hand enables bankers to control industries, and on the other hand enables industrialists to control the banks. It is our view that in that connection there is room for much in the way of reform.
I come next to the control of credit. Liberalism believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to the average citizen. It stands for the immediate establishment of a properly constituted national central bank, to perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need. A central bank is necessary to determine the supply of currency in relation to the domestic, social and industrial requirements of the Canadian people; and also to deal with the problems of international commerce and exchange.
Then, as regards our national finances we believe now, as we always have, in the necessity of a balanced budget. It is our view that the aim of every government should be the balancing of its budget. We would seek to effect that end, as we did in seven out of the eight and a half years we held office, by retrenchment of public expenditures, by reduction of principal and interest on the public debt and by increasing revenues through the encouragement of trade. We believe a reduction of the cost of government in Canada could be effected by a careful inquiry into the whole of the costs, federal, provincial and municipal. The whole structure should be overhauled and simplified. We believe further that there should be a reduction in the burden of interest and taxation. There is room for much to be done by way of refunding of the public debt and of lowering of interest rates which, at the present time, constitute a great burden upon the state.
The Liberal party believes that the present crisis has been made an excuse for the usurpation of the rights of parliament and the assumption of autocratic powers by the executive. Liberalism stands, as always, for the principle of a free parliament, and for the supremacy of parliament. To this end it would repeal the legislation enacted by the present administration, which deprives parliament of its control over expenditures, and taxation, and invests the executive with unwarranted arbitrary powers, as for example: legislation permitting the executive to enact measures by order in council for peace, order and good government, and legislation providing the executive with a blank cheque for expenditures of any kind.
In that connection may I remind the house of what was said only a few evenings ago. The statement was made that up to the present time, in its term of office the present administration had in one way or another spent over 3115,000,000 for purposes of relief. Some of it has been for direct relief, some has been given as aid to provinces, and some loaned to provinces. With the exception of $20,000,000, every bit of the $115,000,000 has been spent by the executive under orders in council on blank cheque account. Parliament has had no control over those expenditures, has known nothing of them until after they had been made. This great sum of money, $115,000,000, is equal to the total moneys paid out of the consolidated fund of Canada to run the whole dominion for the year immediately preceding the war. That gives some idea of the extent to which we have had taken away from us in this parliament the rights of the people's representatives to control expenditure and taxation.
Liberalism believes that under the excuse of the present crisis the rights of the individual have been violated. Liberalism stands, as always, for the British principle of free speech and free association, and to this end we would repeal section 98 of the criminal code, and end the present practice of arbitrary deportation.
Finally Liberalism stands for electoral laws which will ensue a true parliamentary representation of the Canadian people, and such legislation as may help to reduce the cost of electoral compaigns.
I might have added in this connection a word as to our position with regard to interimperial and international relations, but I think the house is familiar with our policy in that regard, which aims, as hon. gentlemen well know, at seeking to further wherever possible those courses in international relations which will make for peace and goodwill among nations, and promote friendly intercourse between them. We would seek to further the League of Nations in its work.
There is one word I should like to say in conclusion. I feel that this is a time when men ought to speak their minds, particularly in regard to the problems with which the country is faced-and not only the country, but with which the world itself is faced; and that if there is anything in our belief which we regard as important it should be publicly stated. Much has been said this afternoon by myself in criticism of those who are supporting the present resolution; I have felt
2512	COMMONS
Cooperative Commonwealth-Mr. Mackenzie King
that they were relying far too much upon what a change in external conditions and structure might do as affecting the existing social order. I have indicated what I have in mind when I said I did not believe that some matters could be solved by economic readjustments, or by any complete transformation of the existing social and industrial order such as they have in mind, and that they would have to go very much deeper than that to find the real solution. May I say, in a word, that I believe there are some things which governments and parliaments can do, but there are other things which governments and parliaments cannot do, and it is wholly wrong that the citizens of a country generally should be led to look only to the state for the reforming or improvement of conditions. We have come to a time in the world's history when men will have to go deeper into their own hearts and ask themselves what in the final analysis it is which is preventing large numbers of human beings from being able to get the livelihood to which they are entitled, and which is accountable foT the world's present distress.
If one goes back to the days of the ancient prophets and law givers one will find the spirit of the Hebrew in the writings of the sacred books. Its dominant idea is that of a divine law of righteousness, which in human affairs found its expression in social justice. I say that to my hon. friends who are supporting this resolution, because I should like them to realize that they are not the first or the only ones who have sought for social justice. It has been the great struggle through the ages. The dominant note throughout the Scriptures is that of the need to effect social justice in human relations. That was what was most emphasized in ancient times. When we come to the days of the birth of Christianity we find that Christ Himself gave to the world His views as to what it most needed to solve its social problems They are set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. I believe there is nothing that will go so far to help solve this world's problems and remove its distress as adherence to the precepts, principles and teachings which are set forth in the Sermon on the Mount. Apart from their acceptance, there will be no permanent solution. Christ in that sermon said to mankind: Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness and all these things shall be added unto you. A moment before, He had said, "ye cannot serve God and Mammon." The things that were to be added were what ye shall eat, what ye shall drink, and wherewithal ye shall

be clothed, the economic and material needs. His statement was that if men would go deep enough into their hearts and seek to root out the selfishness there, would care more for the well being of others than for their own advancement and position, very soon human society would take care of itself. A little later the apostle Paul, seeking to inculcate those precepts and principles, when addressing the Philippians, used the expression: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." In all reverence I say to my fellow countrymen, that I believe that that alone will solve the great social problems of to-day. When men and women in their relations with each other, whether social or business or political, will put first and foremost the desire to promote the well-being of their fellows in a spirit of service, and humility and sacrifice, rather than to advance their own individual interests by gain tamd by greed, then wie shall have made a real advance toward a solution. of the problems of the day. Parliament cam do much to 'help to make it difficult if mot impossible for the avaricious man to profit by his greed, and the mean mam to profit from his meanness. All of us bene will, I believe, irrespective of party, do what we can towards that end. We need in our work the assistance of all the helpful forces in this country, church and state must work together, but most of all the individual himself must play his part. Every man and woman must realize that if we have a world industrial depression to-day he or she is in a measure responsible for its alleviation, and that to each and to all we must look for the complete solution.


Mr. I. D. COTNAM (North Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
The hous-e divided on the motion (Mr. Cotnam) which was agreed to on the follow-
Cowan (Long Lake), Davies,
Dickie.
Duranleau,
Ernst,
Esling,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon,
Gobeil,
Gordon,
Hay,
Johnstone,
Jones,
Kennedy (Winnipeg South Centre), Lafleche,
LaV ergne,
ing division:

Mess
Arsenault,
Baker,
Barber,
Beaubier,
Belec,
Bennett,
Boulanger,
Bourgeois,
Bowen,
Bowman,
Boyes,
Burns,
Bury.
Casselman,
Charters,
Cotnam,
Cowan (Port Arthur-

Cooperalive Commonwealth-Division
Lawson,
Loueks,
Macdonald (Kings), Macdougall, MacMillan (Saskatoon), MaeNicol,
McDade,
MeGiibbon,
McGdllis,
MeLure,
Manion,
Moore (Cbateauguay-Huntingdon), Morand,
Mullins,
Murphy,
Myers,
Nicholson,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Pettit,
Pickel,
Plunkett,
Porteous,
Price,
Quinn,
Rogers,
Ryekman,
Ah earn,
Bertrand,
Blair,
Bouchard,
Bradette,
Brown,
Butcher,
Carmichael,
Chevrier,
Coote,
Denis,
Deslauriers,
Donnelly,

Dupuis,
Faiard,
Fournier,
Garland (BowRiver), Gershaw,
Golding,
Goulet,
Gray,
H anbury,
Hanson (Skeena), Heaps,
Heenan,
Howden,
Hurtubise,
Senn,
Shaver,
Short,
Simpson
(North Simeoe), Smith
(Victoria-Carleton), Smith
(Cumberland), Spankie,
Spence,
Sproule,
Stanley,
Stevens,
Stewart (Deeds), Stewart (Lethbridge), Stirling,
Sutherland,
Swaneton,
Tetreault,
Thompson (Lanark), Tummon,
Turnbull.
White (London), White (Mount Royal), Willis,
Wright.-84.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Ilsley,
Kennedy
(Peace River),
King, Mackenzie,
Lucas,
Maclnnis,
Mackenzie
(Vancouver Centre), MacLean,
Macphail, Miss, McIntosh,
McKenzie (Assiniboia), McPhee,
Malcolm,
Munn,
Neill,
Parent,
Pouliot,
Power,
Reid,
St-Pere,
Sanderson,
Speakman,
Spencer,
Stewart
(West Edmonton), Totzke.-52.

(The list of pairs is furnished by the chief whips.)
Messrs:
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Anderson (Halton), Arthurs,
Baribeau,
Barrette,
Bell (Hamilton), Bell (St. Antoine), Bell (St. John), Beynon,
Black (Halifax),
Irvine,
Factor,
Fraser (Northumberland) , Beaubien,
Rheaume,
Mereier (St. Henri), Raymond,
Dubois,
Euler,
Dubuc,
Caban,
Cantley,
Chaplin,	[DOT]
Dorion,
Duguay,
Dupre,
Edwards,
Embury,
Ganong,
Garland (Carleton),
Geary,
Gott,
Guthrie,
Hackett,
Hanson
(York-Sunbury),
II arris,
Larue,
Lennox,
Laurin,
MacDonald (Cape Breton South), MacLaren,
Maloney,
Matthews,
Perley, Sir George, Rhodes,
Robinson,
Ross,
Rorve,
Ryerson,
Sauve,
Simpson (Algonia), Smoke,
Spotton,
Stinson.
Stitt (Nelson),
Stitt (Selkirk), Sullivan,
Thompson (Simeoe), Wilson.
Weir (Melfort), Weese,
Rinfret,
Cardin,
Gardiner,
Verville,
Dumaine,
Ferland,
Elliott,
Bothwell,
Luchko vich, Girouard,
Mereier (Laurier-Outremont), Rutherford, Lapointe,
Perras,
Veniot,
Jacobs,
ThauvCtte,
Howard,
Fontaine,
Urquhart,
Fiset,
Young,
Moore (Ontario), Marcil,
Ralston,
Desrochers,
Roberge,
Lacroix,
Taylor,
Seguin,
Casgrain,
Cayley,
Hepburn,
Hall,
Woodsworth,
Weir (Macdonald), Brasset,
Jean,
Vallance,
Motherwell,
Mitchell.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards): Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


John Vallance: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SIMPSON (West Algonia):: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Spguenay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


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


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil


Mr. PERRAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Stanstead (Mr. Haekett). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Mr. DUGUAY. I was paired with the hon. member for Ragot (Mr. Dumaime). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. YOUNG:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimousbi (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LARUE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Sou-langes (Mr. Thauvette). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took reoess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. CURRENCY, NOTES AND BONDS



PROPOSAL FOR STAMPING OR PRINTING IN BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, January 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Boulanger :
Whereas French speaking Canadians constitute approximately one-third of the population and have always evinced their attachment to the throne and British institutions:
And whereas their language, one of the languages most commonly used in international relations, is coupled with their culture and traditions, one of the essential elements of Canadian nationality, and establishes a characteristic that differentiates and protects our country against the dangers of Americanisation;	.
And whereas the fathers of confederation had in mind and the federal pact demand the equality of the two languages: English and French;	. ,
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, in order to more clearly establish the distinctive character of the Canadian pepole and to better ensure its preservation, all state currency, notes or bonds should be in both official languages.
[Mr. Cahan.l
Mr. SAMUEL GOBEIL (Compton):: The
mover of this resolution having spoken in French, I have come to the conclusion that I should reply to him in that language, but I must say that in my opinion, for all practical purposes, the resolution is one that should have been moved in English. For that reason it is to be regretted, I think, that the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) did not move it in English. He knew,
[ am sure, that there were no converts for him ;o make among the French speaking members of this house, when he asked for a bilingual currency-and I use the words bilingual currency advisedly-rather than the words set out in the motion, because I doubt whether, in the present state of affairs and under world conditions, it is wise on the part of this house to express an opinion to the effect that we should guard against the dangers of Americanization. That however is something which I leave to hon. members who have more experience than I have. But when the hon. gentleman suggests that we should have a bilingual currency in Canada, I think I can say that without a single exception we are in favour of his proposal. Every French Canadian, the humblest or the most distinguished, will take a greater pride in the fact that he is a Canadian when there is equal proficiency in the two languages and when bilingualism has become an established fact recognized throughout the country.
If there is any need for missionary or educational work in this matter, as I claim theie is, and I say this without intending any offence, it is certainly among the English speaking members of the house. The large majority if not all of our colleagues who speak the other language are broadminded men willing to do their share towards bringing about greater unity between the races. To convince them that our case is just and fair, it is only proper that we should speak to them in their own tongue. I fancy I hear someone saying that bilingualism is official in this house and that they should learn French, but in my opinion that is a most illogical reply, as illogical as it would be for an English speaking Canadian who might go into one of our towns in Quebec, where he might not be fully understood, to insist on people trying to speak his own language. It is in the best interests of all to be able to speak 'both languages, but it should not be forgotten that the learning of our language presents to our colleagues the same difficulties that we encounter when we learn theirs.
(Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in this debate. Although I do not endorse all that has been said by the hon.

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil
member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger)- because I would not care to be credited with some of the expressions he used-may I, however, assure him that his Conservative French Canadian colleagues of Quebec, rejoice in hearing that, since 1930 at least, he has suddenly become an ardent champion of bilingualism. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the members of the press gallery for the publicity they gave to his speech. This shows that the press realizes that public opinion takes an interest in this question and want to be well informed. I therefore feel confident that I shall be dealt with as fairly and that the question of bilingualism will be better understood when this debate closes.
Since January 30, last, certain newspapers, perhaps, with the best of intentions-I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt in this respect-have criticized me for having adjourned the debate, thus preventing further discussion on this resolution. I have, sir, no apology to make to my province or fellow citizens, because I am convinced that, by adjourning the debate, I have better served the cause of bilingualism than the mover of the resolution, by his speech.
We are living in a country where two-thirds of the population are of British extraction or at least different from ours. We, French Canadians, contend that we are entitled to have bilingualism in this country, first, as original possessors or settlers of the land, secondly, in virtue of the British North America Act. However, it must be acknowledged-I think it is so acknowledged by everyone-that the British North America Act is not very clear on the question of currency. The motion before the house is a proof of this. The hon. member for Bellechasse requests the house to decide this point and declare that our currency should bear bilingual inscription. Briefly, this means that part of section 133, by the request of the hon. member for Bellechasse, becomes a question for the house to decide. Then, sir, is it not reasonable to believe that if the hon. member for Bellechasse had really had at heart the success of this motion, he would not in the course of his remarks, insulted, as 'he did, a certain group of his colleagues. To my mind, that is a proof-there are others- that the hon. member's intention, in introducing this resolution, was to make it a political issue and endeavour to make political capital out of it.
Moreover, sir, the hon. member and his party were guided by past experience, because the house must remember that, for the last forty years, never did the liberal party 53719-160
assume power on an economic or political issue, but have always appealed to popular feelings. In 1896, the liberal party was hoisted to power on the Manitoba school question; in 1921 it resorted to the conscription issue. On the other hand, the liberal party was always put out of office on a question of policy and involving broad principles. They were put out, in 1911, on the reciprocity issue and, in 1930, on the question whether Canada would further allow foreign products to flood her markets.
Now, sir, if we agree on the principle of the resolution itself, the discussion of it will permit, however, to clear up certain aspects of the question which are not sufficiently known by the public and place the responsibility of certain acts where it should be.
First, it is not more a question of the hour than it was five or ten years ago. The hon. member for Bellechasse admitted it himself in his speech. He stated that numerous petitions had been forwarded to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Let me point out to him that most of these petitions were not sent to the present Minister of Finance but to his liberal predecessor and that, in the course of twelve months, between 1928 and 1929, more petitions of this kind were received by the then Minister of Finance than had ever been received since Confederation to this date. To inquiries made, at the last session, the government replied that, from May, 1928, to April 1929, 348 petitions had been received, requesting bilingual inscriptions on our currency, and that-a strange coincidence-on June 28, 1929, hardly two months after receiving all these petitions, the government under the leadership of the right hon. Mr. Mackenzie King, signed a five-year contract for the printing of our currency-a unilingual currency

dated April 1, 1930.
Last summer, I do not know why, when the hon. member for Bellechasse, in a letter addressed to the press, contended that I had conspired with the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) and a few members on this side of the house, in order to prevent the discussion of this motion, I inquired, in my reply to his letter, why he had not introduced his resolution previous to the contract made in 1929. In a letter dated July 30, 1932, published by l'Action Catholique on August 2, 1932. the hon. member for Bellechasse replied as follows:
Mr. Gobeil wishes to know why I did not advocate bilingual currency under the Liberal regime. I shall frankly tell him. At the time to which he refers. I was opposing subsidized immigration. I thought that to struggle with that issue was enough work for a new member.
I wonder if the hon. member for Bellechasse satisfied a great number of people with

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil

such a reply; however, I regret to state that he neither impressed me by his zeal, at that period, nor by his sincerity, to-day. If the hon. member had then shown the great activity which he has displayed since his party has gone out of power, he certainly could have found the means to introduce his resolution, especially when he already had, in
1929,	a parliamentary experience of three years, and particularly when he must have realized that his efforts to restrict immigration had no results. However, sir, were we to admit, for the sake of arguing, that the hon. member was right, if we accept his views, that a new member, in his first stage of parliamentary life, has an excuse perhaps, for not championing his race, his language or liberty when he believes them threatened, does the same excuse apply to the sixty other members of Quebec, in 1929? Does the same excuse apply to such veteran parliamentarians who sit on the front benches? For instance, to the hon. member for l'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin), to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil)? Is such an excuse valid on behalf of the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), with his sonorous voice, who rises in the house, at every moment, and likes to be looked upon as the great patriot of this chamber? Is it valid on behalf of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), so loquacious since
1930.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Had the
government given me my station sooner, I could have taken up this matter.


Samuel Gobeil: ... the most expensive member in the house, considering the services he renders? Is it possible to imagine or believe that he did not rise in the house, in 1929, to protest before the contract was awarded by the government of which he was a follower? And, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) the great champion of the French Canadians, who, in 1925 and 1926, came to the county of Compton, at East Angus, to denounce the Conservatives and tell the people of my constituency how necessary and important it was for them to return a liberal so as to uphold the rights of the French Canadian race against the encroachments of these villainous Tories? Was such an excuse valid in the case of the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin)? In brief was such an excuse valid in behalf of the solid phalanx?
All will remember-and the house will recall that at the time the famous solid phalanx was returned to power-the husting speeches of our hon. friends opposite, who stated that it was absolutely necessary for the honour of

the French Canadian race and language to return the Quebec liberal phalanx "en bloc", and this Quebec solid phalanx, 61 strong, all members of my province, remained silent; not one rose in the house to request a bilingual currency, when, in 1929, it became necessary to renew the contract; I state, not one rose in the house!
The hon. member for Bellechasse made the other day, to my mind, a rather harsh statement. While listening to him, I could not help thinking that there was much spite infused in the remarks addressed to his colleagues of 1929. He made the following statement, page 1775 of Hansard:
I trust that no one will take the attitude of whipped dog that some of our public men have sometimes taken on national questions.
Where were the "whipped dogs" in 1919? Surely not on the left of the chair, because, as a result of the campaign of race prejudices carried on by our friends opposite, not a Conservative French Canadian of Quebec was elected. Therefore, there is no doubt that the whipped dogs to which the hon. member for Bellechasse referred were the 61 Liberal members of Quebec. Is this not a proof, sir, that the hon. member displayed harshness towards his friends?
I regret that the hon. member for Chicoutimi-Saguenay is not in the house; however, I hope he will appear before this debate closes. He should acquaint the house with his views, especially as whip of his party, he who since 1930, but particularly since the opening of this session, rises in his seat as if moved by a hidden spring each time some document or pamphlet is mentioned in the house, and inquires whether it has been printed in French-


Jean-François Pouliot: There is no Chicoutimi-Saguenay county.


Samuel Gobeil: When it has not been printed in French it is simply because it was not under the Liberal regime, however, each time the minister concerned' replies: if such is the wish of the house, this pamphlet will be published in French. But the hon. member for Chicoutimi-Saguenay-


Jean-François Pouliot: There is no Chicoutimi and Saguenay county.


Samuel Gobeil: The hon. member for Charlevoix and Saguenay (Mr. Cas-grain) should inform the house whether in 1929 he made use of the whip, and, if so, how many strokes he gave each of our hon. friends to force them to adopt the humiliating position described by the hon. member for

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil
Belleehasse. I have much regard for my friends in the opposition and I cannot imagine that in 1929 out of 61 members from Quebec all sitting on your right, sir, not one expressed the wish to the leader of the government when the currency contract came up, that the country be given a bilingual currency. Since such was the case, the whip who is the executor of the high party orders, must have had his hands full to keep them in line, and I am sure that if the hon. member divulged to the house the means to which he resorted, we would have a very interesting page of the inner history of the Liberal party.
What about the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the first lieutenant of the prime minister of that period, the leader of the French Canadian representation, the great champion of the rights of his race in Quebec? In 1925 and 1926, and even in 1930, he also was one of those who, on the hustings, addressed the French Canadians, and explained to them the necessity of electing a solid phalanx to safeguard their rights, language and liberties. Will the hon. member for Quebec East explain why this contract was awarded, in 1929, for a unilingual currency? I think, sir, that it behooves the hon. member to explain to the house this change in their policy, because this question was an issue in 1929 as it is to-day. It was even more an issue then, because of the 348 petitions received by the Minister of Finance of that day. It behooves the hon. member for Quebec East to inform the house and the Quebec representation why this question was not settled in 1929, when times were normal, when the question was easier to settle than to-day, because there existed less restlessness. I am certain that if the hon. member for Quebec East confided to the house why it was not done, it would make very interesting news. While awaiting his statement, may I divulge what, I think, was the main reason. It was, sir, that, in 1929, the Liberal party was in power, while to-day it is in the opposition.
If the Liberal party was in power, to-day, and a Conservative member moved a resolution similar to the one before the house, I have not the least doubt that the hon. member for Quebec East would quote the views that his late leader, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, expressed in the house, on February 25, 1907, on a similar resolution moved by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne). Let us examine the statement made, in 1907, by the leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier the idol of the province of Quebec. His words are quoted on page 3655 of Hansard. February 28, 1907:
. . . but I must protest against the idea that because bank notes are not printed in French as well as in English, one can state that the French language is not on a footing of equality with the English.
We have our rights and we should exercise them when it is our interest to do so, but I do not think we should be pedantic and insist that on every occasion the French language should be spoken.
Will any of our hon. friends, in the opposition, rise in the house this evening and contend that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was a traitor to his race when he made this statement. I invite our hon. friends opposite to rise in their seats and tell us what they think of the views expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in 1907, with reference to the bilingual currency.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: There must
have been whipped dogs at that period!


Samuel Gobeil: There certainly were whipped dogs, I mentioned the fact a short while ago; there were some then as there were in 1929.


Wilfrid Girouard: There is
very little sense shown in such a remark.


Samuel Gobeil: If there is
little sense shown the fault lies with the member for Belleehasse.
Such is the consistency of the upholders of Liberal principles.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Is it not a fact that the hon. Mr. Devlin, a Liberal member, moved a resolution to that effect?


Samuel Gobeil: I have been
informed that according to the doctrine of integral Liberalism, so highly thought of by the hon. member for Quebec East, this is called "adapting oneself to circumstances." In our rural districts it is designated under another name. In this matter, the hon. member for Belleehasse, a legal luminary, conscious of his superiority over my humble self, thought he could, in the course of last summer, in his letters to the press, counter my thrust by displaying his contempt for me; and accordingly, in one of his letters, he could not find a more contemptible expression in speaking of me than that of "back country politician."
An hon. MEMBER (Translation):	It was
well deserved!


Samuel Gobeil: I frankly state that I did not feel very much offended; however, in the back country to which the hon. member alludes and which he seems to so much despise, when a man says white one day and black the next day, as the Liberals did, in 1907 and 1933, on the question of bilingual currency, our "habitants", our country

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gobeil
folk-I myself being one-do not say that such a man. "adapts himself to circumstances," but that he is a double-faced fellow.
I have had sufficient experience with the liberal press to expect that I shall be charged with playing politics...
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): That is
apparent.


Samuel Gobeil: ...when making these remarks. Therefore, I wish to state why I have taken such a stand. If I occupy a seat on your right, sir, it is because I have full confidence in the government, and believe that the conservative policy is most appropriate, especially, under present circumstances; it is because I think that the conservative policy as applied by this government, under the leadership of one of the most outstanding men of the British Commonwealth, is the only sound policy to follow in the crisis we are passing through; it is because I feel confident that the conservative policy is the only one which will pull us through this crisis without too much upsetting things.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Hear, hear!


Samuel Gobeil: I wanted to make it plain, that even from the viewpoint of the French language and bilinguism, the conservative party neither has had in the past nor has in the present, any lesson to take or excuses to offer, as far as the record of the liberal party is concerned.
There is, sir, another aspect of the question to which I want to refer before closing my remarks, it is in connection with the French Canadian minority of this country. As in all countries where there exists a duality of language or race, the minority needs an independent press to uphold its rights. In order that such a press may fulfil its part, I readily recognize that it must have elbow-room and the right to criticize those who are false to the rights of this minority; however, may I add that it must give proof of its impartiality. To clearly state my point, I shall quote a concrete case, an example of impartiality! A few days after I had adjourned this debate, I received a communication from a group of young men of Montreal-I have no hesitation in stating that it was the same group who organized the meeting at Gesu, last autumn. These young men expressed their amazement at my adjourning this debate and wanted to know the reason. To justify their request, they quoted the comments of a certain newspaper, supposed to be free from any political alliance, which stated that this adjournment

had no other purpose than to shut out all discussion on the motion or give it the six months' hoist. I immediately communicated to them some of the reasons which I gave the house, and which seemed to satisfy them. I am confident that this debate will prove that the comments of the newspaper in question were baseless. Nothing pleased me as much as this letter because it showed a sense of sincerity and a desire of being fair. I wish to point out to my province and race the means to which the press, supposed to be independent of party politics resorted, on this occasion. I do not do so to complain because I really think that it did itself more harm than it did to me. However, sir, if I had an advice to give them, it would be the following: if it wants to fulfil its part which is, I repeat it, very useful, it must be impartial in its criticism, so as to, at least, retain the respect of those with whom it differs.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is the
first time the Conservative party advocate a policy!
Mr. LAFLEiCHE (Translation): You never had any.


Samuel Gobeil: It is unnecessary, sir, to repeat in French the remarks that I made in English, however, I wish to clearly state that I entirely approve of the principle embodied in the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse. I shall vote for it because I have always been in favour of such a motion and I shall always be. I am convinced that even if Canadian currency becomes bilingual, nobody will suffer from it or be the worse off, no more so than we are by the fact of having bilingual postage stamps.
However, a contract was awarded for the stamping of a unilingual currency, for a period of five years, dated April 1, 1930. It was signed by the Liberal government which preceded this administration, when the whole French Canadian representation of Quebec sat on the government benches, yet, not one protested. To my mind, that was a mistake on their part. It behooved the leaders, the old parliamentarians, as I mentioned a short while ago, to rise in the house, as we do to-day, and request the government of the day to give the country a bilingual currency. If these hon. gentlemen failed in their duty, I state that they must bear the consequences and not lay the blame on this government. If I moved the adjournment of the debate-[DOT] as I previously mentioned, I have no excuses to make and do not offer any-it was because this motion was the ninth on the order paper and no one expected it would be called so

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Chevrier
soon. Moreover, the first remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse admitted this fact. As I stated at the outset of my remarks, I think I have better served the cause of bilingualism by my moving the adjournment of the debate than the hon. member for Bellechasse did by his speech. Although a large number of our colleagues in the house are not conversant with the French language, a sufficient number are to understand the insults and affronts directed against a group of members by the hon. member for Bellechasse, and, sir, it was not in the interest of bilingualism that this motion should be discussed immediately after such an incendiary speech. I do not think that the cause has been the loser by this adjournment, on the contrary, I think it has gained. However, should the stamping of bilingual currency be delayed-although I know it must and will be established some day-the hon. member for Bellechasse must bear the consequence, because, in requesting the house to settle the question, he made it a point to rouse the passions, prejudices and race feelings which are inborn in the human heart. No doubt, had the discussion followed immediate^, bitter terms would have been used which, to-day, is not to be thought of.
In closing my remarks, sir, I beg to request the government, when a new contract is awarded or a new issue of currency is authorized, to see that our currency bears the two official languages of this country.
I feel certain that it will be a further step towards promoting the " bonne entente " between the two great races of this country.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, on January 30 last, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) had the privilege of moving in the house the resolution under discussion.
In language most moderate, with a thorough knowledge of his subject enhanced by the genius of the French language which is at his command, the hon. member for Bellechasse moved his resolution in the house. After having accomplished his task in words which all those who are conversant with the beautiful French language could appreciate, the time came for some other member to continue the debate. The hon. member who has just taken his seat, unfortunately, resorting to means which the rules of the house do not permit me to impute to him, moved the adjournment of the debate, which is equivalent to giving it the six months' hoist. It would have been better for this gentleman had he never seen light, for the honour of his province and that of the French Canadians of Ontario, we who, on Ontario soil, have always fought to obtain the rights granted to us-


Joseph-François Laflèche: You represented Ottawa in 1929!


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: " Ne ultra crepidam." Cobbler, judge no higher than the sole!

and which the broadminded English people had always recognized. Therefore, the hon. member for Compton (Mir. Gobeil) shoved forward, as we do to marior-nettes, by some interested party, requested the adjournment of the debate; to-day he is repentant. Fortunately for him, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) being an experienced politician, realized the faux-pas of the hon. member for Compton, who had been ill-advised by some one who was ignorant of the rules of the house or had overlooked the danger of placing in his hands such an offensive or defensive weapon. Therefore, the right hon. Prime Minister moved that this day, Monday, be set aside for members' notices of motions, so that we might discuss the resolution of the hon. member for Bellechasse.


Joseph-François Laflèche: He himself suggested Monday.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Had it not been for this motion of the right hon. Prime Minister, I wonder what would have been, in Quebec, the result of the faux-pas made by the hon. member for Compton?


Samuel Gobeil: Are you sorry that the resolution is again being debated?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: No, not for a French Canadian hailing from Ontario who has a high regard for his language and the rights which have been recognized by this old and noble province.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh! Oh!


@Acting Speaker: I would request hon. members to show some deference for the rules and the subject matter under discussion.


Hon. Mr. LAPOINTE (Translation):: Hear, hear!


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I thank you, sir. I do not expect those -who are not, perhaps, able to appreciate the deference due to their colleagues, to understand that due to the rules of the house.
An hon. MEMBER (Translation): We must not be insulted!


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: The hon. member for Compton wishes us now to discuss this question after he himself and all his colleagues who sit to your right, sir, endeavoured to bury it, because they had not sufficient

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Chewier
courage, energy or respect for the French language to defend the language they learned on their mother's knees.


Joseph Léonard Duguay: Mr. Speaker,
I would request the hon. member for Ottawa to withdraw the words he has just uttered. The rules of the house do not permit the hon. member to insinuate that; through lack of energy or pride or any of the reasons which he has just enumerated, we abstained from rising in the house to defend our rights. I ask the hon. member for Ottawa to withdraw such expressions.


@Acting Speaker: I think the objection is well taken, inasmuch as the hon. member for Ottawa ascribes motives to the members on the right; he is bound to withdraw that part of his remark.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I bow, with the best grace, to your decision, because I am aware of your impartiality.
Did any one, sir, rise on the Government benches to speak on this resolution? They were quite satisfied with accepting the motion for the adjournment of the debate, this will always be an indelible brand on the foreheads of those who, at present, are privileged, for a rather ephemeral time, to sit on your right, sir.
It may seem rather paradoxical to you, Mr. Speaker, that I whose mother tongue is French should express in the English language, and in this honourable house of all places, my views on the question now under consideration, and if I do it in that tongue it is because both the French and the English languages are the official languages of this bilingual country. It is because, under the terms of the federal pact, I am at liberty to use which ever one of those two languages I might prefer as the conditions and circumstances may warrant or as conditions and circumstances may guide me. But how much more pleased I should be, and how much better I could do justice to the cause which has been placed before you, Mr. Speaker, if only I were able, to use the language that I learned at my mother's knee.
With the spirit and with the purport of the resolution now before the house I have no quarrel; with that resolution I am in hearty accord. But I differ with my hon. friend from Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger) to this extent: The operative clause of the resolution reads:
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, in order to more clearly establish the distinctive character of the Canadian people and to better ensure its preservation, all state currency, notes or bonds should be in both official languages.

I say that the character and the preservation of the Canadian people already have been clearly established and preserved by the terms of the federal pact, and that from that pact there flows the obligation upon the federal power to treat the French language in the same manner at all times as they treat the English language, more particularly in connection with any matter that may originate from federal control.
I shall base my argument for bilingual money on the terms of section 133 of the British 'North America Act. Construed in its most limited and restricted sense, and reduced to its simplest form, section 133 of the British North America Act means that all acts or actions emanating from the federal power when reduced to writing may be-note, "may" be-in either of the two official languages. I repeat, section 133 says that they "may" be in either of the two official languages. That means that when the federal authority in the exercise of its powers makes use of the English language, the French language may be similarly used for the same purpose.
It may be objected, although I trust it will not be, that that section is not imperative in its terms. With that contention I have no quarrel. But what difference is there between using the French language in any pleading or process-I am now quoting the words of section 133-which obviously are written documents, issuing from any court of Canada, and using the French language in conjunction with the English language on any paper money or coin printed, stamped, coined or issued out of the Royal Mint? Both the process and the coin or a dollar bill are issued under the federal jurisdiction by federal authority, and if there is any difference between issuing the process and issuing a dollar bill, then it ought- all to be an argument in favour of issuing bilingual money, because the mint is now under federal jurisdiction and under the control of the parliament of Canada.
Why should it not be so? Do you answer, simply because it was not so explicitly stated in the bond, and that therefore the fathers of confederation did not think of it? No. I am quite satisfied that the fathers of confederation never had under contemplation the issuing of bilingual money. But there were many other matters the fathers of confederation had not in their minds when they drafted and approved of sections 91 and 92. The proof of that is that during all these years His Majesty's Privy Council has been functioning in an endeavour satisfactorily to interpret those sections. What the fathers of confederation contemplated was a united, pros-

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Chevrier
perous Canada, a place where these two great races, proud of their ancestors and heritage, could forever live in peace, mutual understanding and respect, where the rights, principles, prerogatives and freedoms of the one would never be less or greater than those of the other. That, in my view, was the prevision of those great men whose love of country so dominated their minds that they could not be guilty of narrow-mindedness and unfair tactics.
I find that at page 937 of the debates of confederation Mr. Parker is reported as having said this:
I believe difficulties and embarrassments will grow up under this new constitution. I hope it will not be considered a finality but capable of amendment as time goes on. I sincerely trust that so far as its future defects may have their origin in matters of law, they will be redressed by wise, legal, and enlightened means, and so far as they may have their foundation in matters of sentiment or opinion, that they will be redressed by the cultivation of better and more fraternal feeling between the people of the different provinces. I trust and believe that by such happy means, although it is not now such a constitution as we can all approve.' it may in the future be so modified and administered as to meet the requirements and expectations of the country, and that under it all the residents of these nine provinces may become one united, firm, prosperous and happy people.
Such was the vision, such was the dream, such were the hopes of the framers of the constitution. Is it for us to-day to say that those hopes, those dreams are not to be respected? After all, what was the intention of those who, in mutual respect and confidence, produced section 133? That section is to be found in the debates of confederation, this ponderous volume which has no index, but through which one must labour-as I did labour-through which one must read if one desires to learn about the sentiments of the fathers of confederation. This volume one must read if he wishes to find out what they had in contemplation. In view of the events of recent times, upon going through this ponderous volume one might be inclined to wonder at the paucity of remarks with reference to the status and the effect of the use of the French language in Canada. But, to one who has gone through the volume, to one who has laboriously read the lives and biographies of those who brought about confederation, one does not wonder that neither French nor English lost time to learn what the effect of section 133 would be. As gentlemen, as they were in those days, they simply wrote down in the book that so and so would be such and such; the Frencli believed in the English, and the English believed in the
French, and the paucity, yet the clearness of the language simply meant that while heretofore they had been chivalrous foes, now they were friends who understood each other. Their minds were in tune with one thought-a confederation wherein both races should be equal as to rights and privileges.
May I quote the words of Sir Hector Langevin as they appear at page 368 of the reports:
Under confederation there will no longer be domination of one race over another, and if one section should be desirous of committing an act of injustice against another section, all the others would unite together to prevent it.
Then he goes on to say:
This measure, as I observed a short time ago, cannot last unless it protects the interests of all. . . . What we desire and wish is to defend the general interests of a great country, and of a powerful nation by means of a central power.
Then Sir Hector Langevin goes on to explain what benefits he expects will accrue to this new nation by reason of the mingling of the mentality of one with that of the other, a nation wherein one people respects the thoughts and the rights, and challenges none of whatever may have been the rights, privileges or principles of the other. Sir Hector Langevin continues:
The confederation, I am perfectly convinced will afford the best possible guarantee for our institutions, our languages, and all that we hold dearest in the world; under its protection we shall be strong against the common enemy;
Perhaps the Prime Minister will listen to this:
We shall be strong against the common enemy; we shall advance rapidly in the way of prosperity, and when we withdraw from the arena it will be with the consolation of leaving to our descendants an inheritance worthy of a free people.
Then, at page 833 Mr. Harwood is reported as follows:
As to us French-Canadians and Catholics, what have we to fear from confederation? Our language, our rights and our privileges are guaranteed to us.
Our language, our rights, our privileges, are guaranteed to us. Sir John A. Macdonald said:
... it was assented to by the deputation from each province that the use of the French language should form one of the principles upon which confederation should be established, and that its use as at present should be guaranteed by the Imperial Act.
This may seem far fetched. But if the use of the French language is guaranteed in all these processes of law that may emanate from a federal court, whether issued on birch bark

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Chevrier
or engraved upon steel, whether written upon parchment or upon paper, let us see what it means:	Sir Hector Langevin says:
It was perfectly well understood at the conference of Quebec that the French language should not only be spoken in the courts of justice, in the federal parliament, and in the legislature of Lower Canada, but that precisely as is now' the case, the Votes and Proceedings of the legislature, as W'ell as all the federal laws and those of the legislature of Lower Canada, should be printed in both languages.
He continues:
These are the principles upon which the new constitution will be based, and I feel justified in going so far as to say that it was impossible to secure more effectually this essential privilege of our nationality and at the same time our civil and religious institutions.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we come to this peculiar point, Mr. Geoffrion, who was then the member for Vercheres, had raised the point that the proposed section was not explicit enough. I am just now meeting my hon. friends on the other side. Here was a member of the assembly who said:	No, that is not explicit
enough, do not trust to those people. He said that stronger language should be used so that in later years-
. . . we should not be told wthen we exclaim against that injustice (the failure fully to recognize our rights) "you should have obtained more full and complete guarantees, and you should have seen that the constitution was made more explicit and more precise on that point.
Does anyone to-day desire to say Mr. Geoffrion was right, in the light of the spirit that guided those men who brought confederation to pass? Does anyone desire to argue that because it was not stated from A to Z in the bond, we are strictly limited to the letter of the law? Does anyone desire to argue against the loyalty, sincerity and chivalry of those who prepared and executed that bond? Does anyone on the other side of the house desire to argue that the parties to the bond should have looked on one another and treated one another as sharpers, villains, cut-throats? That would be doing a fearful injustice to those men of courage, vision and fairness who loyally and with mutual respect, frankly and without reservation, executed a bond wherein they honestly believed they were writing what was to be the magna charta of Canada, and which was to do justice to all, to respect the rights, liberties and privileges of all. I submit that if it is our right to have issued in both languages writs, mandamus, habeas corpus or any processes out of federal courts, why should it not be equally our right to have the one dollar bill or the gold piece stamped or engraved in the two languages, more particular. Chevrier.]
larly now that the mint is under federal control? Just because that section was not made to contain all the ramifications that go with the protected rights and privileges, shall it come to pass that we are denied them? That just because that section did not contain all the usual conveyancer's phrases by which w'e lawyers are wont to express our thoughts, therefore all that is not included is excluded? That just because that section was not drawn to the tune of whereas and wherefore, and "right, title, interest therein and thereout, under, over, through or above" -because all that verbiage was not used, should the spirit of the law not be recognized? Mr. Speaker, if the souls and the spirits of those great departed w'ere here in this chamber I am sure they would say that what I now express was in their minds at the time, namely that bilingual money is included in the language rights of that section, just as the sheaf of grain is in the seed that is placed in the ground.
It is perfectly true that in section 133 nothing is said about coinage. But let me read section 137 of another constitutional act, that of South Africa, another bilingual country:
Both the English and the Dutch languages shall be official languages of the union, and shall be treated on a footing of equality and possess and enjoy equal freedom, rights and privileges; all records, journals and proceedings of parliament shall be kept in both languages, and all bills, acts and notices of general public importance or interest issued by the government of the union shall be in both languages.
Sir, the statutes of South Africa are published in both languages, issued concurrently one with the other, on the left side the English, and on the right side the Dutch. What difference is there in spirit between section 137 of the South African constitution and section 133 of the British North America Act? In that act there is nothing said about publishing or printing or coining money. But, sir, it was my great privilege when I was in South Africa in 1924 to visit the royal mint there, and it was my greater privilege to be presented with specimens of the first coinage turned out by the South African mint in 1923. I now hold in my hand specimens of the coinage under section 137, wherein there is nothing said about money, but wherefrom the spirit emanates and radiates throughout South Africa and finds its expression in the national life of that country. What do I find? I have in my hand a South African gold piece which has a Latin inscription on its face. When I come to the shilling, however, I find that it bears this inscription: "South

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Dupre
Africa" and then "Zuid Afrika." On the other side of the coin I find: "Georgius V Rex Imperator." I go right down the line of the eight coins I have here and find that each one is inscribed in both English and Dutch, though section 137, to which I referred, makes no more and no less reference to the printing of coinage in both languages than I mentioned. I spent the last pound note I had in South Africa, and I spent it with pleasure, but even the paper money was printed in the English language on one side and in the Dutch language on the other.
I put this to you, Mr. Speaker:	Is South
Africa in any worse position to-day because, not only in theory but in practice, in mind and heart and soul it is a bilingual country? Is South Africa in any worse position because English and Dutch documents emanating from the central authority are printed in English and in the Dutch language? Is South Africa less loyal to the crown because it is a bilingual country? I have confidence in the descendants of those who were responsible for this great confederation; I am sure all of us in this parliament are imbued with the sentiments expressed at that time, of mutual respect, esteem and the desire for cooperation. Sir, may I say to you that no better gesture along that line could be made than the unanimous adoption of this measure, which in due time would result in our currency becoming bilingual.


Maurice Dupré: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to express myself in the English language, because my friends on this side of the house, without exception, and all those from Quebec are well aware of my attitude on this question of bilingualism. In order that there be no misunderstanding, I wish to immediately state that 1 am in favour of bilingual currency such as advocated by my hon. friend for Belle-chasse (Mr. Boulanger).
A motion similar to the one now before the house was moved by yourself, Mr. Speaker, on February 25, 1907, when as now you were the member for Montmorency, and I remember the two remarkable speeches delivered in this house on that occasion by yourself and by the distinguished member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). It matters not to me that on that unique occasion Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was then in power with a big majority, and his party did not favour the motion. It does not matter to me whether from 1907 to 1911, and from 1921 to 1930, our Liberal friends did not display the same zeal for the cause of bilingualism that they are
showing now when they are sitting on the cold benches of the opposition. I presume it was an oversight on their part; but the question for me is simply this:	Is the principle of bilingual state currency, notes and bonds, a sound principle? My answer is yes.
What is the status of the French language at the present time? To answer that question I must go back to 1840. At that time, during the third and fourth years of the reign of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, there was passed an act, which is 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 35, to reunite the provinces of lower and upper Canada. By this act the French language was prohibited, but this prohibition was lifted on August 14, 1848, by 11 and 12 Victoria, chapter 56. I should like to direct the attention of the house to that chapter. It is entitled:
An act to repeal so much of an act of the third and fourth years of her present majesty, to reunite the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and for the government of Canada, os' related to the use of the English language in instruments relating to the legislative council and legislative assembly of the province of Canada.
This is how the statute reads:
Whereas by an act passed in the session of parliament held in the third and fourth years of her present majesty, intituled an act to reunite the provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, and for the government of Canada, it is amongst other things enacted, that from and after the said reunion of the said two provinces, all writs, proclamations, instruments for summoning and calling together the legislative council and legislative assembly of the province of Canada, and for proroguing and dissolving the same, and all writs of summons and elections-
I should like to direct attention to the following w'ords:
-and all writs and public instruments what-sover relating to the said legislative council and legislative assembly, or either of them, and all returns to such writs and instruments, and all journals-
I should like to direct particular attention to the next words:
-entries and written or printed proceedings of what nature soever, of the said legislative council and legislative assembly, and of each of them respectively, and all written and printed proceedings and reports of committees of the said legislative council and legislative assembly respectively, shall be in the English language only: Provided always, that the said enactment should not be construed to prevent translated copies of any such documents being made, but no such copy should be kept among the records of the legislative council or legislative assembly, or be deemed in any case to have the force of an original record:
And whereas it is expedient to alter the law in this respect, in order that the legislature of the province of Canada, or the said legislative council and legislative assembly respectively,
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Du.pre

may have power to make such regulations herein as to them may seem advisable; be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that from and after the passing of this act so much of the said recited act as is hereinbefore recited shall be repealed.
I apologize for this long quotation. Summarizing. may I say that in the act of union the words, "all public instruments whatsoever relating to said legislative council and legislative assembly or either of them," embrace currency and the issue of bank notes; and the words, "all printed proceedings of what nature soever," also embrace currency and the. issue of bank notes. Who, for instance, after the passing of 3 and 4 Victoria, would say that bilingual currency was not prohibited? If bilingual currency was prohibited by 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 35, then did it not become non-prohibited, permissible, permitted, legal and constitutional when 3 and 4 Victoria was repealed? Would not the old Roman law maxim find its application here-"exclusio unius afiirmatio alterius"-the exclusion of the one means the affirmation of the other.
In constitutional law does not the repeal of a prohibition render the thing prohibited permissible, permitted, legal and constitutional? Therefore may I not conclude that bilingual currency, having been prohibited by 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 35, became permissible, permitted, legal and constitutional when 3 and 4 Victoria was repealed?
Thus stood matters before 1867. Then came the British North America Act, section 133 of which reads:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of tire parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this aet, and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
Paragraph 2 reads:
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
So far as I know, 11 and 12 Victoria, chapter 56, repealing 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 35 -and both are imperial statutes-was never abrogated; therefore the argument, I humbly submit, is this: that section 133 of the British North America Act simply enacted that thereafter English or French in certain circumstances should be optional, but that there should be an obligation to print in both

English and French certain records, documents, acts, proceedings and so on. But what was already permissible, permitted, legal and constitutional, outside of article 133, remained as such. Not only were not 3 and 4 Victoria, chapter 35, and 11 and 12 Victoria, chapter 56, not abrogated by the imperial parliament, but I refer the house to article 12 of the British North America Act-I will not cite the whole article-where it will be seen that all powers, authorities and functions under any act of the parliament of Great Britain or the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and so forth-
-shall, as far as the same continue in existence and capable of being exercised after the union in relation to the government of Canada, be vested in and exercisable by the governor general . . .
In other words, if I put the right interpretation upon article 12 of the British North America Act, the statutes 3 and 4 Victoria and 11 and 12 Victoria were never abrogated. Then was enacted the British North America Act in 1867. Our forefathers intended then to take a step forward, not backwards, and Cartier and other representatives of lower Canada would never have given their consent to any pact which would have curtailed the rights of the French language.
Since 1867 the status of the French language has been as follows, I submit: first, obligatory as regards part of the enumeration contained in article 133 and optional as regards the rest of the enumeration; secondly, permissible, permitted, legal and constitutional outside the enumeration contained in article 133. But I would go so far as to say that very likely article 133 covers the case of bilingual currency and that bilingual currency is included in the enumeration of article 133. This is a matter for legal discussion; but speaking generally I do not think that the status, rights and use of the French language should be restricted rigidly to the letter of article 133 of the British North America Act. The use of the French language should be interpreted in the spirit of article 133. It should be encouraged and should be more widespread than the definition in article 133 seems to indicate.
Sir Robert Borden on one occasion, after citing this article 133, said, speaking of the French language;
I realize that in federal affairs both these languages occupy an official status.
These words will be found in Hansard of May 10, 1916, page 3692. May I then conclude that bank notes and state currency come within the definition of federal affairs, occupy an official status and therefore should be

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Dupre
bilingual. I would refer the house to two acts of this federal parliament; one is entitled An Act Respecting Currency, being chapter 40 of the revised statutes of Canada. Article 20 therein gives the governor in council the right to determine the dimensions and designs of any coin. If hon. members will refer to chapter 41 of the revised statutes of Canada, entitled An Act Respecting Dominion Notes, it will be seen that article 4 enacts that:
Dominion notes shall be of such denominational values as the governor in council determines, and shall be in such form, and signed by such persons, two in number, as the minister directs.
May we not infer that the form, denomination and design are within the power of the governor in council or the minister, and therefore may be made bilingual?
This principle of bilingualism has been strikingly put into practice in our Naturalization Act, which states that an alien, in order to be eligible for naturalization, must know either the French or the English language.
By reason of our present constitution, Canada is essentially a biracial country. All Canadians are equal before the king and in the eyes of the law; all enjoy equal rights, civil and religious, and the father of confederation, Sir John A. Macdonald, has truly stated: "There is no conquered race in Canada". Speaking in the house on February 17, 1890, Sir John A. Macdonald declared:
I have no accord with the desire expressed in certain quarters that by any mode whatever there should be an attempt made to oppress the one language or to make it inferior to the other.
I believe that would be impossible if it were tried, and it would be foolish and wicked if it were possible. The statement that has been made so often that this is a conquered country is "a propos de rien." Whether it was conquered or ceded, we have a constitution under which all British subjects are in a position of absolute equality, having equal rights of every kind, of language, of religion, of property, of person.
There is no paramount race in this country.. There is no conquered race in this country. We are all British subjects and those rvho are not English are none the less British subjects on that account.
Confederation is a partnership and this is a bilingual country.
May I be permitted to add that the French speaking population of Canada has always taken a large and decisive share in our constitutional evolution. In the 1867 elections the issue was the confederation act which is to-day our magna charta. Ontario gave a slight majority of ten in favour of the project; the maritimes rejected it by a majority of fourteen, so that the English speaking population, outside Quebec, rejected confederation by a majority of four. Our province strongly supported Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier in giving confederation a majority of twenty-five. This important stand taken by the French speaking element in 1867 made confederation possible. We chose then to become partners.
This was the third time we chose to become partners. The first time was in 1760 when the colony was inhabited by 60,000 French Canadians. The treaty of Paris and the Articles of Capitulation clearly stated that these inhabitants were extended by the British crown the privilege, if they so desired, of returning to France, their mother country. Article 26 states:
If by the Treaty of Peace, Canada remains to His Britannic Majesty, all the French, Canadians, Acadians, merchants and other persons who choose to retire to France, shall have leave to do so from the British general, who shall procure then! a passage; and nevertheless, if, from this time to that decision, any French, or Canadian merchants or other persons, shall desire to go to France, they shall likewise have leave from the British general. Both the one and the other shall take with them their families, servants and baggage.
This privilege was conceded by the word "Granted". Guided by their advisers, the parish priests, the French Canadians, Acadians, decided to stay in Canada and to become, of their own free will, British subjects. They chose Canada as their country and His Majesty George III as their king. They did so because they were granted freedom of trade, the right of ownership and, above everything, the safeguarding of their faith and their language.
A few years afterwards our forefathers had a second opportunity of changing their allegiance when the New England states rebelled against the British crown. They took up arms to defend Quebec, the citadel and walls of which encircled the last few inches of ground over which ruled the British King on the North American continent. May I say at this point that Sir Robert Borden, that most distinguished and esteemed Canadian statesman, in his work Canada and the Commonwealth, has this to say at page 67:
Thus it is apparent that if the habitants or a considerable majority of them had joined the American forces, Quebec would have fallen and Canada would probably have been lost to Great Britain.
Sir Guy Carleton, an ex-governor general, stated that without the French Canadians it would have been utterly impossible to keep this dominion under the British crown. Therefore, for the second time the French Canadians chose to become partners. The third time,

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Lapointe
as I pointed out a moment ago, was confederation. But this partnership will survive only if the rights and privileges of the two partners are interpreted in a broadminded way.
The reasons in favour of bilingual currency are the following:
1.	We have in Canada the descendants of the principal pioneer races, the English and the French. This racial duality is at the basis of our constitutional evolution.
2.	The French language has been recognized by the various political regimes from 1759 to 1867 and, by the constitution, is on a footing of equality with the English language.
3.	Bilingualism properly accepted and applied will bring the two races more closely together and make for peace and harmony.
Many countries in the same position as Canada have bilingual currency; some have trilingual currency. I have in my hand different envelopes containing such currency. Belgium, for instance, has bilingual money, French and Flemish; that is envelope No. 1. France practices bilingualism in Tunisia, one side of the silver coins being in French and the other in Arabian; that is envelope No. 2. The same applies in Syria; envelope No. 3; and in Lebanon, envelope No. 4. At Hongkong the currency is in English and Chinese, envelope No. 5. In South Africa the currency is bilingual, English and Dutch, envelope No. 6. In Palestine, under the mandate of Great Britain, the currency is trilingual, English, Hebrew and Turkish, envelope No. 7. In Switzerland, the currency is trilingual, all currency and bank notes being in French, German and Italian, and this trilingualism in Switzerland does not prevent peace and harmony.
In Canada we have, already had several bilingual bank notes. I have before me a photograph of the bank notes of La Banque du Peuple,-the Bank of the People,-issued in 1840. They are bilingual, being printed in French on one side and in English on the other. At the present time we have bilingual bank notes like the ten dollar and twenty dollar notes of La Banque Canadienne Nationale, and the Banque Provinciate du Canada, and I do not think any member of this house on either side would refuse a bilingual ten dollar note of either of those banks. Why should not Canada, one of the leading countries of the world, be broadminded? The further from civilization the more intolerance one finds, but the nearer to civilization, the more broadmindedness, moderation, fair playr and tolerance.


Mr. IRVINE:: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Maurice Dupré: Certainly.


William Irvine: Is there any law now which
prohibits the banks from printing their notes in French?


Maurice Dupré: No. Then at Geneva, the
seat of international affairs, all the ambassadors, ministers, consuls and representatives of the various countries of the world understand. and speak or read, French in addition to their mother tongue. Yet because the British Empire and the United States of America represent one-quarter of the population of the globe it was decided that at the League of Nations there should be two official languages, English and French, although for centuries French has been the language of diplomacy and, if I may say so, the international language. Here in Canada we French speaking people are not one-quarter of the population but one-third, and besides we have in favour of the use of our mother tongue history, tradition and the written as well as the unwritten law. Should not Canada be just as broadminded as Geneva; and since Canada is bilingual and has already bilingual postage stamps and bilingual excise stamps, why should she not have bilingual money? And all the more so because she is one of the largest bilingual countries in the world.
A few years ago, Mr. Speaker, there was a big movement in favour of a bonne entente between the English and the French elements in Canada, and I remember perfectly well some remarkable speeches that were delivered in that connection in the city of Quebec. One of them described very eloquently the Montcalm and Wolfe monument as a lesson in forgetfulness, appeasement, cooperation and friendship. To our English speaking friends on both sides of this house, whether from the maritime provinces, from old Quebec or Ontario, or from the western provinces or British Columbia, I make this appeal: In the years to come Canada will always need Quebec. There in stormy days you will always find stability. Our language is part of our body and soul. We are attached to it just as we are attached to our faith. Let us unite and try to settle this question of bilingualism, keeping it above party lines and prejudices. Like the Wolfe and Montcalm column, let us make bilingualism a lasting monument of cooperation, friendship and practical bonne entente between the two pioneer races of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to listen to the address of my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre). The subject under debate is too

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Dorion
oig, too great, too noble a question to be used as a pretext for the use of vituperative or offensive language against one's opponents. I am pleased indeed that no voice has been raised in this house in opposition to the resolution of my hon. friend) from Belledhasse (Mr. Boulanger). May I add that in my humble opinion no voice could be successfully raised against the resolution.
As my hon. friend the Solicitor General has said, both languages are official in Canada. Section 133 of the British North America Act certainly stipulates that certain documents must be printed in both languages, but that does not mean that the two languages are not official for other documents. For all these other documents either language is official, and all the leaders of Canada since confederation have always recognized that. Confederation, indeed, would have been impossible had this principle not been recognized, as was stated so many times by Sir John A. Macdonald, and by those who followed him as leaders of the government of this country.
I might quote the words of Sir Robert Borden and of Sir Wilfrid Laurier on bilingualism, but here is what I want to say. It is ten o'clock, and this is the last day on which this resolution can be discussed this session. If I indulge in a speech and am followed by other members who speak at any great length we would defeat the very purpose of the resolution. I and those who support this resolution desire that it be carried, and1 I shall therefore confine my remarks to asking the house now to recognize in a practical way that the two languages are official in Canada, and, by carrying and putting this resolution into effect, do an act of justice which, though it may have been delayed, will be acclaimed by the whole people of this country.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I very closely followed and read the speech delivered in the house by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), in support of his resolution.
To conform with the traditions of his party, it was from the opposition benches that he moved his resolution. Did not one of its most prominent leaders-for numerous are the leaders on the opposite side-gjye him a striking example, in the past? Who has forgotten the famous Lapointe motion in connection with the teaching of French in Ontario? It was in 1917. A liberal Prime Minister, of that period, was blotting out the last traces of French teaching in Manitoba. However, the Lapointe motion was not directed against that government, but rather against the Conservative government of Ontario.
A few years later a Dominion election placed the hon. member for Quebec East in power. But, how cruelly forgetful is the memory of the Liberal party patriots; although conditions complained of in 1917 were still existing, the Lapointe motion had been entirely set aside or abandoned on the hustings of Quebec. Nothing further was heard in the house about it, yet a conservative Prime Minister in Ontario was removing from the statutes of his province the famous regulation which had caused so much apprehension and alarm among Canadians of French extraction in Ontario.
I do not wish to be too severe towards certain hon. friends opposite and deny them the title given to them or rather which they appropriated to themselves in certain quarters, that of Champions of the rights of Canadians of French extraction. As our people say: if they espouse the French cause when they are in the opposition, it is to a certain extent a matter of chance. They also say, in Quebec, that this resolution is now moved' by the hon. member for Bellechasse, as a matter of chance, a mere coincidence.


Mr. BOULANGER (Translation):: What
difference does it make?


Joseph-François Laflèche: Neither
did it make any on previous occasions.
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Call in the members!


Charles Napoléon Dorion: They harbour no thoughts of political gain or electioneering. All, in Quebec, are satisfied as to this. Moreover, the Liberals have as a party leader in Quebec a champion of French thought and ideals, Mr. Taschereau who, on the one hand, begged, not long ago, for decorations from the French government, while on the other hand, he appealed to the most bigoted prejudices in order to prevent our sons from going overseas to fight on French soil. I repeat it, our friend's opposite harbour no thoughts of political gain. One recalls, moreover, with what vehemence they protested against Mr. Taschereau who, at the Ottawa Economic Conference, undertook, without consulting any one, to send a delegate, the member for Quebec South to represent the French Canadian province; and what a cry of indignation they raised throughout Quebec when they heard that Mr. Taschereau had entirely forgotten the French language in drawing up the memorandum placed at the disposal of the delegates by his government.
I trust that the glowing patriotism of our friends will not cool down and that they will soon obtain from the Quebec government the printing in both languages, of trade certificates issued by the provincial treasury.

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Dorion
I must say, sir, even if my motives differ, that I perfectly agree with the hon. member for Bellechasse on the principle of his resolution, and, I wish to briefly state the reasons which prompt me to support his motion and request my English speaking colleagues to do likewise.
The resolution of the hon. member for Bellechasse expresses the wish that our currency, in the future, instead of being unilingual may be bilingual; namely, that it should bear, in Canada and abroad, the stamp of the dual civilization from which has sprung the Canadian entity. Canada, by its origin, being a bilingual country formed by the union freely assented to by two great races, its currency should therefore bear both French and English inscriptions.
The arguments in support of this wish are numerous; while the objections which, heretofore, have been made against it are, to my mind, not very sound. The hon. member for Bellechasse quoted, the other day, the reply made by Mr. Fielding, formerly Finance Minister, under the Liberal regime, to a similar motion introduced by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne)- a veteran of the French Canadian struggles, ever consistent in his stand.
The former Minister of Finance replied that such a reform did not seem to be sought by the people as a whole. What a strange way for a statesman to solve such an issue. Is it not the duty of a statesman to safeguard the interests of the people, solve automatically their problems and meet their wishes? When it is a question of balancing the budget, levying new imposts and taxing labour and wealth, do our statesmen wait until the people send in petitions?
If the Hon. Mr. Fielding came back to the house, perhaps, hie would give the same excuse on being informed what is happening at the treasury office at Quebec. No, again I say, I do not think that any sound argument can be set up against such a resolution. The excuses given are worthless as compared with the advantages of moral and material order that our country would derive from such a reform.
What better advertisement in this country and abroad could we have than Canadian bilingual currency to emphasize the harmony which is supposed to exist here, to emphasize that treaties in this country have some value; signatures, an authority; the constitution, respect and loyalty.
The League of Nations, of which our country is a component part, has recently taken up the problems of Manchuria. Previously, the question of the Tyrol had been submitted

to it. On some other occasion, minority questions will crop up, which it will have to study, just like the numerous other questions it has been called upon to deal with. Canada, itself may be called upon, one day or another to sit as judge and express its views. How absurd it would seem to other nations, if, here, in this country, we do not first begin by recognizing a minority, officially and legally acknowledged to be on an equal footing with the majority, by recognizing it not only in such an such a sphere but throughout all the activities of our national life.
But, one may object, on wrhat statute do you base your contentions? Without, for the moment, referring back to the surrender of Quebec, in 1759, may I, sir, quote section 133 of the British North America Act, which the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) and the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) also quoted:
Either the English or the French language may be used by any person in the debates of the houses of the parliament of Canada and of the houses of the legislature of Quebec; and both those languages shall be used in the respective records and journals of those houses; and either of those languages may be used by any person or in any pleading or process in or issuing from any court of Canada established under this act. and in or from all or any of the courts of Quebec.
The acts of the parliament of Canada and of the legislature of Quebec shall be printed and published in both those languages.
Truly, I admit that no special mention is made about currency in the provisions of the act; but does that signify that our currency must be stamped in the English language, that it be only unilingual? Where is it mentioned, in connection with currency, that the English language enjoys more extensive rights than the French language? Why should a, text be made out in one language and not in the other? The act does not provide that the official language in this country will be English, except in certain spheres and specific cases, or that the French language will enjoy equal rights. Not at all. The act stipulates that the two languages have official rights. However, it goes further. It even prescribes the use of the two languages in certain cases. Does that mean that it is prohibited to use the two languages on currency, because the act makes no such mention? I repeat it, the two languages have official rights because it is clear that, in the minds of the Fathers of Confederation, the use of the two languages constitute one of the characteristic features of' Canada.
To those who may be tempted to state: If we place French and English inscriptions on our currency, who assures us that, to-morrow,.

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Dorion
another nationality will not request us to add its language to the two others? We could, without any fear, show them the act to which I have just referred and which made Sir John A. Macdonald state, in 1890:
We have now a constitution which places all British subjects on an absolute equal footing, guaranteeing them the same rights as regards language, religion, property and individual rights.
One too often forgets that it was not the conquest which made of geographical Canada a political state; but that it was rather the wish of the two contracting parties, having nothing in common from the ethnical viewpoint, uniting, nevertheless, for a definite purpose, with the understanding that the characteristics, the national customs, of each race would be faithfully adhered to. The provinces existed before the dominion and it is with their co-operation that confederation was organized. Therefore, we may conclude that, even if the provisions of the act were silent in this respect, we would have to adhere entirely to the rights and privileges acquired at the time of the pact.
In 1867, all admitted that Canadians of French extraction had safeguarded their rights to the existence, the use and continuance of their language, and that it would be impossible in the future, either by deceit or force to blot them out as a distinct nationality or prohibit the use of their language.
The proof? You will find it not only throughout our rural districts, in the marvellous development of our schools and universities, faithful guardians and champions of our language, arts, literature, and our agricultural and industrial expansion, but you will especially find it in the recognition, without dispute, of the official acts of the British government in this country, since 1759.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Let us vote!


Charles Napoléon Dorion: "Superiority
in arms and numbers does not entitle a nation to force its language on another people," was the statement by Mr. Etienne Lamy, in the city of Quebec, in 1912. The hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa)-to whom I wish to particularly express my gratitude for the battles he has waged in the defence of the rights of our language in this country-thus expressed himself in 1915:
At all periods of the world's history, most of the conquerors recognized the right of vanquished people to the use and preservation of their language.
Is it not the acknowledgment of this principle that we find in the act of the capitulation of Quebec, of which section 2
stipulated that the inhabitants are continued in the possession of their houses, property, chattels and "privileges." Moreover, section 42 of the capitulation of Montreal stipulates that the French and Canadians will continue to be governed according to the customs prevailing in this country. What other definition can be given to the word "privileges" if it is not the use and preservation of their national language?
Later, the Quebec Act of 1774 decreed that the Canadians could continue in possession and the enjoyment of their property, goods and chattels, and of their usages and customs as well as of their other civil rights.
The constitution of 1791, although creating two provinces, upper and lower Canada, makes no changes in the Act of 1774. It is, moreover, in keeping with that spirit-the spirit of the Quebec Act-that the instructions of Lord Grenville, Secretary to the Colonies, were given to Lord Dorchester, Governor General of Canada.


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: Will the hon. member allow me a question?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Yes.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: Is it not a fact that the hon. member would render a greater service to bilingualism by allowing a vote to be taken than by continuing his speech.


Samuel Gobeil: What a lot of jokers!


Charles Napoléon Dorion: It is, therefore, undeniable that under all political regimes, since the conquest, the use of the French language has been recognized and its practice observed in all fields of national activities, even as regards our currency. If it be so recognized and if it should continue to be, the principle should apply all round, without exception. Is there anything which brings out more the ethical duality of this nation, the mutual respect of one race for another, the broadmindedness of the two, than the use of the .two official languages on currency ?
Our country, bilingual in the eyes of the law and the constitution, must equally be so in the eyes of a foreigner. It is, I repeat it, one of the fundamental principles on which confederation rests; this principle of equality between the two languages, establishes, therefore, not only its use in this parliament or before the courts, but also in all activities of our national life.
The French element in this country comprises about 30 per cent of the entire population. Almost one-fourth of Canada's wealth is located in Quebec.

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Dorian
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Call in the members!


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Our great river travelled over each year by hundreds of ships bearing the flags of all the nations of the world, stretches across the old French province of Quebec and notwithstanding their active part in the national life and trade with the foreigner, the Canadian of French extraction, is forced to use a unilingual currency, on which nowhere is advertised the important part it plays, the great endeavours he has made during three centuries, to safeguard the welfare, happiness and vigour of his country.
Our currency represents the amount of wealth there is in this country. But currency also represents something else, it is the outward symbol of the soul and characteristics of a people. If, according to circumstances, it has an intrinsic value, it is more particularly a symbol of the nation's wealth. But is it not for Canada a great asset to be inhabited by the descendants of the two greatest races in the world? Is it not an asset for this country to be able to draw from these two distinct nationalities the qualities which are inherent to them? Is it not an asset for a country to be able to give to the world an example of liberty, mutual respect, peace and harmony? Is it not a great asset for Canada to possess a duality of formation and character protecting her against the invasion of foreign ideas? Then why not advertise this asset abroad and even here by a bilingual currency?
Providence whose designs are unfathomable, decreed, one day, that the descendants of two great races should unite to build up a young but vigorous nation.
The past cannot be effaced or even ignored.
Nations have an heredity, a genius which is their own. a turn of mind characteristic of them; currency should therefore bring out this hei'edity, genius and turn of mind by displaying dual inscriptions.
In the past, the great leaders of the Conservative party recognized the rights of the French Canadian minority. They are the ones [DOT] who, at all periods, have given the most perfect examples, in our political history, of their broadmindedness and conciliating spirit, because they were aware that it Tvas necessary to the welfare of this country; they knew of no friction or cause of dissension among the races which inhabit it.


Mr. FERLAND (Translation):: Is the hon member referring to Sir Robert Borden and the right hon. Mr. Meighen?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Permit me
sir, to quote what Sir John A. Macdonald stated, this excerpt has often been quoted:
Whether the country was conquered or ceded we now have a constitution by which all British subjects enjoy absolute equality and possess absolute equal rights in all matters: language, religion, property or person. There is no dominating race here; there is no vanquished race in the country. We are all British subjects and those among us that are not English are not the less British subjects.
May I add to this testimonial that of one of the best friends of our race, the right hon. Mr. Meighen:
Some hon. MEMBERS (Translation): Oh! Oh!


Charles Napoléon Dorion: . . . who
stated on June 4, 1926:
Experience has proved that the traditions of our two great races cannot die, that they can very well live side by side without fusing or losing their character, and that there can be no question of the assimilation of one by the other. It is the first article of Canadian policy that the traditions of both races be respected, jealously, scrupulously, to maintain in harmony the constitutional rights of minorities, to encourage as much as possible the study of the two languages by our people and to disseminate also, with the understanding of our laws, the mutual understanding which we should have one for the other,-and this is far the most important.
I further add that of the distinguished leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett):
We have a difficult country to govern. It is immense; it is half a continent inhabited by a population numbering less than 10,000,000, descendants of two great races, and having different religions. Our constitution, let us not forget, is a federal union based on a contract entered into between two races and endorsed by the parliament at Westminster. This constitution grants to minorities certain fundamental rights. Whether these minorities inhabit provinces which are mainly Catholic or Protestant, matters little. These rights were granted unreservedly.
Let the statements of these eminent men serve as examples and a guide to the Canadian people, they will feel stronger and greater, when realizing that with them, liberty, tolerance and the spirit of respect for minorities are not vain words.


Mr. CHARLES BOURGEOIS (Three Rivers-St. Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I deem
it my duty, not only as a Conservative but as a Canadian of French descent, to make a few comments concerning the motion of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger), which proposes that our coin shall be stamped in the French language as well as the Eng-

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Bourgeois
lish, and that a similar procedure be followed in connection with government bonds and paper money.
At the outset may I be allowed to express my amazement-and no doubt that of many other hon. members who feel as I do-concerning the present attitude of the hon. member for Bellechasse. It seems veiy strange that while the Liberal party was in power he did not deem it proper to make the motion we now have before us. Even had he been sure that his motion would have been rejected by the Liberal majority, he should have recalled to his mind the celebrated verse of the French poet, "L'effort est bien plus beau lorsqu'il est inutile "-the endeavour is much more beautiful when it is useless.
The words used by the hon. member in presenting his motion are such that they may arouse a hostile attitude in the minds of some English speaking members. I am well enough acquainted with the sense of justice and the spirit of fairness of English speaking members to know that they would readily vote in favour of any proposition which would be in accordance with our constitution and the vested rights of French Canadians. Moreover, I know they will take into account the part which in the past French Canadians have contributed to the national life and progress of Canada. I say however that we would not be wise to lead our English speaking fellow citizens to infer either from words or deeds that by that motion the French speaking Canadians intend to defy or disapprove any of their own beliefs.
Though I have definite views on this question, for reasons which I purpose laying before the house I must say I dissent from one of the reasons set forth by the hon. member for Bellechasse in support of his motion. I refer to his observations concerning the danger of Canadians becoming Americanized. At present we are on excellent terms of friendship with our neighbours, and it is necessary that our intercourse with them should remain cordial. In my humble view we should consider the legal aspect of the matter, and ascertain whether, keeping in mind not only the letter but also the spirit of the British North America Act this motion may be adopted.
In the first place I should like to draw the attention of the house to the fact that if the text of section 133 of the British North America Act relates to the use of both the French and the English language in the federal parliament and the Quebec legislature, one should not apply the old maxim of legal interpretation:	" Inclusio unius fit exclusio
alterius." In fact, the British North America Act does not contain any article or enactment concerning the stamping of our coins or the printing of our paper money or our government bonds. The only reference to our currency and coinage in the act is in subsection 14 of section 91, which states that the exclusive authority of the federal parliament includes the following matters, namely, "currency and coinage." No other words are added, and there is no statement to the effect that when exercising the powers contained in this section the federal parliament should use only the English language or both the French and English languages. Therefore if our colleagues of British descent are like their predecessors, and, in a most generous way, are ready to acknowledge the large contribution made by the French Canadian element to the birth, maintenance, safeguarding and development of Canada, our common and beloved fatherland, they have now once more an opportunity to show their natural broadmindedness. In other words, to use an expression with which they are more familiar, they have an opportunity to extend to us the principle of British fair play. No law forbids them to do so.
May I add that by so doing they would be acting in accordance with the spirit of the federal covenant of 1867, and would be following the example shown by the fathers of confederation. It may not be inappropriate at this point to quote the words of Joan of Arc, who said concerning her pennant: "It was where trouble was, so it is just that it should be where honour is." The same may be said of the French Canadians. They fought shoulder to shoulder and with equal bravery in the company of their English compatriots, and acquitted themselves honourably in the struggles and battles for the security of this land. May I be permitted to recall, following the hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) that during the American invasion of 1775 French Canadians as well as English Canadians victoriously repulsed the attacks of the armies commanded by Montgomery and Benedict Arnold? It was owing to the courage and skill of the French Canadians who escorted him that Governor Carleton succeeded in leaving Montreal, which the Americans had taken, and reaching Quebec, which was then the capital of Canada. In the war of 1812 our birth-right in liberty was preserved not only by General Brock but also by Colonel de Salaberry on the celebrated battlefield of Chateauguay, where with his well disciplined French Canadian volti-geurs about three hundred strong he defeated the Hampton American contingent of thou-

2532	COMMONS
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Bourgeois
sands. It was in consequence of this that Sir Etienne Pascal Taehe rightly declared in the legislature that the last gun that wall be fired for British supremacy in North America will be fired by a French Canadian.
It is fitting that when speaking of Colonel de Salaberry one Should recall also the meritorious services rendered to the British Empire by another French Canadian, Sir Percy Girouard, serving under Lord Kitchener in the Soudan. He has been described as a great civil servant, and was commended by Lord Kitchener himself as an officer of brilliant ability. De Salaberry fought for Canada, Girouard fought for the empire. And I may mention also that numbers of French Canadian boatmen went voluntarily to Egypt and the Soudan, forming part of the military expedition that went to the relief of Gordon of Khartoum in 1885. I am proud that most of those voyageurs renowned for their skill with the canoe came from my own constituency of Three Rivers, and from the constituency of my good friend, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Baribeau). Lastly everyone knows of the distinguished part taken by the French Canadians fighting under the British flag in the world war, at Ypres, Vimy, and especially at Courcelette. Therefore I say that the French Canadians, not only those of the province of Quebec but those of the whole Dominion of Canada, having shed their blood for this dominion and for the British Empire, are entitled, not as a favour but as a right, to public acknowledgment of their sacrifice by the use of their language upon the currency and coinage of the country, which was discovered and developed by their forefathers, which they helped to defend, and which they are still ready and will be ready to defend to the last ditch. Not only do they pay their share of the duties and the taxes necessary to the maintenance and progress of this country, but they have contributed their full quota of the blood required for its defence against the foreign invader and in order to keep it free under the British flag. I may add that there is no more incongruity in having French words on our currency and coinage than there is in having on the royal escutcheon of England since the days of Richard the Lion-hearted, the French motto, Dieu et mon droit.
Moreover, let us hope that the part taken by the French in the obtaining of our parliamentary rights, and especially in the framing of our present constitution, shall never be forgotten. Anyone acquainted with our political history, if fairminded, will acknowledge that [Mr. Bourgeois.l	'jiillS
Sir George Etienne Cartier, a thoroughbred French Canadian, was a dyed in the wool Canuck, as much as his colleague and trusted friend, Sir John A. Macdonald, the promoter of our federal system. On this point I beg to quote Sir Joseph Pope, from his work The Day of Sir John Macdonald, at page 42:
Sir George Etienne Cartier -was a man who devoted his whole life to the public service of the country. He was truthful, honest and sincere and commanded the respect and confidence of all with whom he came in contact. Had it not been for Sir George Cartier, it is doubtful whether the dominion would exist to-day. He it was who faced at its inception the not unnatural French Canadian distrust of the measure. It was his magnificent courage and resistless energy which triumphed over all opposition. Confederation was not the work of any one person, Macdonald, Brown, Tupper, each assuredly played the indispensable part; but assuredly not the least important share in the accomplishment of that great undertaking is to be ascribed to George Etienne Cartier.
Again, I beg to quote, from John Boyd's book on Sir George Etienne Cartier, the following statement which will be found at page 299:
The supreme merit of George Etienne Cartier is that from the time the question was first pressed to the fore as a practical issue in Canadian politics, he strongly and persistently advocated confederation, that as Prime Minister of LTnited Canada, he was the first to make the question an administrative one and thus to bring it before the Imperial authorities, that thereafter he consistently advocated both in and out of parliament, and that through his alliance with George Brown, the practical realization of the project was made possible. By insisting upon a federal instead1 of a legislative union, he not only safeguarded the rights and interests of his compatriots, but assured the success of confederation as a whole. Without Cartier, it would undoubtedly have been impossible to secure the adhesion of Quebec to the union and without Quebec, confederation would have remained a splendid dream but nothing more. When confederation was decided upon by the delegates of the various provinces, Cartier in the face of the strongest and most determined opposition, never wavered in his support, but pursued his course until the great design was accomplished. It was with pardonable pride that on the first Dominion day George Etienne Cartier emphasized the fact it was he who as Prime Minister of United Canada first made confederation an administrative project to the foot of the throne.
And on the same topic, I hope our colleague, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), will allow me to quote what he said in the speech he made at a Dominion Day banquet in London, July 1, 1914:
It should not be forgotten that if Cartier's cooperation made confederation possible, it was because Cartier was able to point out to those of his race and creed that the law which made it impossible for a worthy people to live on a

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Bourgeois
footing of equality with the other nationalities and races of the British Empire was past; and confederation meant not only an agreement entered into between the representatives of three or four scattered colonies of British North America but something much more, it meant something of far greater consequence, not only in Canada but throughout the world. It meant that at last on the northern continent of America the descendants of two great nations and races which had disputed the power of trade and war all over the world had found a ground of agreement, of mutual respect and equality before the law and under the prestige of the British crown. No confederation could have endured unless the basic principle was acknowledged for all time to come, that in the Dominion of Canada there was not only an English speaking community, but primarily and before all, a community of Anglo-French preserving the traditions, the noble traditions, the illuminating thoughts and aspirations of those great nations who have done so much to make the world what it is.
All these quotations show thait it was Sir George Etienne Cartier who most effectively contributed to finding the remedy for the violent strife which existed between parties before 1867. He found that remedy in the formation of a larger unity. It was largely owing to his endeavours that the four provinces effected a confederation which was soon to embrace half the continent from ocean to ocean.
A true pact could describe Canada's relation to Great Britain and the world in the following words of Rudyard Kipling:
A nation spoke to a nation A throne sent word to a throne:
Daughter am I in my mother's house But mistress in my own!
The doors are mine to open As the doors are mine to close And I abide by my mother's house Said our Lady of the Snows.
During his visit to London Cartier attended the inaugural dinner of the Royal Colonial Institute, where he was the guest of honour. Replying to the toast "The Colonial Parliaments," he said:
I had the honour to be presented to Her Majesty, when she graciously gave me an invitation, ten or twelve years ago, to go to Windsor, and Her Majesty was kind enough to interrogate me about the French Canadians. The shortest definition which I could give-because you must always be brief to royalty-was that the French Canadians, as well as myself, were Englishmen speaking French.
If that be true, why should not their language appear an Canadian currency, coins and bonds? If Sir George Etienne Cartier and his bosom friend, Sir John A. Macdonald, were here to-day, is there any doubt as to the position they would take on that question? It seems to me that they would cast their vote in favour of bilingual money. They always 53719-161J	. I
stood for right and justice; let us do the same. But our right to fair treatment, our right to equality, does not rest only on the important part taken by Cartier in the framing of confederation. Who may deny the deeds of our discoverers and our missionaries?
Someone has objected that if parliament should grant to the French Canadians what is claimed by this motion, the same right might be claimed by other ethnical groups, such as the Germans, Russians and Scandinavians who have settled in our western provinces. But none of these groups are either historically or otherwise in the position of the French speaking element, the men whose ancestors discovered this country, colonized it and fought in its defence.
The French Canadian has shown his courage and capacity not only as a soldier but also as a farmer. Being firmly attached to the soil, which he has fertilized by his work and bis sweat, and a faithful upholder of Christianity, the French Canadian is a strong rampart to repulse the attacks of communism and socialism. I believe it is in the interests of the English speaking people of this country to strengthen the bonds between themselves and the French speaking community for the French Canadian is a great believer in religion and in property rights. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that the best bulwark against communism and socialism is the French Canadian population, because of its religious beliefs and its racial and family traditions.
Some may find fulsome this enumeration of the merits and glories of the French Canadian race; some may think I have endowed them with qualities too numerous and too resplendent, but I hope they will forgive the perhaps excessive admiration I feel for this land, mine and my forefathers' for ten generations. A child never tires of contemplating the ever young features of his beloved mother. This Canadian soil which we now claim as our common country was discovered and settled by our forebears, the French Canadians, whose astonished eyes were the first to gaze upon its primitive beauty and who were the first to admire its mantle of soft ermine or its robe of glorious verdure. It was a French Canadian, Hebert, who traced on its generous soil the first furrow and sowed the first seeds, the origin of our first wheat crop. They were Frenchmen who with sturdy hands swung the first axe and notched the Canadian maple tree from which flowed the sap, our maple syrup, a nectar comparable to the ambrosia of the gods. The banks of our rivers and the depths of our forests echoed for the first time the songs of our canoers and coureurs des bois,
. _	COMMONS
Bilingual Currency-Mr. Gagnon
A la Claire Fontaine, Alouette, A Saint^Malo, Beau Port de Mer, En Roulant ma Boule, and so many other charming refrains brought to our shores by our forefathers. The French were the first to offer to God from this land a prayer of thanks. In all the wars in which this country has been concerned the French Canadian has fought side by side with his English Canadian comrade. With him he suffered from cold and hunger in the dismal trenches of Flanders, Artois and Picardy, for the triumph of civilization and the defeat of German oppression. Together they strove to promote peace, to develop our industries, to encourage agriculture, to foster art, literature and science. From every angle he can rightfully say of Canada, "Here is my domicile, my abode and my home." Why then, Mr. Speaker, can there not be on the door of his domicile, at the very threshhold of his home, an indication, a card, a sign attesting that he shares this domicile with his fellow citizen and comrade, the English Canadian? How can this be better expressed and broadcast, both here and in foreign lands, than by a French inscription in conjunction with an English inscription on our currency, state notes and bonds? This is all we request: A simple act of justice.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I am really bewildered and amazed to realize that hon. gentlemen opposite are now using all their efforts to prevent us from expressing our views on this national issue.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With the permission of the hon. member who has the floor a question may be asked; otherwise it may not.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I ask the hon. member how we are trying to stop him from expressing his views?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask hon. members on my immediate left kindly to conform to the rules of the house and maintain order.


Onésime Gagnon: For the last four weeks we have heard our Liberal friends disseminating the propaganda both in and out of this house that the French Conservative members were going to betray their principles on this important question. Now that they have accused us of being deaf they want to prevent us from letting our people know our views, though hon. gentlemen opposite have expressed their 
own convictions. The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) said he did not want to speak for very long because he wished a vote to be taken. No members on this side of the house will prevent the taking of a vote, but this afternoon hon. gentlemen opposite voted against adjourning a debate which was taking place because they thought they might prevent us from expressing our views on that question,
I desire only about five minutes of the time of the house, Mr. Speaker, in order to say that we are all in favour of the principle underlying the motion now under consideration. Since 1907 we have had in this country bilingual money orders, postal notes, postal cards and excise and postage stamps. This act of courtesy, justice and generosity from the English speaking majority has given a great deal of satisfaction to Canadians of French descent, and I feel sure that English speaking members of the house will admit that no prejudice has ever been caused the English majority of the country in permitting revenue stamps as well as stamps of the Postmaster General's department to bear legends or inscriptions printed in the respective languages of the two great races which have founded this great dominion. The bonne entente between the two great races is becoming more and more cordial. Some people may think that it is not a matter of importance that stamps and bank notes issued by the dominion should have their inscriptions printed in both French and English. May I say however that stamps and coins may be more or less the outward expression of the traditions and aspirations of a nation. Ought they not therefore in a certain way to reflect the soul of the people? If they are printed in one language only, will foreigners understand that there aTe in Canada three million French Canadians, people of French origin and civilization? Will not strangers be led to misjudge the true characteristics of the Canadian people if the legislators have not seen fit to embody in stamps and coins the legends and inscriptions in the languages spoken by the two great races which live in Canada? Who can prevent the work of four centuries of French civilization from having impressed its stamp upon Canada? The French civilization with its old historical background is impressed upon Canada by its old Norman houses, its churches with their lofty spires, its spirit of hospitality and fraternity, its rich language, its folklore, its poetry and literature and the charming smiles of our women. The four million French speaking people in Canada ask you, sir, not to be ashamed of letting the world at large

Bilingual Currency-Mr. Turnbull
recognize the dual civilization which enriches the Canadian life and makes it different from that of our neighbours to the south, and for that reason they ask you not to object to the printing of French inscriptions on our coins and bank notes.
When a bilingual stamp is affixed to a letter going abroad, to South Africa, India, China or Australia, this small square piece of paper bearing only two words, one in French and one in English, tells the whole world that here m Canada, this wonderful country of ours, French and English are living together side by side, imbued with the traditions and aspirations of their respective civilizations. This small square paper bears witness to the whole world that here French and English people understand one another, that they are real partners and brothers united in the achievement of the work begun by the fathers of confederation, and when this same small square piece of paper is affixed to a letter going from one province to another it is in one sense a message of peace and goodwill and harmony between the races of this dominion. May I ask this house to perform a further act of courtesy and generosity and justice in permitting that on all our mediums of exchange, gold, silver or bank notes, inscriptions be printed in French and English?
I will be as brief as possible, Mr. Speaker. In this time of depression, the legislators of the whole world, notwithstanding unalterable devotion to the public duty, cannot find a way to give in one way the necessary bread to all the needy; but, sir, how fruitful will be their efforts if at least 'they succeed in contenting their souls. The happiness of a country is not achieved only by the wealth of its population, but also by the moral satisfaction that the aspirations of all races living in this great dominion have been fully satisfied. In this spirit, Mr. Speaker, and extending to my English speaking colleagues of all parties a friendly hand, I ask that in the spirit of brotherhood they vote for the motion.


Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina):: So
far as I am concerned personally, I have every respect for the desire of the French speaking people of Canada to use their own language. It is a language which in many ways is admirable, and I would be one of the last of those in this country to suggest of any member or person in this house that he should not be permitted to use the mother tongue of his original nationality. There are, however, differences of opinion as to whether or not it is wise to press a motion of this kind at the present time. In the first place, it is a motion calculated, whether intentionally or
not, to arouse in this country certain sentiments which under present conditions should not be aroused. If there ever was a time in the history of Canada when we should abandon any questions which are liable to create racial friction among the people of the dominion, that time is now, when we should be united for the economic salvation of the country.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	What sentiments?


Franklin White Turnbull: I might direct the attention of my hon. friends who have supported the motion to the fact that in 1841 in the legislatures of this country the French language had no standing. In 1844 however the right to use the French language was admitted in the parliament of the united colonies of upper and lower Canada. As a matter of contract among the then existing provinces in Canada, the rights and privileges of the French language in Canada were crystallized into a contract among the provinces, which was afterwards given statutory recognition by the British North America Act. May I remind my hon. friend that this country of Canada is founded on the British North America Act and that as well as conferring privileges, if I may call them so, on the people of the French speaking race, it also confers privileges on the English speaking race. The bed-rock of the rights of minorities, whether racial or religious, is in the British North America Act and its terms, and may I remind minorities in this country that when they start to sap the foundations of that act, which is the charter of their rights and liberties, they are treading on very dangerous ground because, if the British North America Act may be changed at any time to suit certain classes of people, it may be changed at other times to suit other classes. An extension of any rights that are given to minorities under that act, except by agreement among the provinces themselves who were parties to it, leaves it open to a majority at any time to make changes in that act or to extend the rights that are given under it. In making those statements I am not taking any new ground; I am simply adopting ground that was taken by gentlemen who occupied seats in this house long years before I did.


Jean-François Pouliot: Two minutes left.


Franklin White Turnbull: This is not a new question in the parliament of Canada. Various matters of this kind have been before our people at many stages of our history. Back in 1890, if hon. gentlemen will consult HaD-
Railway Acl-Return Tickets

sard, they will find records of very long and acrimonious debates on the subject of the rights of the French language in the Northwest Territories which are now the provinces of the west. They will find there motions to amend the Northwest Territories Act; they will find many amendments moved with respect to those particular motions and they will also find there a debate which I hope will never be repeated in the parliament of Canada because it was very acrimonious and bitter on both sides. That debate reached a point where something had to be done. At that stage, at the instance of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John Thompson for the Conservatives and the Hon. Edward Blake for the Liberals got together and drafted a resolution which was satisfactory to both. That resolution received the approval of Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfred Laurier, who voted for the amendment proposed, which was to the effect that this parliament of Canada declares its adherence to the terms of the British North America Act.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 28, 1933