1934-06-27

FRANCHISE AND ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) presented the second report of the special committee to which was referred bill No. 101, respecting the franchise of electors at elections of members of the House of Commons and bill No. 115, respecting the election of members of the House of Commons.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens) moved:
That the first report of the joint committee of both houses on the printing of parliament, presented to the house Tuesday, June 26th, be now concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Questions

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 124, to amend the Customs Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Mr. SPEAKER:: When shall said bill be read a second time?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: Now.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By consent, Mr. Matthews moves that said bill be now read a second time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Sullivan in the chair.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: What is the number of the bill?


Mr. SPENCER:: Would the minister give us some explanation?


Robert Charles Matthews: The bill is not printed; therefore I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the department has been advised that in consequence of the amendment proposed to the Customs Act a slight amendment will have to be made to the Customs Tariff. Therefore leave will be asked to introduce that bill, which will constitute additional legislation, technically, to what I mentioned the other day, but it is complementary to the act that has just been before the house.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. POWER:: 1.	Was Mr. H. Michaud employed on Canadian government vessels as fireman during every navigation season since 1911?
2.	Was the said H. Michaud employed in the same capacity on C.G.S. Druid since 1929?
3.	Was the said H. Michaud employed on
C.G.S. Druid from April 1, 1934, to April 17, 1934?	,
4.	Was he dismissed on this last named date?
5.	If so, for what reason? _
6.	What character was given him on his certificate of discharge?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	No, not so far as the Department of Marine is aware.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4 and 5. He was engaged in a temporary capacity only for fitting out this spring.
6. V. G. (very good).


UPKEEP OP BUOYS-ISLAND OF ORLEANS
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who held the contract for the upkeep of buoys in the North channel, Island of Orleans. Quebec, from the month of May, 1931, to the month of May, 1934?
2.	What was the contract price?
3.	Was the contract awarded after competitive bids had been called?
4.	Who were the tenderers?
5.	Were complaints lodged against the person who secured the contract at the lowest tender price?
6.	Has the contract for the year 1934 to the year 1937 been awarded on a tender basis?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1 and 2. Alphonse Poulin from July 2, 192S, lo July 2, 1931, contract price $220 per annum; Charles Poulin from July 2, 1931, to January 2, 1932, informal agreement at rate of $220 per annum; Charles Poulin from January 2, 1932, to July 2, 1934, contract price $150 per annum.
3.	Yes.
4.	Charles Poulin $150 per annum; Alphonse Poulin, $220 per annum. Three additional tenders were received after the expiry date but all three higher than that of Charles Poulin.
5.	No.
6.	Tenders were not called. The price is that established by tender in 1931.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	How many postmasters were dismissed in the province of Quebec since the elections of July 28. 1930, to date, on the ground that they had taken an active part in politics?
2.	Did O. L. Boulanger, M.P., inform the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice that J. L. A. Tanguay, of Quebec, clerk, grade 4, in the Department of Justice, had taken an active part in politics since his appointment?
3.	Did the government have such charges investigated as in the case of the postmasters?
4.	If so, what was the result of such investigation?
5.	Will the government dismiss the said J. L. A. Tanguay in the same manner as postmasters were dismissed?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.
434S
Railway Act



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Sague-nay):: Mr. Speaker, on June 15, on the orders of the day, I asked the Prime Minister if it was the intention of the government to introduce legislation at this session amending the Railway Act in accordance with certain representations and suggestions made by the railway employees. I remember that at that time the Prime Minister told me the Minister of Railways and Canals was not in his seat, but he might be able at a later date to give information about the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I intimated to the hon. gentleman that the government did not desire to open the Railway Act, if it could be avoided. There was a special committee; I have not asked the minister what the substance of the discussion was, but I fancy that not having been mentioned it is not intended to open the act.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister in the event of the house not concluding its proceedings this week, what the intention of the government is with respect to sitting on Monday. In that connection I should like also to ask whether it might not be considered advisable at the present time to have morning sittings for the remainder of the present week, and sittings on Saturday, if necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman has anticipated what I was about to say. I have been making a survey of the business the house still has to dispose of before prorogation. There will be considerable time taken up, probably, with the two bills considered by the special committee. I cannot speak as to the length of time they will take. Supplementary estimates are still standing with respect to one or two matters of some importance. If the suggestion which I hope may be acted upon is acted upon I anticipate there will be little difficulty about a matter which several hon. gentlemen opposite have brought to the

attention of the house in connection with pensions legislation. If the suggestion I have to make is adopted it may require the changing of half a dozen words in one of the statutes, but I apprehend nothing of any material purport. Then, the only other matters are those appearing on the order paper. There is a third reading, there is further consideration of the public works bill and there is a report from the radio committee. From what the chairman said to me yesterday I gather that they are making certain suggestions as to how the service might be improved, but recommend that between now and another session of parliament the matter may be studied by engineers and others connected with the Department of Marine, as well as with the radio broadcasting commission, and that the legislation which expired on the first of May be renewed for another year. That probably would not take very long.
Apart from that I know of nothing which should engage the attention of the house at length, except it be a matter arising out of a motion which I understand the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King) may desire to make indicating their continued lack of confidence in the administration. Outside of that I do not see that any length of time will be taken up in the disposition of business. There is, of course, the interim report from the price spreads committee which will have to be considered. I understand that for the moment their sittings are practically concluded, and possibly to-morrow or Friday an interim report will be made by the chairman. If, therefore, we sat on Friday morning at eleven o'clock until one o'clock in the afternoon, and on Saturday morning from eleven o'clock until one o'clock, and sat until the evening, we might possibly be able to conclude our business. I cannot speak as to that. I was about to say, however, that so far as the government is concerned it will endeavour to expedite that arrangement, and if the house thought it desirable I would submit later a resolution providing for meeting to-morrow morning. But in that regard, owing to the committee still sitting, I thought possibly it would not be the desire of the house to do so. But if the house so desires I certainly will submit such a resolution this afternoon. That would obviate the necessity for sitting on Monday. However, I think in view of the circumstances if we cannot finish on Saturday we must endeavour to sit on Monday for part of the day, in any event, to be certain that our business would be concluded for the next day, when we could have prorogation. But if it

United States Trade Zones
is the wish of the house the government will use every possible endeavour to dispose of the business by Saturday night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So far as the motion I have in mind is concerned, I think it will be easily understood by the country and so cordially approved by everyone-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -that I may be able to dispose of it in very short order. I shall try to accommodate myself to the wishes of the government in that respect.


Mr. POWER:: May I suggest that we sit from eleven in the evening until at least twelve o'clock on Thursday and Friday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned to my colleagues the desirability of sitting at least until half-past eleven. However, some hon. members have expressed great disapproval of sitting beyond eleven o'clock. I should be glad to make a motion to sit until half-past eleven.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Make it twelve o'clock.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, make it twelve o'clock.


Mr. STEVENS:: Twelve o'clock.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If we sit in the morning and remain until eleven o'clock at night I say that is all that any reasonable man can be expected to do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I think we want to be fair. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has taken the same stand every session, and when he does the same thing to-day it is nothing new. He has always contended that we should not sit after eleven o'clock, if we met at eleven in the morning. I thought however that possibly he might be willing to wait until half-past eleven before calling it eleven o'clock, if we were getting along with our business. I shall therefore submit a resolution later in the day providing that the house shall meet to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock, that we shall meet Friday morning at eleven o'clock, that we shall meet on Saturday morning at eleven o'clock and at three o'clock. Possibly we had better provide for a sitting in the evening, having dissolution-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -having prorogation in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If dissolution is in the Prime Minister's mind I might dispense with my speech.


Mr. McINTOSH:: The truth must come out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh well, you never can tell. I have seen willing dissolutions met by an unwilling electorate, and I have seen unwilling dissolutions met by a willing electorate. Then, we will provide in the resolution for meeting on Saturday evening at eight o'clock, in the event of our being unable to prorogue until later in the evening. If that meets with the approval of the house I shall submit a resolution a little later in the day.



UNITED STATES TRADE ZONES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, June 25, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) asked a question of the government with respect to recent legislation enacted by the United States congress. I can only say to him that of course the government has been advised by the Canadian legation in Washington of the enactment by the congress of the United States of a measure providing for the establishment of foreign trade zones in ports of entry. I have made a short resume of the bill, which I brought with me and which I shall read.
The legislation is permissive in character, and authorizes the establishment of such zones by local bodies at their own expense under approved federal regulation. The administration of the act is vested in a board, of which the Secretary of Commerce is chairman. The board is authorized to grant permission for the establishment of foreign trade zones located in or adjacent to any port of entry of the United States. Such permission may be granted to either public corporations, including states or their legal subdivisions or agencies, or to private corporations chartered under state law for this purpose. Foreign and domestic merchandise, except such as is prohibited by law, may without being subject to the customs laws of the United States, except as specially provided, be brought into a zone and there stored, repacked, distributed, or mixed with foreign or domestic merchandise. Such merchandise may be exported or carried into Customs territory of the United States, where the foreign merchandise will be subject to any customs duties. The measure prohibits manufacturing or exhibition in the zone.
In that regard I might point out that there was a conference between the Senate and the House of Representatives, and the first view was that there should be exhibitions within the zone, but the final enactment provided that there should be no exhibitions within the zone.

United Slates Trade Zones

The grantee is to provide and maintain adequate docks, slips, wharves, warehouses, fueling facilities, transportation connections, enclosures to segregate the zone from customs territory, and such other facilities as may be required. These zones would be operated as public utilities, their charges for services to be fair and reasonable, and subject to the general administrative control of the Secretary of Commerce.
The bill as finally passed is under my hand.
I think it only fair in this regard, since I am making this statement, to indicate' to the house that the matter is nothing new so far as Canada is concerned. In 1908 the movement received its impetus in recent years in Canada from L. D. Taylor, now mayor of the city of Vancouver. He advocated that the city of Vancouver be made a free port. In 1920, twelve years later, the Vancouver board of trade appointed a committee to investigate the problem, and that committee unanimously recommended that a free trade area or free port be established in Vancouver. Mr. H. H. Stevens, who was then member for Vancouver, took up the matter with the then Prime Minister, Mr. Arthur Meighen, but no action was taken. Some consideration was given, however, to sending a commission to visit Hamburg and other European ports, but it ended there.
Then the Montreal harbour board, backed by the Montreal board of trade, recommended a free port system for Montreal around 1919 and 1920. In 1930, only four years ago, the Montreal harbour commission in its annual report revived the discussion, and urged the establishment of a free port in the Montreal harbour area. Similar suggestions were made from Halifax, and in this house on the nineteenth of March, 1929, Mr., now the Hon. Murray MacLaren, referred to the desirability of establishing free ports on the Atlantic seaboard.
A list of free ports throughout the world, so far as I have been able to ascertain from the inquiries I have made, includes Barcelona, Bremen, Copenhagen, Danzig, Gdynia, the new port established by Poland; Genoa, Hamburg, Saloniki and Stockholm. Hamburg, of course, is the most outstanding of those I have named.
There is a rather curious circumstance connected with this. Perhaps those who recall the biography of Sir Alexander Galt will remember that in 1860 he provided for the establishment of free ports at the two extremities of the province. One was to be at Gaspe, to care for the fishing business in the lower St. Lawrence, and the area was to include the town of Gaspe and the district

around it and also the Labrador coast as far into the ocean as the straits of Belle Isle. The other area was to be established at Sault Ste. Marie, comprising the town of Sault Ste. Marie and the district west of it. Permission was to be given to import free goods, just as was provided in the legislation recently passed by the congress of the United States. It also provided for the calling of vessels at Gaspe and matters of that kind. Owing, however, to the difficulties in connection with smuggling and the complaints that were made that it had facilitated smuggling, in the end the matter was abandoned, and nothing further has been done except as I have suggested. I dare say there are members of the house, in view of the interest that has been indicated, who have read Foreign Trade Principles and Practices, published in 1930 by Huebner and Kramer, and there is a short extract from their work which might be of value. Without taking up time to read it at length, I will place it on Hansard, if that is the wish of the house, in order that hon. members may have the benefit of it:
Extract from Huebner and Kramer-"Foreign Trade Principles and Practices,"
New York, 1930
The establishment of free zones at American ports would undoubtedly stimulate the reexport trade, and they would probably also benefit foreign trade as a whole to some extent, but their importance should not be overestimated. Domestic exports and imports for consumption have grown and can continue to advance even though free zones are not established, for they are influenced primarily by the many factors, other than customs regulations, that have been discussed throughout this volume and they would at most be affected but secondarily by a free zone policy. The full effect upon reexports of foreign merchandise from the United States, which is the primary pm-pose of free zones, cannot be forecast with precision. The experience of foreign countries is not conclusive, for the reexports of some foreign free ports are very large, while those of others are small. The reexport trade of any port depends in part upon important factors quite aside from relief from customs formalities and a rigid- system of drawbacks. Both reexports and direct vessel to vessel transshipment depend partly upon the geographic location of American ports with respect to foreign sources of supply and foreign markets.
Attainment of full effect of the free zone policy upon ocean shipping, likewise, depends upon unknown contingencies. Vessels discharging or transshipping cargo within a free zone would undoubtedly be relieved very largely from customs formalities, but many of them will probably be loaded with much cargo intended for domestic consumption. If they discharge this cargo at piers not located within the free zone, the usual customs regulations will apply. Will they discharge cargo both within the free zone and elsewhere? Will they discharge all of their cargo within the

Montreal Bridge Tolls
free zone? Or will they discharge all of it at the regular piers of the port, the merchandise intended for the free zone then to be transferred to the free zone?
Certain practical difficulties are encountered in the establishment of free zones at American ports. It is not feasible merely to set apart a section of a port that is already occupied by shipping, foreign trading, manufacturing, and other concerns variously engaged in foreign and domestic commerce. In any case, free zones will occasion much new construction. Suitable areas must be located and capital must be provided for the construction of warehouses, terminal facilities, railroad connections, factories, bunker fuel facilities, etc., and it may be necessary in some instances to dredge suitable channels and harbours. The keen rivalry between American ports, moreover, complicates the application of a free zone policy at some ports to the exclusion of others. The selection of a few is met by charges of discrimination, while the establishment of free zones at many ports would multiply construction and maintenance costs and w'eaken the probability of attaining certain of the benefits expected from a free port policy. In the latter case efforts and cargoes would be needlessly scattered.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I thank the Prime Minister for his very full explanation.


Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with very great interest to the remarks of the right hon. leader of the government, and I can conceive of no method which would do so much to stimulate the foreign trade of this country as that to which he refers. The free port of Hamburg, of course, is well known. There you find an enclosed area in one section of the port which is called the free port. It is walled and closed by gates, which when opened permit vessels to go in and pass out, and goods may be stored in the large two storied sheds provided for the purpose, opened, repacked and exported to other countries. If we had a similar arrangement in this country, a free port say on the Pacific coast, one in Montreal, and one in Halifax, I am assured it would largely aid in the extension of our foreign commerce, and I would recommend to the Prime Minister that the matter should receive very careful consideration. I believe there are large possibilities in it which should not be neglected.


Hon. PETER VENIOT (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made that a free port be established on the Pacific coast at Vancouver, one at Montreal, and one at Halifax. Halifax and Saint John are our two winter ports on the Atlantic coast, and I would add to the suggestion that has been made that both these ports should be made 74726-275 J
free ports and that no discrimination be made as between the two Atlantic ports.


Mr. DUFF:: If we had free trade we would not need free ports.



MONTREAL BRIDGE TOLLS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, during the session of 1930 the Hon. R. B. Bennett, then leader of the opposition, speaking on the question of the Caughnawaga bridge bill in the House of Commons said in Hansard, 1930, vol. Ill, page 2794:
A bridge is nothing more than a part of the king's highway projected over a stream or a gully or whatever it may be, and that highway in principle is free for use to all the king's subjects. The toll idea is very much exploded as far as the general use of highways is concerned, and has been for years.
About a month ago a large number of petitions was tendered to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) asking, not for the abolition of a toll on bridges, but for a reduction of tolls on the harbour bridge and the Victoria bridge, as this had been promised by the minister himself previous to his election. I wish to know from him if he has now a report to give to the house on this matter in view of the fact that he told the house he would soon have a report to make on the harbour bridge and the Victoria bridge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will answer because the question is directed to an observation that I made in this house, and was intended for that purpose or not at all. What I said on that occasion I repeat. I have no doubt about the desirability of highways being free, and bridges are but highways, but it well may be that those who have control of that matter have concluded that another policy may be better adapted to their conditions. When the government of Quebec made it a toll bridge they did it for reasons which undoubtedly seemed good to them, and it is not my province to question the soundness of their judgment in that regard.
With respect to the harbour bridge in Montreal, I think the hon. member as a party man would be rather sorry he mentioned it because he realizes that it costs this country several hundred thousand dollars a year, and the question of tolls was a matter of contract in connection with the construction of the bridge. The city of Montreal and the province of Quebec are both making contributions to that annually to enable the deficit for that
Montreal Bridge Tolls

bridge to be met, and any action by this government to free it from tolls would undoubtedly, unless some arrangement were arrived at, release the guarantors from their obligations and release the payment of bonuses. Therefore, we are not free to do as we would like until such time as adjustments have been made both with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec.


Vincent Dupuis: May I say to the Prime
Minister that both bridges were in the same condition previous to the elections. He came into my riding of Laprairie-Napierville and promised that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


Vincent Dupuis: He promised to reduce the tolls on both bridges.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have been reduced; the tolls on the harbour bridge have been reduced by consent.


Vincent Dupuis: But not enough.



COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). I understand he is unavoidably absent so perhaps my question will be placed on Hansard to be answered to-morrow. I should like to know if the Post Office Department has given any consideration to the issuing of a commemorative stamp in connection with the one hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the founding of New Brunswick.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A new stamp has been issued
but I should like this matter to stand until the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) makes a statement.



WINDSOR RADIO STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) whether a new licence has been issued to the radio station in Windsor following the order in council passed some considerable time ago which provided for a lease between the radio commission and this station.


Alfred Duranleau: I think an arrangement has been
made, but I have received no definite report from the radio commission.


William Daum Euler: Would the minister say if
it is the intention of the commission to carry out that agreement after the close of the session?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot answer for
the commission at the present time.



BANK OF CANADA-BILINGUAL CURRENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, the
"Devoir" of Montreal, dated June 26, 1934, publishes a report of the evening celebration of the St. Jean Baptiste society, in the course of which the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) spoke. The report states that certain persons in the audience at Park Lafontaine wanted to know why the Minister of Marine had not voted on the amendment with reference to bilingual currency. Hecklers prevented him from replying. I offer him an opportunity to reply in the house, does he accept?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, my
views on the question are well known, since I am a member of the government, and that the bill, such as approved by the committee, constitutes a government measure. My hon. friend is perfectly aware why I was unable to be present; I was called elsewhere on business, and I may add that the part of the report to which he refers is not in accordance with the facts.



BANK OF CANADA

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) (for the Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 19, to incorporate the Bank of Canada.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver
Centre):	Mr. Speaker, before the house
passes upon the third reading of what is to my mind the most important legislation of the present session, and having due regard for the desire manifested to expedite the business of the house, I wish to state as briefly, as concisely and as succinctly as I can the reasons why I believe this bill should be referred back to the committee of the whole house in order to amend it in certain vital, essential and fundamental ways. Before I enter upon the consideration of the vital objections which I have to this bill as it now stands, I desire to make a few observations from the report of that great economic body, the Macmillan committee on finance

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie
and industry which sat in Great Britain in 1931. The following appears on page 240 of the report of that committee:
-we are convinced that the Bank of England ought to be transformed into a public corporation.
My next quotation is from section 280, as follows:
The monetary system of this country must be a managed system-
And again:
-by individuals placed in a position of unchallengeable independence.
The next is from section 316, as follows:
In this case also the vicious circle is now complete.
And again:
The decline of new enterprise has reacted adversely on profits and prices, and the low level of profits, and prices stands in the way of new enterprise. It is for this reason that some of us think that in the domestic field it may be necessary to invoke governmental enterprise to break the vicious circle.
And again from section 148:
In the third place, it is not necessary that the volume of note issues should continue to be regulated, as it is now, by reference to the amount of gold held in reserve.
In sections 71 to 74 inclusive the committee states that since the bankers as a whole under banking practice maintain a cash proportion of the profit of roughly ten per cent of the cash held in reserve, the bulk of the bank deposits arise out of the actions of the banks themselves, for by granting loans, allowing overdrafts and purchasing securities, a bank creates a credit in its books which is treated as the equivalent of a deposit of money. My next quotation is from section 47 of the addendum, which is to be found on page 203. It reads:
The theory that governmental expenditure in the promotion of public enterprise and' social service is restricted by the accumulated savings available for investment is erroneous. When governments distribute wages by financing public enterprise with national currency and credit, the volume of capital for investment is increased.
My next reference is to section 24, which states that if governments pursue an inflationary policy, i.e., meet expenditures not out of revenue or loans, but by the issue of paper money, or the creation of credit in a national banking system, forces are set in motion increasing profits and wages and additional spending arises.
I shall now proceed very briefly to a consideration of the fundamental principles which may underlie central banking. One could
easily quote the principles as given by Kisch and Elkin, by Ireton, by Sprague or any of the other great authorities on central banking. I should like to refer very briefly to what was said by the Prime Minister when speaking in this house on February 22, as reported on page 838 of Hansard. He said:
The central bank cannot accept deposits for interest. It will be the repository of the reserves of the chartered banks. In the very nature of things it will discharge the functions of the financial or fiscal agent of the Dominion of Canada; it will be the note issuing authority of the dominion; it will create and issue legal tender; it will determine the extent to which rediscount shall take place; it will determine the rediscount rate from time to time. If at moments there is the thought that the creation of this institution is intended to destroy the chartered banks of Canada, that is an erroneous view, for the chartered banks will still be the depository of the savings of the people and the central bank is not intended to transact that class of business.
Along with that statement I should like to place upon Hansard some extracts from the report of our own Macmillan commission. These have been referred to already and are to be found on page 4186 of Hansard. The first is:
In the first place, from a national point of view, the central bank, within the limits imposed by law and by its capacities, should endeavour to regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation and should so far as possible control and defend the external value of the national monetary unit. In the second' place, from the international point of view, the central bank by wise and timely cooperation with similar institutions in other countries, should seek, so far as may lie within the scope of monetary action, to mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of economic activity. ...
The next is from paragraph 207 of the report, and reads:
A central bank is at the same time an instrument and a force. As an instrument it is the means by which the state-which must necessarily retain ultimate sovereignty in matters affecting the currency-can give effect to the national policy. . ..
The principles which underlie or are supposed to underlie the legislation contained in Bill No. 19 are set out in the preamble of the bill, and these were referred to the other day by my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) when he was speaking on one of the amendments moved from this side. May I very briefly recapitulate the essential principles of the preamble of this legislation. I do not believe that there is a single member of this house who will quarrel with the preamble; there may not be in it such extensive provisions as some of us might desire, but as
[Stage Direction]
Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie
far as they go I think they will meet with the commendation of every member of the house. The principles are these, first:
To regulate credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation.
My first submission is that this legislation, which transfers to a private profit-making corporation, the complete control, with very slight governmental control, over the credit and currency of the nation, is not such as is likely to regulate that credit and currency in the best interests of the economic life of the nation. The second principle is:
To control and protect the external value of the national monetary unit.
It might be assumed by hon. members that this institution would be helpful in assisting us to extend the value of the national monetary unit, but my personal conviction is that when we transfer to this private organization, this private corporation which possibly may consist only of 2,000 Canadian citizens, assets which I shall describe, we are not doing anything that will enhance the value of our national monetary unit in other countries. The third principle set out in the preamble is:
To mitigate by its influence fluctuations in the general level of production, trade, prices and employment.
Again, I doubt whether the organization of a private, profit-making central bank can achieve these results. The general question of dealing with production, the general question of dealing with trade, the general question of dealing with prices, the general question of dealing with employment is deliberately avoided by this legislation, as it was deliberately avoided by the Canadian Macmillan commission, and I submit this afternoon that, despite the brilliant report which was produced in England in 1931 under the chairmanship of that distinguished Scottish jurist Lord Macmillan, the Canadian Macmillan commission's report was a most disappointing one to the majority of Canadians. There was in that report no comprehensive effort to review our industrial fabric, our financial fabric, our economic fabric, and the only true conclusions of the report were in the first place to advocate a central bank in Canada, which we had already determined to do before the commission was ever appointed, and in the second place the suggestion with regard to legislation affecting rural credits. To be fair, there is in the preamble a reservation:
-so far as may be possible within the scope of monetary action.

Then the last principle of the preamble is this, and it is very important, because I must steadfastly submit that it is not being carried out by this legislation:
Generally to promote the economic and financial welfare of the dominion.
I believe that this legislation will do something in that regard; I said so the other day. I believe that if we accept the principle of private ownership this legislation may be an improvement on the financial organization we have had in the last twenty years under the Finance Act. But I do believe that a system of directing, controlling and operating the credit of Canada for the public need and not for private profit would be much more advantageous than the bill which is before us this afternoon for third reading.
Now, without delaying the house I wish very briefly to review the history of this legislation since it has been before us for consideration.
On February 22nd the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) moved the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to introduce a measure to incorporate a central bank in Canada, and to provide for the appointment and salaries of the officers and staff of the bank and the appointment and fees of the directors. -
I wish very briefly, in justice to the other side of the question, to review the arguments which were used by the Minister of Finance when he submitted to the house the resolution preceding the bill and, in the second place, when he submitted the bill itself. As reported at page 825 of Hansard, he said:
Admitting this fact however, is not to be taken as implying that our banking structure has deteriorated in recent years, making it necessary to supplement it.
And again:
Coming to the main features of the bill itself. I shall indicate them as briefly as possible. As at present proposed the Bank of Canada is to be a privately owned institution. .. .
At page 827 he is reported as follows:
Clearly, however, the bank should not be subject to dictation by the government, for at times the exigencies of public finance might not be wholly in harmony with banking policies that might be considered wise and essential in the general public interest.
He quotes from the Macmillan report at page 98-and I am trying now to repeat to the house the argument used by the Minister of Finance and subsequently repeated by the Prime Minister himself in favour of private ownership as against public ownership or

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie
control. As reported at page 829 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance quoted from the Macmillan report as follows: .
A central bank is responsible for the control of the volume of credit and the maintenance of the stability of the value of the currency. This responsibility connotes that the bank should be granted the sole right of issuing currency (other than coin) for it would be intolerable that a central bank's policy should be hampered by the action of other issuing authorities in a country. The experience of other countries has shown conclusively that the right of issue is not indispensable in assuring adequate profits to commercial banks.
In that same debate-and at the moment I wish to emphasize this point-my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), in his contribution to the discussion, laid down what has been the policy of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house and which he enunciated on February 27, 1933. I wish to place on Hansard the reference made on that occasion to central banking, so as to indicate to the house that the amendment which I propose to move on this occasion is paralleled by the statement made by the leader of the Liberal party at that time in the House of Commons. He said:
The Liberal party 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-
And this was before the commission ever came here.
-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.
My submission, to the house this afternoon is that the legislation which we are now about to pass and send to another place for consideration does not carry out the fundamental principles of a central bank as outlined by my leader on February 27, 1933. I wish to follow very briefly the Temarks made by the Minister of Finance when the measure was up for second reading on March 8 of the present year. He referred to the resolutions at Genoa in 1932 and at Brussels in 1920, in support of his own plea for private ownership. Let me quote the resolution which he read to the house, passed at the International Financial Conference held at Brussels in 1920:
Banks, and especially banks of issue, should be freed from political pressure and should be conducted solely on the lines of prudent finance.
On January 22 the International Economic conference reported as follows:
Banks, and' especially banks of issue, should be free from political pressure and should be conducted solely on lines of prudent finance. In countries where there is no central bank of issue one should be established.
And again:
The conference considers it essential in order to provide an international gold standard with the necessary mechanism for satisfactory working, that independent central banks, with the requisite powers and freedom to carry out an appropriate currency and credit policy, should be created in such developed countries as have not at present an adequate central banking institution.
Then the minister quoted from Kisch and Elkin and several other authorities in support of his contention. Let me give one or two quotations from his observations. As reported on page 1297 of Hansard of this year the Minister of Finance said:
Furthermore, a bank controlled by the government would inevitably be subject to sectional pressure and influence, a pull and haul from different parts of the country for certain special consideration and treatment.
Again he said:
Now, there is one other objection. I know that many hon. gentlemen will not agree with me, but I wish to say with all the seriousness at my command that it is my firm conviction that we cannot successfully operate a government central bank in Canada which is subject to patronage.
Later on in the same debate, during the evening he is' reported on page 1299 in these words:
In its most extreme form this weakness or danger of public ownership is, in my judgment. illustrated by the case of a government which, unable or unwilling to finance itself by other methods, leans too heavily upon the central bank, forcing the latter to make excessive advances and usually bringing about financial disaster both for the bank and for the community.
Then he outlines the three fundamental objections to private ownership, the first being this:
If it is to have the sole right to issue and control legal tender paper currency it is felt that it would be inappropriate to give such right to an institution not owned by the state.
The second is this, as reported on page 1300:
The second objection is based on the undesirability of allowing excessive profits to accrue to private shareholders.
And the third is as follows:
The final and perhaps the greatest objection which can be lodged against private management is that the bank might be dominated by bankers and their interests or by other financial interests.
[Stage Direction]
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Mackenzie
The last quotation which has already been, referred to in these debates and which I wish to place on Hansard is one from Sir Thomas White which will be found in the report of the Macmillan commission. This is what he said:
It was suggested during the course of our hearings that political influence might possibly affect unfavourably the administration of the I1 inance Act because the Treasury Board which authorizes advances and fixes rates of interest payable thereon is composed of members of the government. _ With regard to this I have only to say that if by "political influence" is meant partisan or improper influence not a shred of evidence has been adduced before the commission in support of such a suggestion.
This bill after its second reading was referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce, and in that committee several amendments were moved by my hon. friends to my left and several by those of us who belong to the Liberal party. May I very briefly recapitulate the amendments which we moved there and which we subsequently moved in committee of the whole house? I had the honour personally of moving:
That before the committee considers a single clause or detail of Bill No. 19, the committee record itself as being of opinion that this bank should be owned and controlled by and for the people of the Dominion of Canada.
That motion the committee oh banking and commerce in its wisdom rejected. Subsequently I moved a resolution which gave to the Minister of Finance authority to call in shares at a valuation not exceeding par; in other words, our second amendment was a contingent public ownership in the discretion of the administration of the day. Then the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) moved a very comprehensive amendment giving to the government, to the Canadian people, absolute and definite control, not necessarily with ownership, over the new Bank of Canada, but the committee on banking and commerce, once again, rejected that amendment.
Then the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth moved that the deputy minister of finance who, at his instigation and suggestion, was made one of the directors, without voting power, it is true, be given the privilege of suspensory veto over the proceedings, deliberations and conduct of the privately appointed directorate.
Then the hon. member for Beauharnois (Mr. Raymond) moved a resolution, which I had great pleasure in supporting, appointing a Canadian national as governor of this new Bank of Canada. At that time the Prime Minister asked the bankers who were present

with, as somebody said, their backs to the wall, whether they thought Canadian bankers were competent to regulate and manage the Bank of Canada. I think only one answered. Since the Prime Minister spoke in the house the other day when we were considering this very question of public control, and of a Canadian governor, Sir John Aird, who has been fairly close to some members of the administration, has come out with a public statement repudiating the assertion of the Prime Minister that no Canadian is fit for the exalted position of governor of the Bank of Canada. I wish in a word, without elaboration, to endorse the argument so well advanced the other day by the hon. member for Beauharnois and to repeat what I said then that we need to have a Canadian as governor of this Bank of Canada. We need a Canadian who knows the complexities of our life, the peculiar problems of the province of British Columbia and of the spacious prairies that are facing tremendous agricultural questions at the present time, who knows old Ontario, the grand old province of Quebec and the peculiar problems of the provinces down by the sea. I suggest with emphasis and earnestness to the Prime Minister that no man coming from any other land, no matter how well qualified he may be in the technicalities of central banking, can provide the proper and adequate service in our own central bank that one of our own Canadian citizens could do. I repeat: So far as we on this side are concerned we shall offer no objection to the introduction of all the technical advisers considered necessary from the Bank of England or the Bank of France or any other central bank to advise the Canadian government for one year, or, if necessary, for two years in the intricacies and technicalities of central banking.
Then there was an amendment, in which I heartily concur, moved by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) both in the committee on banking and commerce and on the floor of this house. I can do no more than support the glowing and inspiring address given in this chamber the other evening by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) when he said that we should maintain not only our sovereignty in regard to credit in this our native land, but the sovereignty of the French and English speaking peoples in every nook and corner of this dominion. As a comparatively newcomer to Canada, only twenty years ago now, I have the greatest veneration for its early and romantic history and when we consider the first one hundred and fifty years of our splendid pioneers; when we consider the celebration we are to

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie
have in a few weeks time, it is only fit that there should be in every mind in Canada the splendid efforts and worthy endeavours of those pioneers in settlement and in government who have given us the house in which to-day in this country we dwell.
Then we come to the question of control. When I moved in this house the other day for public ownership, the Prime Minister made the following objection. He said that in the first place this is against the experience of the world. Well, I am not so very certain that the experience of the world is a safe guiding factor at this time. If he is going to go by the experience of the world in regard to control of banking institutions, is he going to go by the experience of the world in regard to those crazy dictatorships which are being set up in every country in Europe? I suggest that we should preserve for the Canadian people full control over credit, over currency and over note issue; that is the proper course to follow, instead of taking the experience of some crazy nations of Europe which have gone wrong in matters of finance as well as in matters of government.
Then the right hon. gentleman repeated the point with regard to political control. I think Sir Thomas White has answered that, and I think I have answered it sufficiently. He went on to say that under this legislation the profits accrue to the people. Mr. Speaker, under the bill as drawn up at present we have a capitalization of $5,000,000 and an interest rate of four and a half per cent, which means an ostensible profit of $225,000. But may I point out, as I did once before, that when you support this legislation you support the transfer, in the first place, of $70,000,000 worth of Finance Act gold which at the present moment belongs to the people of the Dominion of Canada, to a privately owned, profit making corporation. In the second place you are going to transfer later on $40,000,000 worth of bank gold, less the amount the banks require for external obligations; that is to be transferred to a privately owned, profit making corporation. Then, on the day this bank opens its doors for business, you are going to create $63,000,000 worth of new, three per cent securities; you are going to hand these over to this new, privately owned, profit making institution, and the taxpayers of the Dominion of Canada every year will have to pay $1,800,000 in interest. Bigger than all these things, however, is the sovereign control over note issue, which belongs to parliament and to the people, and you are handing that over to a privately owned, profit making corporation under the legislation which we are asked to support at the present time.
Our resolution with regard to public ownership has been rejected. Our resolution with regard to public control has been rejected, and this afternoon I submit in the strongest possible way that this government, repudiated and rejected, inferentially if not actually, by the people, has not a moral right or a moral mandate in the eleventh hour of its life to pass this legislation, which will bring about a complete transformation of the financial organization of the Dominion of Canada. I say the government have no right to do that on the basis of private ownership without first of all having the principle of private ownership endorsed by the free will of the Canadian people. So, Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I am endeavouring to give expression, in the first place to those who believe in the principle of public ownership, and in the second place to those who believe without debating the merits or demerits of public ownership, that a rigid, definite and well defined public control is necessary in regard to this institution. Therefore I submit the following amendment:
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power so to amend it as to provide that the Bank of Canada shall be either,-
(a)	Government owned and controlled;
(b)	Government owned: or
(c)	Government controlled.
That is seconded by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power). Under this amendment, when the bill is referred back to the committee of the whole, we will have the right to reconsider sections 9 and 17, which deal in the first place with the principle of public ownership and in the second place with the principle of public control of this bank. When I review this legislation as it now stands I am reminded of a quotation from the 32nd chapter of Isaiah, as follows:
The instruments also of the churl are evil; he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.	_
But the liberal deviseth liberal things, and by liberal things shall he stand.
Believing as I do, Mr. Speaker, in public ownership and control of this great national financial institution I am pleading with this house this afternoon to devise liberal things, and so far as we on this side of the house are concerned, by liberal things we shall stand.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Just why once more, in dealing with
a matter of profound importance to the Canadian people, it is thought desirable to interject a note of pure politics into the discussion on the third reading, Mr. Speaker, I cannot
Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett

say. The hon. gentleman himself must be best able to answer that. Everything that he said this afternoon he has said at least three times before this session. In most cases this is the fourth time he has brought forward his arguments, and in one instance it is the fifth time to my knowledge that he has made the statement.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Repetition makes for
success.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is suggested that
repetition makes for success, but that is a theory that has been exploded long since.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No. It is a psychological truth.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was found to be so
by those who met their fate at the end of a rope.
I do not propose, therefore, to traverse what has been said this afternoon, but I do desire to point to the second observation made by the hon. gentleman. He quoted from the Macmillan report in England, and the last quotation he commended to us was that the institution should be of unquestioned independence.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Unchallenged independence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who, listening to the
speech this afternoon, would think that any Bank of Canada could be independent that was under the control of a government of which the hon. gentleman was a member? All you had to do was listen to the extreme statements that were expressed and then ask yourselves whether the Canadian people dare trust their central bank to such control. That is the answer, together with what has taken place in this house since this bill came back from the committee.
I have said that I commenced my study of this problem from the standpoint of believing that it would be desirable to have the bank publicly owned. When I studied the matter; when I observed what had been written with respect to other countries, notably in Kisch's book; when I realized and recognized what has transpired in this country with respect to political considerations; when I reviewed, as I did carefully, the appointments that have been made to the various commissions of this country; when I saw patronage in all activities with respect to our publicly owned institutions; when I saw the effect of such appointments, and when I saw the governmental intervention with respect to some matters of business that were dealt with by commissions in this coun-

try, I determined that if we were to preserve the unchallenged independence of this bank we must do something more than merely leave it to public ownership. Then, having decided that this was the correct thing to do, the next problem was to ensure governmental control. If one looks at the amendment that has been proposed one finds these words:
-with instructions that they have power so to amend it as to provide that the Bank of Canada shall be either (a) government owned and controlled; (b) government owned, or (c) government controlled.
I have pointed out to this house, as I did to the committee-and I will not take time to do so further-that in the very inception of this bank it comes into being with provisional directors. Then it must appoint a governor, a deputy governor and an assistant deputy governor. Those are to be selected by the governor in council, in order that governmental control may be ensured with respect to the management and adminstration of the bank. In order to promote political views certain objections were taken to this provision. They were purely political objections, narrowing and limiting the power to appoint beyond that which is usual in such cases. They would not be thought of otherwise; they were merely an endeavour to create prejudice and passion with respect to these appointments. Every man who has read the debates, every man who has read what transpired in this house knows that to be so.
Then you proceed to the next point. Having created your organization, and having your directors provisionally appointed, they are called upon to select from among their numbers directors who will be permanent, retiring in rotation-so many at the end of two years, so many at the end of five and again at the end of seven years, in order that the continuity of policy may be maintained, and that the bank may function free from interference and free from objection by those who endeavour to discharge through it their ideas of political patronage. That being done, the next question is: How shall the bank function? The bank begins to function by taking over the issue of money, by taking over the obligations under the Finance Act, for each note issue, and receives a bond on which interest is paid. Hon. gentlemen opposite know well that these bonds are merely bookkeeping entries by which three per cent is paid to the bank, and by the bank back to the government. That is so well understood that one wonders just what extreme views are in the minds of hon. members who in their statements overlook making any

Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett
observations of that character when speaking to this house. Further, when the bank has been established, and when the security has been put up to care for the note issue, and when it has taken over the gold from the Department of Finance, and when it has taken over the gold from the banks, why was it not indicated by hon. members that the purpose is not to enable the bank to do what it pleases? The bank has at once assumed, under this statute, the responsibility for the maintenance of a 25 per cent gold coverage for all note issues made by the bank, and not only for that which is covered but as well for that which is uncovered. That reserve must be kept in gold and silver; at least 25 per cent must be kept in gold. The effect of this legislation is to transfer to the central bank the custody of the gold which formerly was in the Department of Finance under the control of the minister and in the banks under their private control. Why is this done? In order that they may be able, when the gold standard is once more effective in this country to make transfers by bullion exchange, when there will no longer be free coinage of gold in this or any other country in the world. There will be that exchange of bullion gold for external purposes, and to the extent of not less than 14,000 units, to enable the controlling of foreign trade to be carried on. Is it better that that should be subject to political patronage, or under a control that is free from it?
When it was said by Sir Thomas White that there was no political patronage in connection with the Finance Act, I ask how could there be? How could there be? Every man who knows anything with respect to it knows that in the beginning of the year a resolution was passed which enabled the banks of this country to receive from the Department of Finance legal tender or dominion notes up to a certain margin of credit based upon the deposit of securities. In most instances the securities were the bonds of the Dominion of Canada, and in some instances those of the provinces. They were in known percentages of the advances made. That is why. How could there be any political interference there? One need only look at the bank returns issued from month to month, and particularly at the end of the months, to see the extent to which legal tenders were held under the Finance Act, and to realize that these were secured for window dressing purposes, and nothing else.
Then, having the construction of the bank, carrying on its business as I have indicated, to issue notes and to maintain external trade
and external balances to meet our obligations, the question is: To what extent is the action of the directors controlled by the governor of the bank? After all the governor of the bank is the principal official of the institution. He is the one who, under the statute,_ is primarily responsible for its administration. The act provides, as has been pointed out, that no resolution or no bylaw passed by the directors or by the executive shall have force or effect until it has been approved or concurred in by the governor or, in his absence, by the deputy governor. So we have removed the bank from purely directorial control, and we have placed it in the hands of the person who, by common consent with respect to central banks must always occupy the primary position and must be responsible for concurring in or agreeing with the action taken by the directors or the executive committee.
And more than that, the other day it was said that the government should be represented on the board. When the bill was introduced the minister indicated that amendments either in committee or during the progress of the bill through the house would be carefully considered, from whatever source they may be suggested, and that if they met with the approval of the government they would be incorporated in the bill. In other words, there was no pride of authorship^ to stand in the way of accepting suggestions which might be made which, in the opinion of the government, would improve the measure. At one time the government _ was of the opinion that it might meet the situation by having the Minister of Finance a member of the board of directors, without a vote. But on analysis it was realized that that would introduce a factor which might not be in the best interests of the country as a whole, whereupon the government accepted the amendment by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston), whereby the deputy minister becomes a member of the board, without a vote. So that there will be continuous communication between the government on the one hand and the bank on the other. Public business will be conducted as it should be by the bank, as the fiscal agent of the dominion, in a manner that is satisfactory to the Department of Finance and to the government. On the other hand the government will be fully advised of the steps taken from time to time to deal with problems affecting the various industries of this country through credit control. In every particular there shall be that measure of cooperation between the bank and the government which will ensure its success. Again the governor is given further power.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Bennett
As we said the other day, he has the power of veto with respect to any transaction affecting the welfare of the institution.
I shall not further occupy the time of the house. I am not going in any eense to take up the time in these closing days of a session of parliament to discuss this matter further. The government has given the measure its best consideration and attention, and has looked into every phase of the central bank problem. We believe we are placing on the statute books a central bank bill which is as good as if not better than any such legislation in any other country of the world. It is not only my judgment that that is so, but that is the judgment of others as well. We have ensured that there shall be no political patronage, and that the bank is not liable to become a medium for political patronage. I am not now charging either one party or another party, but I am simply dealing with the frailties of human nature, the pressure which cannot be resisted, which never has been resisted, and which never will be resisted, namely to yield, for purposes all too apparent, to the glamour of their supporters or those who see in this particular course, something which would be of advantage to them.
Just think for a moment of what transpired in this country from 1922 until 1930. It happened that in those years hon. gentlemen opposite were in power-but that is not the point I am making. What I am about to describe was not as a result of their being in power. Look at the combinations of capital in this country [DOT] look at the mergers, every one of which has brought disaster to the country and loss to the investor. Why? Because you had a condition prevailing in which there was no credit control, none whatever. Everyone knows that. There was no credit control at all. Look at the borrowings under the Finance Act for the purpose of clearing up transactions at the end of the month. Look at what transpired in this country and the ruin that was brought on people who bought stocks in these amalgamated enterprises between 1922 and 1930. I am not blaming the government of the day for it. But I can say they saw it being done and did not stop it. And what effective control did the banks exercise?
But here we have the machinery at least whereby a sound governor, with proven experience in matters of finance, is appointed for the purpose of supervising the administration of the bank. What is more, the hon. gentleman said that he did not know about the experience of the world being of value. 
He talked about the crazy countries of Europe. Well, the Bank of France is not crazy. Those who know the gentleman, Mr. de Retake, who has had control of the economic policies of that bank during the last few years, know that he is not crazy, and there are those who would not suggest that those responsible for the policies of the Bank of England were crazy, and they are part of Europe. Both those banks are privately owned but government controlled banks, and there has never been an occasion when the Bank of France or the Bank of England and the government have failed by cooperation to work out a common plan. It is true it cost $100,000,000 of the taxpayers' money in France to assist the Bank of France in connection with the transactions that took place after England went off the gold standard, but that is neither here nor there in connection with the general principle.
I can only submit as the last word, because the matter has been covered by the Minister of Finance and by others, and by discussions in the committee and discussions in the house, that we have here a measure which we submit to this country with pride. It is a measure which we believe will meet the very purpose described in the preamble. This institution will at least be free from that political control that has marred the efficiency of many publicly created bodies in Canada and elsewhere, and the difficulties that have been experienced in connection with publicly owned enterprises, and I could name them without number, here at least will be subjected to control.
One great thing we can say, that this institution with a body of shareholders, with a privately created directorate, will be controlled through government to an extent that no other privately owned central bank is controlled either in France or Great Britain or elsewhere. We confidently believe that freed from political control, freed from the evils of patronage and with the merit determined by experience of those who are engaged to manage the bank, it will function as an institution that will discharge the obligations for which it was created and thereby bring improved conditions to the Canadian people.
If I believed that there was any method by which you could create this bank and free it from the claims of the five factors that I mentioned the other day-politics, what is its politics?-race, what is its racial origin? -religion, what is its religion?-occupation? and where does it live?-are these to be the factors that govern and determine the fortunes of the central bank?

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
The hon. gentleman referred to the incidental effect of recent elections. I ask him if he has read the appeals that were made. Has he read them, and did he understand them? Is that the basis upon which a central bank is to function? Is it to function upon the question of religion. Is it to function upon the question of race? Is it to function upon the question of occupation? Is it to function upon the question of the residence of those who may be directing it? Is it to function on the question of politics? With that issue I am content for the public of this country to deal. But having studied the matter as long as I have, I could not in the present disturbed condition of public affairs, and with the appeals that have been made, venture to launch this institution on the stormy career that lies before it if it is to function successfully and bring credit to the Canadian people, and allow it to be subjected to the play of the forces to which I have just alluded.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in his reply to the very able, lucid and convincing address of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), who has presented the amendment, began his remarks by saying that the hon. member had said over and over again, he said I think for the third, fourth or fifth time, some of -the things which had been said in the initial stages of the debate on this question. That is perfectly true, but it is also equally true that notwithstanding these allimportant things have been said so often, the government have paid no heed to them, and the strength of the argument remains what it has always been. I purpose at the moment therefore to say once again some of the things that have been said over and over again from this side of the house with respect to this bill in the hope that before it passes, even now at the eleventh hour, the government will consider the very reasonable amendment which has been proposed, namely, to refer this bill back to committee of the whole, giving the committee power so to amend its provisions as to constitute this bank one either publicly owned and controlled, or at least publicly owned or publicly controlled, which ever may appear most advisable to members of the committee.
May I say at once, Mr. Speaker, that I know there has been a good deal -of searching of heart on the part of some hon. members on this side, as well as is the case with the Prime Minister and his followers with respect to what really is most in the public interest
with regard to the constitution of this great financial institution, as to whether public ownership of a great central bank was the most desirable thing, as to whether public control was the most desirable thing, or as to whether both public ownership and control was most desirable. With respect to a new institution like a great central bank it is obvious that considerations which are all important should have to be weighed very carefully pro and con.
Speaking for myself, may I repeat that I can see wherein the question of public ownership of a state bank may well be a debatable question. I regard it as debatable for the reason that there is much to be said on both sides. Unfortunately it is not a choice between perfection on the one side, and what is unmixed evil on the other. It is a choice between which is the better of alternatives, each of which has some certain very obvious definite limitations.
The objection that I see, so far as it can be named an objection, to public ownership of a central bank is that it may raise in the minds of the people of the country many expectations which may not be capable of ever being realized. Many will believe that because the state owns the central bank it will be able to meet each and every disorder that may arise in the country from any financial cause. We here all know that a state owned institution, any more than a privately owned institution, will not be able to do anything of the kind. At the same time there would be occasioned the thought in the minds of many people that having set up a publicly owned institution we had discovered a public remedy for all social and financial ills. I do not think it is advisable, or in the public interest at any time for parliament to create in the minds of the people at large expectations which are not capable of being realized.
In the second place, I believe there is always a possible danger to the position of the state itself in the event of anything untoward happening to a bank which is owned by the state. There may quickly arise in the public mind confusion between what may be a matter confined in its effects to the bank, and what may be assumed to concern the very life of the state itself. This may not happen so much within the bounds of the country where the situation may be known and understood as beyond its confines, and in the minds of peoples of other nations. One will recall that only a few months ago a very serious national crisis arose in France because simply of what was regarded as the intimate relations of the
4362	COMMONS
Bank of Canada*-Mr. Mackenzie King
government with an institution with which it had to do to the extent only of granting licences. If a condition of that kind were to arise with respect, not to some institution simply licensed by the government but to a government owned bank, through some fault of management resulting in personal and public loss, I can see where conceivably there might be created something in the nature of a panic in the state owing to the confusion which might arise in the public mind through the identification of the state itself with the institution. Anyone who has had the responsibility of government must realize that in connection with state affairs it is all important that at all times the soundness of the position of the state itself and of the position of the state in the mind of the public should be one which admits of no doubt whatever.
These are simply contingencies and they must be considered as against other contingencies. Against them it is to be said that that situation has never arisen in connection with any government owned institution in this country. It is to be said further that having a knowledge of our people and having a knowledge of the character of the -persons likely to be in charge of the administration of this country's affairs there is little or no probability of that situation arising. To the alternative of a publicly owned and controlled institution, there has to be considered the pros and cons of a privately owned and controlled institution and the alternatives which lie in between these two extremes. The government has apparently decided wholly in favour of a purely privately owned institution, not one privately owned only but one privately controlled as well.
I want to take very strong exception to what the government is doing. Because the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has decided in his own mind against the idea of a publicly owned institution, he and his colleagues and his supporters are now going to the other extreme of private ownership and private control and are deciding against any kind of effective public control. They are declaring for a privately owned and a privately controlled bank. That is going to an extreme which it seems to me, when its probable effects are carefully considered, will be found to be very much against the public interest. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre makes it clear that in seeking to find what is most in the public interest this house should not be restricted to a consideration only of extremes and called upon to reach a decision in accordance with the

one extreme or the other. The amendment suggests, seeing that views are so divergent that a place may be found within the two extremes, which may avoid what might be in the nature of dangers in either. We believe that with extremes ruled out this can be found in providing at least a sufficient amount of public control to insure that the control of this bank will be in the hands of the state and not in private hands. The amendment simply asks this house, in view of the fact that the government is going to the extreme, to reconsider this matter before it is too late and see by reference back to the committee whether it is not advisable and possible to adopt something short of the extreme measure which is being proposed and something which will ensure no uncertain measure of public control.
Having been one who right along has strongly advocated the establishment of a central bank, I wish at this time to make clear the grounds upon which I personally have advocated the institution of a central bank and the grounds upon which the Liberal party has made the institution of a public bank a part of its policy. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre has referred already to what I said when speaking in this house on February 27, 1933, in outlining the position of the Liberal party on the central bank. I should like to read again the words quoted by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Referring to the control of credit and stating the position of the party with respect to the control of credit, I said:
The Liberal party believes that credit is a public matter, not of interest to bankers only, but of direct concern to the average citizen. It stand's 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.
I desire to direct special attention to these words:
[DOT]-a properly constituted national central bank-
Also:
To perform the functions of rediscount, and the control of currency issue, considered in terms of public need.
Note "in terms of public need" not possible private gain.
When this bill came up for second reading very careful consideration was given by this

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
side of the house as to whether or not the bill should be allowed to pass its second reading, without division, inasmuch as, in the form in which it was drafted, it appeared to be a bill for a privately owned and privately controlled central bank. It was only when the Minister of Finance gave the house the assurance that the questions of ownership and control were to be left open and might be very fully discussed in the committee to which the bill was to be referred, and that the question of private ownership and control was not to be considered as being in any way the principle of the bill, that the only principle involved was that of the establishment of a central bank, that we as a party decided to allow the bill to go to committee without division. Had we believed that there was a mental or any other reservation on the part of the Minister of Finance or of the Prime Minister with respect to the greatest freedom being permitted the committee in the consideration of the question of public ownership and control, I may state quite frankly that we would have been a unit against allowing the bill to pass without division.
This afternoon the Prime Minister has referred to one or two factors which he claims are in the nature of control by the government. One is the appointment of the deputy minister of finance as a member of the board of directors, although without any right to vote. Another is the power of veto given to the governor in certain contingencies. These amendments which inserted an element of control were proposed by hon. members of the committee who are on this side of the house. However, those amendments are insignificant in comparison with the other amendments moved from this side and which were very substantial and in our belief absolutely necessary. Those one or two small amendments were all that we were able to secure after a very strenuous battle. They are not sufficient, however, to have it for one moment assumed that in this bill there is such a thing as effective government control. The Prime Minister has referred to the right of the government to appoint the governor and the deputy governor, but that is a right which relates only to the inception of the measure. We are passing a bill which is to be upon our statutes for years to come and which it has been stated can only be amended or repealed with the consent of both houses of parliament and the bill states that the governor and deputy governor appointed by the
government hold office only for a stated number of years. Thereafter the governor and the deputy governor are to be appointed by the shareholders.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With the approval of the governor in council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but the appointment is by the shareholders, the governors become appointees of the private interests; so that the bank in the course of a very short time becomes representative entirely of private interests. Now that, it seems to me, is a very serious matter faced as we are in times like the present with what appears to be the most formidable of all conflicts of perhaps any age, namely, that of the money power versus the power of government as represented by the people in their houses of parliament. That is the issue, as I see it, the crux of the whole situation

whether this parliament, representing the people of Canada, is to create a great financial institution which is to control the credit and currency of the country, place that institution in private hands, both as to ownership and control, hand over to this privately-owned and controlled institution many of the functions and powers which the government itself at the present time is exercising, part in large measure with what the government now possess in the way of control of credit, part with what it possesses at the present time in the matter of the right of issuing currency, and hand over gold reserves and securities which are at the present moment in its possession-all this to be handed over to an institution which is to be privately-owned and controlled, or whether the institution to which these rights, powers, possessions and privileges are to be given is to be subject to an effective measure of government control. That, I think is a very serious situation, and there is no argument, it seems to me, which it is possible to bring forward that can really defend action of that kind on the part of this parliament. If it were of necessity a choice solely between the extreme of absolute government ownership and government control on the one hand, and on the other complete private ownership and private control, I could understand that there might be many who would find it difficult to decide one way or the other, there being no possibility of a middle course which would help to avoid what would be regarded as the dangers in either extreme. But there is a middle course, and it is that middle course which the government is apparently unwilling even to consider at the present time. That middle course would be to enable the gov-
4364	COMMONS
Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
eminent to appoint a certain number of directors, a number sufficient to give the government control of the central bank, directors who would not own shares but would represent the government, and who would sit along with the directors who were the nominees of those who owned the shares. Short of complete government ownership and control, could there be anything in the interests of all classes generally which obviously would serve the common interest better than that? One group of directors would be watching the actions of the bank from the point of view of investors, and the other group would be watching the actions of the bank from the point of view of the interests of the public at large; and these two in conference from day to day would undoubtedly be able to prevent many extreme actions being taken which might be contrary to the public interest, and they would also be able to bring about that unity and continuity in the affairs of the bank which the Prime Minister regards as so all-important. It is because we feel that even yet there might be a chance of saving the situation in some such way that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre has brought forward the amendment he has.
When the bill was in committee I spoke of the dangers which I feared might arise in the way of conflict between the government and the bank. In a word I indicated that they might develop to the point where in the public mind they would become a conflict between those in authority, as the government of the day, and the money power in the land; and that if that conflict ever arose we should have the most serious situation with which it is possible for a country to be faced. I think that possibility ought to be avoided at every cost. I do not think we ought to pass in this house a measure which is liable some day to create a conflict of that sort. The Prime Minister the other evening stated his position in these words. They appear in Hansard of June 21, at page 4195:
What we wish to secure is a policy based' upon the economic conditions of the country, not a policy of the bank based upon policies of a government. That is what the right hon. gentleman desires.
Now all parties wish to have a policy based upon the economic conditions of the country. The Prime Minister was not stating the matter quite fairly, because we know all parties wish to have a policy based on the economic conditions of the country. What the Prime Minister wants, what he meant, is a policy of the bank based upon the will of the financial 
interests, policies of the money power, and he made that quite clear when he said in the earlier part of the same statement:
If the government were in complete control of the bank it would mean that if you had one government succeeded by another the bank would naturally change its policy, assuming that the policy was as the right hon. gentleman suggested. Then you would have governments controlling policies without continuity.
In other words, the Prime Minister does not wish that the government should in any way control the policy of the bank, but rather that the policy of the bank should be controlled in accordance with the views of the bank itself, the bank representing financial interests. In support of his position the Prime Minister raises this bogey of political pressure. Now it is necessary to keep in mind the distinction between what is meant by political pressure in the sense of a government being subject to pressure from its own followers and supporters in the country and what is meant by obeying the will of the people with respect to large national policies as expressed by the people themselves in the manner in which the constitution enables them to express their views. As regards there being danger of political pressure on a Prime Minister and government with respect to matters relating to a central bank, I question very much whether it need be greatly feared. There are undoubtedly considerations of sectional, racial and religious interests that arise in all matters of government, but they are not the determining factors. What any leader of an administration seeks to do as far as he can, what any government seeks to do as far as it can, is to harmonize different, and often conflicting, interests in the country; but always I venture to say, in any important appointment, the first consideration will be the fitness of the man for the position and the rightness of the position itself. When these things can be equally effected by adding to them further considerations, of what may help to keep the country united, be they economic or racial or religious, then I think it is altogether desirable that these other considerations should be taken account of. But it is absurd to talk about these considerations as controlling the situation with respect to any matters of government of a major character. On the other hand, questions of the policies which are to control in matters of government are all-important. Every parliament should be careful not to enact any measure which will create an institution that at any time may be indifferent to, to say nothing of being defiant of, the policies of a government as expressed by the people

Bank of Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
through their representatives in parliament. To permit anything of the kind is to create a power which is greater than parliament itself. It is especially dangerous when the power is that of financial interests, the money power so-called. A central bank is an institution to which the state delegates a certain very important function, the control of the monetary system, but this function has definite social and public aspects and must be regarded as such. The report on which this bill is based at paragraph 207 says that the state "must necessarily retain ultimate sovereignty in matters affecting the currency." The important point is that the central bank is a social function. It is, to say the least, questionable whether a created private organization should have this power delegated to it. There can be no question that it is the duty of the central bank to stand out against the pressure of governmental policies which the bank believes to be injurious to the public good. But if a government decides that a certain monetary policy-using the term in its broad sense-is desirable, and if it is prepared to follow it at all costs and to be responsible to the public for it, then it must be, under a democratic scheme of government, the duty of the central bank to carry out that policy. That, I think, is sound and will be appreciated as lying at the essence of democratic control on the part of the state of all that relates to the affairs of the people themselves.
I touched on all this at some length the other evening. I spoke as well of something else, and that is the danger of this institution which we are creating, establishing policies that will be in direct opposition to those of the government of the day, and policies which may be able to set at defiance or wholly to defeat those of the administration of the day. As I have said over and over again, I believe the Prime Minister is interested in furthering imperial policies with respect to trade, shipping, finance, defence and all other aspects of our economic life. So far as hon. members on this side of the house are concerned we believe in national policies which will retain freedom to our parliament at all times with respect to carrying out the will of the people as it may be expressed in regard to any of these questions, whether they be trade, shipping, finance or defence. We believe so far as Canada and other parts of the empire are concerned, that any step which lends itself to the development of imperial policies in a way that may bring about a conflict between an imperial and a national point of view in matters of government is going to be the first 74726- 276
step towards the dismemberment of the empire itself. For that reason we are very strongly opposed to any measure in which we see a danger of that kind.
The present legislation, establishing the Bank of Canada, is a definite step in the establishment of an imperial policy of finance, under which the financial destiny of Canada is placed under persons independent of parliament, who can maintain, through the Bank of England and the other central banks of empire nations, a definite and positive control of empire currency, credit and trade. That being the case, I feel very strongly that this measure ought to be reconsidered before we are asked to vote upon it.
The Bank of Canada, as constituted by this proposed enactment, will undoubtedly be the means of vesting in the Bank of England the management and control of Canada's foreign exchange and Canada's internal credit administration. As I said the other evening, once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most conspicuous and sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile. Those are strong words; they constitute a strong argument and they are words of which this house ought to take full account before it is too late.
May I, just before I conclude, draw attention to the nature of the struggle there has been in Great Britain itself between the government of that country and the money power there as represented by the Bank of England. What I wish to point out is that for years, for decades, for almost a century past the government of England has been trying more and more to free itself from the control of the banks and the financial interests as represented by the Bank of England in particular. They have been seeking to get the control of credit more and more into the hands of the state, into the hands of those who represent the wishes and the will of the people. This has been a long and very hard struggle. At the present time the whole trend of discussion on financial matters in Great Britain is to bring about in Britain itself a larger measure of state control of the banking system and of credit. What are we doing? We to-day are deliberately seeking to part with what measure of control we now have, and to make the financial interests even more independent of parliament than they have been heretofore.

4366	COMMONS
Bank oj Canada-Mr. Mackenzie King
I do not know that I can better emphasize what I have been saying about the situation in England than to refer to a record which Mr. Gladstone has left of the position that he encountered when as Chancellor of the Exchequer he began to try to introduce certain financial reforms. It throws a good deal of light on the significance of what by this measure is being done by the present administration in Canada. In the Life of Gladstone by John Morley, volume I, at page 519, Lord Morley refers to "the controversies on currency that thrive so lustily in the atmos-sphere of the Bank Charter Act." He deals with Mr. Gladstone's effort "to readjust the banking relations, properly so called, between the bank and the state." It was in connection with Mr. Gladstone's effort to readjust those relations that Mr. Gladstone himself drew up a memorandum which is referred to as an "undated fragment" and which Lord Morley has included in the appendix of volume I under the heading of "Mr. Gladstone and the bank." I read this passage to hon. members and ask them to consider it very carefully. This is Mr. Gladstone speaking:
From the time I took office as Chancellor of the Exchequer I began to learn that the state held in the face of the hank and the city an essentially false position as to finance. When those relations began, the state was justly in ill order as a fraudulent bankrupt who was ready on occasion to add force to fraud. After the revolution it adopted better methods though often for unwise purposes, and in order to induce monied men to be lenders it came forward under the countenance of the bank as its sponsor. Hence a position of subserviency which, as the idea of public faith grew up and gradually attained' to solidity, it became the interest of the bank and the city to prolong. This was done by amicable and accommodating measures towards the government, whose position was thus cushioned and made easy in order that it might be willing to give it a continued acquiescence. The hinge of the whole situation was this: The government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of finance, but w-as to leave the money pow-er supreme and unquestioned. In the conditions of that situation I was reluctant to acquiesce, and I began to fight against it by financial self-assertion from the first, though it was only by the establishment by the post office savings banks and their great progressive development that the finance minister has been provided with an instrument sufficiently powerful to make him independent of the bank and the city power when he has occasion for sums in seven figures. I w-as tenaciously opposed by the governor and deputy governor of the bank, who had seats in parliament, and I had the city for an antagonist on almost every occasion.
I ask the house to listen to what Mr. Gladstone referred to as "the hinge of the whole situation." It is not less the hinge of

the whole situation in Canada to-day as it will be with respect to the Bank of Canada after this act is passed, than it was in Great Britain as respects the Bank of England in Mr. Gladstone's day as regards the relations of the government and of the bank, or to express the same thing in its rightful proportions the relations of parliament and the money power:
-the government itself was not to be a substantive pow-er in matters of finance but w-as to leave the money pow-er supreme and unquestioned.
That is exactly what the government proposes to see is done by this bill in its present form. In matters of finance it makes the bank supreme; it makes the bank the body that will determine the monetary policy of the country, that will have the power to enforce that policy and to resist any monetary policy that may run counter to it. This privately owned and privately controlled institution is to be permitted to do that. The government itself is not to be a substantive power. That is a pretty serious situation, Mr. Speaker. As I see it what we are doing in following the government amounts pretty much to this: We are handing over to an institution that is our own creation supreme power in the matter of financial policy, in the matter of the control of social credit and in the issue of currency. We are parting with all these things to this institution, allowing it to go its way and we leave ourselves as the representatives of the people, in a position where, once the bank is instituted, and free to pursue its own course, w-e no longer will have any real control over it.
Hon. members of this house have witnessed, no doubt frequently, one of our great ocean liners about to leave port. First it takes on board the passengers and cargo; the crew are already aboard, then come the officers and the captain. Finally, the gangway is pulled up; the fastenings are loosened, and little by little the vessel moves away from the shore. Once out into the harbour it may lie at anchor for a short time. Then it draws up anchor and proceeds to sea, absolutely free from any relationship with the port it has just left or with those who have been responsible for giving it the powers, the passengers and the cargo it possesses. As I see it that is exactly what we are doing with this Bank of Canada. We are creating a bank that is to control the credit, to issue the currency and to hold the gold reserves of the country. In this new banking venture, we are loading the new vessel

Bank of Canada-Mr. Irvine
of state-the Bank of Canada-that is being created by the state with the gold reserves out of our treasury, together with our securities, and we are giving it all powers with regard to the issue of currency and the control of credit. Having done this the Prime Minister appoints the captain and first officer and tells them to go aboard. We have already provided that the passengers are to be the private shareholders, so they are already on board. It having been provided that the passengers and the captain and officers are to have full possession of the entire precious cargo, this house then begins to release the vessel from her moorings. The Prime Minister gives orders that the gangplank is to be drawn up, no subsequent governor or deputy governor is to be appointed by the government, and no directors. This House of Commons is to have no further opportunity save by the sanction of the other house of parliament, to get aboard the vessel, or to say what is to be done either in relation to its cargo or in regard to the direction in which it is to go.
The bill goes from here to the other house, and what happens? The next step is there taken; the fastenings are further, almost completely loosened, and when the bill passes that house, the new ship, the Bank of Canada, gets a little further out on its own. It may lie at anchor for a short time until His Excellency the Governor General comes to give the bill assent. Then the anchor is drawn up and what is the position? The Bank of Canada starts out on its own, in the world of finance, free to do as it pleases with respect to the policies it seeks to put into force, and with the powers which have been given to it, and this House of Commons, save in so far as the other 'house approves, has no power or control whatever over this institution.
I put that picture forward in a very simple and, I am afraid, haphazard sort of fashion, but it is one which should bring to the minds of everyone a very clear realization of the position this House of Commons is going to be in from now on in relation to this new Central Bank, unless one further provision is made; that is, the provision that there shall be a link between the government and the bank in the nature of a majority of directors to be appointed by the government which will assure some immediate and direct relationship between the two. It is to be hoped that policies of the bank and of the government may not conflict, but where there is a conflict of policy on a matter of major concern to the 74726-2781
people, we should see to it that provision is made whereby the will of the people should be made to prevail. This can only be effected as matters now stand by some provision which will ensure representation of the government in a majority control on the board of directors of the bank.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is not necessary for me to explain, either from my personal point of view or from that of the group in this corner, that we believe sincerely that the financial institutions of this country should be publicly or socially owned. For upward of twelve or thirteen years in this house we have urged that position from time to time, so in speaking a word for that principle now I need make no apology whatever.
I am rather sorry that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) is so ambiguous as to be very difficult to follow, and indeed as to make it practically impossible for anyone believing in public ownership to support. I do not wish to be unkind in referring to this amendment but really it is the most peculiar piece of construction I have ever seen in my experience in the House of Commons. The hon. gentleman concluded his argument by quoting something that was a "liberal thing," and I would say this amendment certainly is a liberal thing. It begins by asking for a government owned and controlled bank. Then it asks for a government owned bank, and then for a government controlled bank. In God's name what sort of bank do they want? I presume there are some people who want government owned banks in Canada; therefore the Liberals can say, "We asked for a government owned bank." Undoubtedly there are some people who are very much afraid of government control of anything and they may say, "Well, we asked for a government owned bank without having government control." Then there may be some people who believe in government control without government ownership, and the Liberals may say, "Well, we asked for that too."
This is most decidedly and characteristically a Liberal amendment. The right hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Mackenzie King) has spoken to it admirably; no man in this house knows what sort of a bank he spoke in favour of. I would almost say that I doubt whether, at the moment, he knows himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Bank of Canada-Mr. Irvine


William Irvine: I am not seeking to reflect on the unquestionable integrity of the right hon. gentleman, nor on his undoubted intellectual ability; I want my hon. friends to understand that. But the right hon. gentleman did say that the question was a very debatable one, and if that means anything at all it means that he was in doubt-and the right hon. gentleman is perfectly right to be in doubt about any issue-at this moment as to whether that bank should be government owned or privately owned. When the hon. member for Vancouver Centre began his remarks he took some time in trying to establish that the amendment he was moving was in accordance with the position taken in previous debates by his right hon. leader. Thus he made it appear that in moving the amendment he was speaking for the entire Liberal party. It is unfortunate I think that the right hon. leader of the opposition should have so clearly revealed in his address that the policy indicated in the amendment with respect to public ownership is not the policy of the Liberal party.
Under (b) of the amendment what sort of bank would we have, if it were government owned without being government controlled? Who is going to control a government owned bank?-a private institution? And if it does not mean that it is possible to have a government owned bank without being government controlled, then it means absolutely nothing at all. Then, paragraph (c) of the amendment indicates that the Liberal opposition would be content with a government controlled bank which was not government owned, while (b) indicates that they would be content with a government owned bank which was not government controlled. Paragraph (a) indicates that they would like to have both at the same time.
What I am about to point out may be regarded as having a political intent. I do not as a rule seek to establish any particular rights, from our point of view. I usually speak on the issue for what it is worth. But when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre tries to establish that a policy of a government owned and controlled bank is what the Liberal party stands for and calls upon the house to adopt, then I must take issue with him and indicate that if that has become the Liberal policy it is because the group in this corner of the house have popularized it in the minds of the Canadian people, and because at the next general election it is quite possible that those who stand for a publicly owned bank will have a considerable following. Here
rMr. Irvine.]
is a fact wdiich I believe will substantiate the point I am making, namely that the Liberal party in the mouth of its leader has never declared for public ownership of the financial facilities in this country. In this connection I ask hon. members to look at Hansard for April 26, 1932, upon which occasion the right hon. leader of the opposition was speaking in the budget debate in reply to an amendment which had been moved by an hon. member in this corner of the house. Before referring to the amendment the right hon. gentleman said:
May I come back now to the other part of the subamendment of the Progressive party? It is as follows:
"That in the opinion of this house, as a first step towards general economic reconstruction, our financial system should be nationalized, and provision be made to issue immediately sufficient money to bring the value of the dollar as speedily as possible to that point at which the major portion of our debts were incurred during the -war; stabilize the dollar at this point internally and thereafter manage credit and currency issue to secure and maintain a stable price level within Canada."
You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that We were asking in that subamendment for the nationalization of the banks. We asked also for a measure of inflation or, if you like, the issue of sufficient money to carry on the business of the country and to reduce debts by the amount they were increased by deflation. We asked also for a stabilization of the dollar at that point internally, and for the management of the credit of the nation.
May I point out that in the legislation of this session there has been a decided move towards at least two of the principles included in that motion. Let us see what the right hon. leader of the opposition had to say at that time about nationalization. These are his words:
That is the substance of the subamendment. It suggests two things: First, the nationalization of our financial system and, second, the direct adoption of a policy of inflation. May I in the first instance ask this question of those who have moved this subamendment: If our financial system is to be nationalized, whom are you going to entrust with that work? Are you going to entrust the government opposite with it? Are you going to entrust hon. gentlemen opposite, who have dealt with the tariff in the manner in which they have, under the freedom which has been given them, to nationalize the finances of this country? Yet that is wrhat this amendment is suggesting, because it is addressed to parliament as it exists at the present time. May I ask another question? Were a Liberal administration in office would you entrust a Liberal administration with that task? May I ask still another question? Were you in office yourselves,-

Bank of Canada-Point of Order
Speaking of hon. members in this comer of the chamber-
-would you undertake the work of nationalizing the finances of the country? I do not believe that any group of persons who have given thought to these matters would attempt a task of that kind in Canada at this time. And, if we ourselves would not undertake a scheme such as this, what would be thought of Canada by other countries if it were announced ts-morrow that this House of Commons had attempted any such task as the one indicated in the subamendment?
There is a very clear and distinct declaration made over two years ago, namely in 1932, by the right hon. leader of the opposition, that they would not countenance this parliament or this government taking charge of the financial institutions of this country. He was clearly, unmistakably and unequivocally stating the position of the Liberal party, and so far as I can make out from the statement made to-day by the right hon. gentleman that position has not altered. On two occasions he has stated very clearly, and only a few moments ago repeated the statement, that the whole matter as to whether or not the financial institutions of Canada should be owned and controlled by the government or should be controlled and owned by private institutions is a matter for debate. So, while I have no doubt that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre stands very sincerely for the socialization of finance, I am afraid he cannot speak for the whole Liberal party in making any such amendment.
Let me add, further, that this corner of the house does not think the matter is now open for debate. We are quite certain that the time for debating this matter was in the last century; we feel it has been debated and redebated, and that it has been settled in the minds of those who pay any attention to debate, that no private institution should take control of the finances of any country whatsoever. The issuing of currency, the managing of credit and the control of the whole financial institution are peculiarly functions of the state. That is the position hon. members in this corner have held consistently and now hold. As I say, I cannot vote for the amendment because it does not mean anything. As I pointed out earlier in my remarks, it is a sort of omnibus, which is on an eternal and circuitous road leading nowhere. I move, Mr. Speaker, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), that all the words after "be" in the fifth line of the amendment be struck out and the following words added, "government owned and controlled." That removes
all doubt. Those who vote for that unequivocally stand for government ownership of this central bank and the country will know exactly what we mean.
In concluding I desire to say that while the government has no doubt excellent reasons from their point of view for the position which they have so firmly held in this regard, and while the argument which the Prime Minister made this afternoon and on previous occasions with regard to the unhealthy influence which politics as they exist in Canada to-day may have on a government controlled institution, I still think that his argument is more of a condemnation of the weakness of our own parliamentary system than it is an argument against the socialization of the financial institutions of the country, and I believe that we should endeavour at this session of parliament and at this moment to secure complete government ownership and control of the central bank.
If there is a vote to be taken on the main motion I shall then have something to say on the merits of the bill on the basis on which it is drawn and the advantages which, in spite of the fact that it is not socially owned, the new central bank does give over anything which we have previously known in this country, but for the moment I shall have nothing further to say beyond referring to the closing remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition when he emphasized that we are now making the central bank supreme in Canada. The fact of the matter is that even when the right hon. gentleman was in power himself the chartered banks of this country were supreme, and were more supreme than this central bank will ever be, for there are restrictions here while there were no restrictions to the powers of the chartered banks before in the matter of the control of credit. So there is no need for us to blink the issue. We in this corner want outright social ownership and control, but if this parliament votes that down then unquestionably the new central bank will be a great improvement on the financial institutions of this country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I rise to a question of
order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) moved his amendment I had not time to look into the authorities while I was following him, but it is quite obvious that his amendment is not valid.
Perhaps I might state roughly before the Speaker comes in so that hon. gentlemen

Bank of Canada-Point of Order
opposite will realize my point, that May, twelfth edition, at page 461 says:
Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the house, the question or amendment, as amended, would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
There are three alternatives in this amendment. If it is carried by the house which one is to be adopted? It must be complete within the amendment itself. Therefore there must be three several amendments moved in order to have these three questions considered by the house. If this amendment were adopted as it stands the house would not know what would be the result, for when it is carried which alternative have you voted for? Have you voted for a government owned and controlled bank, for a government owned bank or for a government controlled bank? You have to have one or the other, and it must be complete within itself.
That is the position, Mr. Speaker, and inasmuch as the rule seems to be reasonably clear-I have now in my hand May, thirteenth edition, page 285:
Every amendment proposed to be made, either to a question or to a proposed amendment, should be so framed that, if agreed to by the house, the question or amendment, as amended, would be intelligible and consistent with itself.
I did not have the thirteenth edition in my hand when I rose, and I was quoting from May, twelfth edition, page 261.
I put this to Your Honour: If the house carries this amendment hon. gentlemen opposite vote for what? To provide that the central bank shall be either-"either," mark you-(a) government owned and controlled; (b) government owned, or (c) government controlled. It does not require a lawyer to point out that when the house arrives at a conclusion with respect to an amendment to the third reading of a bill and the house as a result goes into committee it must be able at once to give effect to the amendment proposed. The amendment as it stands means that the house has voted for no principle but that it -has taken a chance on any one of three. Under those circumstances clearly three amendments are necessary. I shall be glad to accommodate the hon. member for Vancouver Centre if he wishes to strike out any two alternatives. We can then have a separate vote on the one remaining, and a separate vote on each alternative, if he so desires. But to do so there must be three amendments.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this house is not bound specifically to all of these three alternatives. This house, if it votes for this amendment, votes to send back Bill 19 to a committee of the whole house. Suppose the amendment carries. Then the committee of the whole is specifically empowered to consider not only section 19 to which I have previously moved an amendment, but also section 9, to which the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth has moved an amendment. The amendment I submit is completely in order for this reason, that the other evening we had an exactly similar amendment moved in the house and passed, and the point of order was not raised either by the Speaker or by anyone else.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is being raised now, though.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say that previously in this house I have seen precedents established on points of order. My right hon. leader moved an amendment to the marketing bill, Bill No. 51, the other day, and we sought in that amendment to refer Bill 51 back to committee of the whole to consider giving the committee the right to amend it in two particulars which were not related in the remotest degree. Is that not correct?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly we can do that.
The hon. gentleman has not caught the point. Which one of these three does the house adopt by accepting the amendment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Neither.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I say, and
therefore it is invalid. You might as well have twenty-three.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This
house if it passes the amendment authorizes the committee to consider the sections which are affected by these various amendments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It does not say that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If I am ruled out of order by Your Honour I will with pleasure accept the suggestion of the Prime Minister and leave out the two second alternatives in the amendment so that we can vote on a government owned and controlled institution. We took similar action the other day on the marketing bill. If Your Honour is going to rule against me I shall be glad to delete the word "either" and the two second alternatives.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In fairness to the hon.
gentleman and because of the fact that I

Bank of Canada-Point of Order
did not raise the point of order at the time because I had not the books beside me, I am quite willing if the house will agree that he should strike out the word "either" and any two of the three alternatives that he may choose to strike out.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Strike
out (b) and (c).


William Irvine: I object to the hon. gentleman having a chance to amend his out-oforder amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman is right.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Speaking to the point
of order, I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine). If the house is willing unanimously to adopt the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, I cannot see why he or those around him should take any exception to that action.


William Irvine: That is my point. If it
is going to be accepted unanimously by the house, I am quite willing.


Mr. MacINNIS:: As I understand the
point of order, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) has withdrawn his amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Angus MacInnis: He has withdrawn his
amendment in so far as it does not agree with the subamendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to speak
just one moment on the point of order. I did not realize that an hon. member had moved a subamendment. Therefore I do not think the house, even by consent, can make a change in the main amendment without the consent of the hon. gentleman who has moved the subamendment. He says he does not agree and therefore I submit that the amendment must be declared out of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The objection taken by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) is sound. Except by unanimous consent an amendment cannot be altered.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I move that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power so to amend it as to provide that the Bank of Canada shall be government owned and controlled.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As I understand it, the unanimous consent of the house has not been given to the alteration or the withdrawal of
the amendment. The amendment and the subamendment are both still before the house and, consequently, the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain) is not in order in moving a further amendment.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I understood that Your Honour had ruled them out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker has not yet ruled upon the point of order. The point of order is that you cannot have three alternatives, nor twenty-three nor thirty-three on an amendment to the third reading of a bill. If it is good for three it is good for fifty-three, sixty-three or one hundred and three. I ask the Speaker to rule that the amendment and the subamendment are out of order and then we can proceed with the motion for the third reading of the bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: On the objection taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) to the form of the amendment, I consider the amendment out of order. I consider it out of order on the further ground that it is a motion entailing the expenditure of public money. Such a motion can be considered by the house only on a day later than it is introduced and it must be introduced by a cabinet minister. For these two reasons I rule the amendment and subamendment out of order.


Pierre-François Casgrain: I move, seconded by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) that the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole with instructions that they have power so to amend it as to provide that the Bank of Canada shall be government owned and controlled.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that that amendment is out of order because, like the original amendment, it entails an expenditure of public money and is a violation of the terms of the British North America Act.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In connection with the ruling of Your Honour with respect to this amendment entailing the expenditure of public money, I respectfully submit that Your Honour is not correct. I submit that this amendment does not entail the expenditure of one single cent of public money. If the Bank of Canada was already set up and was functioning, if the capital had been subscribed and we were transferring that capital from a private institution to the public domain, then Your Honour's point would be well taken. Up to the present we have not spent a single cent of public money and by setting up public ownership, as recommended in the amendment of the hon. member for

Bank of Canada-Point of Order
Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain), we are not involving the expenditure of one single cent of public money. I submit in the strongest possible way that the amendment is in order and if Your Honour insists upon your ruling I shall be compelled to appeal.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not the reference before me at the moment, but I suggest that this bill was preceded by a resolution which provided for the setting up of the bank. I submit that this amendment would fall within that resolution which has been submitted to the house and carried.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As hon. members have not given me any reasons to induce me to change my ruling, the ruling is that the amendment is out of order. The Speaker having ruled that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr Casgrain) to the motion that Bill No. 19 be not read a third time is out of order, the hon. member appeals from that decision.


Mr. NEILL:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Thomas Cantley: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Cardin). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the decision of the Speaker.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. WILSON:: I was paired with the hon.
member for South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for London (Mr. White). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired
with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Toronto Northeast (Mr. Baker). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.
Bank oj Canada-Point oj Order


Mr. HEAPS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Rogers). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. NICHOLSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Uutremont (Mr. Mereier). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I was paired with the
hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Davies). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. ROSS:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Megantic (Mr. Roberge). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I was paired with the hon. member for South Huron (Mr. Golding). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. FOURNIER (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Three Rivers-St. Maurice (Mr. Bourgeois). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. DESROCHERS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.

Bank of Canada-Mr. Woodsworth


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. DUBUC (Translation):: I was paired with the 'hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri) (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. CHEVRIER (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's riding.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I beg to move the following amendment:
That the bill be not now read a third time but that it be referred back to the eomnjittee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend same so as to safeguard the sovereignty of parliament over Canada's financial policy.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no difficulty about that being out of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My recollection is that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has already spoken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have not yet spoken to the third reading of the bill. I know that some gentlemen on the government side suggest that it is out of order
anyway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to raise the question as to its being in order. The amendment does not direct the house to do any specific thing. On the third reading, as I pointed out a moment ago, it is desirable, nay, it is necessary and incumbent upon those who move an amendment, to do one of two things, either to negative the motion for third reading or to move that the bill be read this day six months hence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the resolution does ask the committee to do a very

specific thing, namely, to safeguard the sovereignty of the parliament of Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We say that is done.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That is a matter of judgment, but it does not affect the point of order. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) earlier in the discussion, when an attempt was made to move an amendment, had the following to say, as reported in Hansard of March 8, at page 1291:
Mr. Rhodes:	That is the only principle.
The point whether this bank should be publicly or privately owned as well as questions respecting the numerous other details incidental to the bill are matters of detail which can be dealt with by way of amendment in the regular course as we proceed in committee on banking and commerce, or in committee of the whole house, or upon motion on the third reading of the bill.
With that understanding we then postponed the amendment. Now we find apparently that there has come a change in the mind of the government and that the Minister of Finance was quite wrong and that no amendment can be made on the third reading of the bill, looking to the public ownership and control of the bank. I submit that it is a very serious matter if, on great general principles, we are not permitted to have any voice when it comes to the third reading of a bill such as this. I contend, with regard to this particular point of order, that there is a very specific thing which we ask that the committee should do. It is quite true the Prime Minister thinks it is not necessary; that is natural. Some of us think it is necessary, but it is a specific thing which we ask should be done, and I submit on a point of order that this motion is really in order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. gentleman move the adjournment of the debate, leaving the matter as it stands, in order that, with the consent of the house, I may move the resolution which we agreed would be presented some time before the house rose?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, Mr. Speaker;
I shall be glad to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MORNING SITTINGS FROM THURSDAY, JUNE 28 UNTIL END OF SESSION

Richard Bedford Bennett: With the consent of the house I

Customs Tariff
should like to revert to motions in order to move, seconded by Mr. Guthrie:
That on Thursday, the 28th instant, on Friday the 29th, on Saturday, the 30th, and every sitting day and Saturday thereafter until the end of the session, the house shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning, and that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock p.m., there shall be an intermission every day from one to three o'clock, p.m., and the order ot business and procedure shall be the same on Saturday as on Friday.
If that is along the lines of what we agreed to, I should like to move it, first reverting to motions in order that the procedure may be correct.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would ask the Prime Minister if he would have any objection to having the word "Monday" substituted for the word "Friday", so that the order of business on Saturday would be the same as on Monday?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For the purpose of
enabling the hon. gentleman to move his motion-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If it is necessary. I do not say that it will be.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking for the government, the government consents to the right hon. gentleman making any motion he desires to make, but somebody else might object and then he might be precluded; so it is better to substitute the word "Monday" for "Friday." Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would substitute the word "Monday" for "Friday" in the motion, so that the order of business on Saturday shall be the same as on Monday.
Motion as amended agreed to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What will be the first order of business to-morrow-this bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, this bill.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, June 28, 1934