1936-02-20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN -FRAN QOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) moved for leave to introduce a bill to repeal 24-25 George V (1934), chapter 25, an act respecting the bureau of translations.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. POULIOT:: The explanatory remarks will be brief and to the point. I leave this child on the doorstep of the government.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: It is not my intention to prevent discussion of this matter, which can be discussed in many other ways, but I must submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. gentleman is not in order in proposing a bill of this kind. This bill deals with government officials, salaries and the expenditure of money, and it is a well known rule of the house that such a bill can be introduced only by a member of the government after receiving the approval of the governor general. Another point that makes it a bill which it is not in order for a private member to introduce is the fact that its adoption would mean the transfer of authority under which appropriated money is to be spent. The salaries of translators have been voted with the estimates of the Secretary of State's department and have been included as such in the appropriation bill. If this bill should carry it would mean that the esti-12739-22$
mates would have to be transferred from one department to several other departments. For both these reasons I submit that this is a money bill that cannot prop.erly be introduced by a private member. I may say, however, speaking to the point, that full opportunity will be given the hon. gentleman and the house to discuss this matter in another form.


Jean-François Pouliot: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has said that this is a money bill. What are understood, in the standing orders of this house, by money bills, are bills that contemplate increased expenditure. This bill does not propose one cent more of expenditure; the salaries now paid to the translators will not be changed by this bill. But the control will be different. This is the main point; what we are fighting for is parliamentary control over the officers of this house. It seems most absurd that when, for instance, there are mistakes in the translation of public papers issued by this house, we have to go to a minister of the crown instead of to you, Mr. Speaker, to have the error corrected and the wrong redressed. On the other hand-always speaking to the point of order-I submit that a distinction should be made between a bill involving an increased expenditure of money and a bill that deals with the control of civil servants. In my humble view the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) was wrong when he said that this was a money bill. In fact, there is nothing of that kind contemplated in the bill, everything is left to the governor genera! in council. Personally I am opposed in principle to that form of legislation, but the bill was drafted in that way in order that that very thing should not be complained of. The greater the control we have over the translators the better we follow the general parliamentary rules in force not only here but in all democratic parliaments in the world. Therefore I submit to you that the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, although I regret to say so, is entirely wrong. This is not a money bill and it should be considered on its merits. What I said was not only for the benefit of my colleagues in this house but also for the benefit of the government, because the government is interested in having a better control over the translation work which is done here. I was not surprised at all to see an hon. gentleman on the other side of the house laughing when the matter was brought up, because he has shown a great ignorance of all parliamentary principles since I have been sitting here.


Mr. BENNETT:: Surely that is out of order.
Cririiinal Code-Fines


Mr. SPEAKER:: I think it is out of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Walter Edward Foster: .Are there any other members who would like to speak to the point of order?


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I do not imagine that I am in favour of the bill, but I should like to support the contention of the hon. member who seeks to introduce it. It seems to me that the house has a right to have the bill placed before it. We as members have no idea as to the terms of the bill. We cannot judge whether it is a money bill or not; in fact I do not know whether the Speaker has been given the bill and whether he is in a position to say that it is or is not a bill involving money. It seems to me that when we come to matters of policy, the principle ought to be generally accepted that the house itself should be the judge as to whether or not a bill should be introduced.


Walter Edward Foster: Does any other hon. member wish to speak to the point of order?
I will reserve my decision until another day.
Motion stands.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the criminal code (fines and penalties).
new. The bill follows the provisions of the law of England, 1935, 25-26 George V, chapter 46, known as money payments (justices procedure act).
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
wheat deliveries
Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Has the equalizing payment for the 1930 wheat deliveries been made?
2.	If not, why, and about what date are the arrangements for these (payments likely to be completed?


Mr. EULER:: With regard to the equalizing payments on wheat, reference to which is made in question No. 1, may I say that since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made an announcement with regard to the matter perhaps no further reply is necessary. As to the probable date when the payments will be made, it is obviously impossible to give a definite date since the payments cannot be made until after legislation has been passed, but I think I may assure my hon. friend that payments will be made promptly just as soon as the authority is given by parliament. I would therefore suggest that the question be dropped.
Question dropped.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The object of this bill is to provide that a magistrate or a judge who under the criminal code imposes a fine on a person may give the accused time to pay, or the opportunity to pay by instalments, after inquiring into the ability of the accused to pay. Owing to five years of depression many people on relief and out of work, or on part time, cannot pay their fines and have to go to gaol, many of them first offenders with families, and some returned soldiers, which is another way of imposing imprisonment for debt. The first section of the bill is partly new matter; all the other sections are entirely



NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING ACT

Mr. FERLAND:: 1.	Which schemes have been approved under the Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, and the Natural Products Marketing Amendment Act, 1935, and what are (a) their titles; (b) the dates of their publication in the Canada Gazette; (c) the dates of the adopted amendments, if any?
2.	How many convictions have been imposed at the instance of the local boards for violations of their orders?
3.	What is the total amount of fines collected?
4.	Which restrictions of imports and exports of natural products have been adopted by the governor in council, and what dates were they published in the Canada Gazette?
5.	Was any investigation made under Part 2 of the said act?
[Mr. Bennett.1

Questions
Mr, GARDINER:
1. Schemes approved under Natural Products Marketing Act, 1934, and Natural Products
Marketing Amending Act, 1935
British Columbia tree fruit marketing scheme.
(supplementary provincial scheme-July 19, 1935).
Fruit export marketing scheme	
British Columbia red cedar shingle export
scheme	
British Columbia dry salt herring and dry salt
salmon marketing scheme	
Flue-cured tobacco marketing scheme	
Milk marketing scheme of the lower mainland
of British Columbia	
Eastern Canada potato marketing scheme.. ..
Western Ontario bean marketing scheme.. .. British Columbia (interior) vegetable marketing scheme	
B.C. Coast vegetable marketing scheme.. ..
Canada jam marketing scheme	
British Columbia halibut marketing scheme.. British Columbia small fruits and rhubarb
marketing scheme	
B.C. hothouse tomato and cucumber marketing scheme	
Ontario cheese patrons marketing scheme.. ..
Processed berry marketing scheme	
Dairy products marketing equalization scheme. British Columbia sheep breeders marketing
scheme	
Nova Scotia apple marketing scheme	
Grand Manan smoked herring products scheme.
Burley tobacco marketing scheme	
Butter export stabilization scheme	
Date Gazetted	Date Amended
August 25, 1934	June 29, 1935 December 9, 1935
September 8, 1934	
October 16, 1934	
October 22, 1934	September 28, 1935
October 26, 1934	August 15, 1935
January 1, 1935 January 18, 1935	April 30, 1935 July 16, 1935 December 17, 1935
January 31, 1935	October 28, 1935
March 4, 1935 March 4, 1935 April 10, 1935 June 10, 1935	August 27, 1935
June 10, 1935	
June 10, 1935 June 25, 1935 June 29, 1935	
July 25, 1935	
August 12, 1935 August 15, 1935 August 15, 1935 September 3 1935 September 18, 1935	
2.	51.
3.	SI,010.
4.	Regulation prohibiting the export of hay and straw without a licence, or the export of any hay or straw in excess of the quantity permitted by licence. Published in Canada Gazette (extra) August 24, 1934.
5.	Nil.



MARKET GARDENING IN CANADA

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	In what counties of Canada is market gardening most highly developed?
2.	What is the approximate value of market gardening products in Canada?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	In 1930, the counties of Canada which had the greatest value of market gardening products were as follows:
In Ontario: York, Simcoe, Essex, Middlesex, Hastings, Grey, Waterloo, Huron.
In Quebec: Lac St-Jean, Beauce, Temis-couata, Bonaventure, Champlain.
In New Brunswick:	Westmorland.
In Prince Edward Island: Queens.
In Manitoba: Census divisions Nos. 2 and 5.
In Saskatchewan:	Census divisions Nos.
9 and 15.
In Alberta:	Census division No. 10.
In British Columbia: Census divisions Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
In Nova Scotia: Lunenburg.
2. In 1930, the value of market gardening products was $12,695,920.



SPINY LOBSTER TARIFF

Mr. KINLEY:: 1. What is the Canadian tariff on South African spiny lobster, so-called, which is known as a crayfish?
Questions

2.	What quantity and of what value were the importations into Canada of such spiny lobster during 1935?
3.	What is the quantity and value of such importations in 1936 to date?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1. Imported direct from the Union of South Africa or from a country enjoying the benefits of the British preferential tariff, into a sea, lake or river port of Canada, 17i per cent less a discount of ten per cent.
2 and 3. While there is no statistical classification item provided for this particular class of fish, an examination of all entries of imports from British South Africa recorded under the general item " Fish, prepared or preserved, n.o.p.," in which these fish are included shows the following imports of canned crayfish entered for consumption in Canada:
Pound Value
Calendar year, 1935	 5,610 $2,038
Jan. 1 to Feb. 20, 1936....	420	184



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF-OVERHEAD

Mr. FAIR:: How many cents of each dollar spent on relief in 1935 were used up in overhead?


Mr. ROGERS:: If the hon. member who
placed this question on the order paper is in the house, I would ask him to change its terms slightly. As it is now worded it asks for information which is not available in the Department of Labour. We do have information dealing with the proportion of cents in each dollar spent on direct relief, and I would suggest to him that the question might be framed in this way: how many cents of each dollar spent by the Dominion government on direct relief in 1935 were used up in overhead.


Robert Fair: That will be acceptable to
me.



VETERINARY SURGEONS-MANITOBA

Mr. MUTCH:: 1.	How many qualified veterinary surgeons are employed by the Department of Agriculture in the province of Manitoba?
2.	What are their names?
3.	When were they severally appointed?
4.	How many qualified veterinary surgeons are rated temporary employees, who are they and when were they severally appointed?
5.	Is it proposed to bring these temporarily employed veterinary surgeons under the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. GARDINER:: 

QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Was the Civil Service Commission requested to hold a competition in connection with the replacement of Mr. G. C. Anderson ns superintendent of mail contracts?
2.	If so, when will such competition be held, to whom is it open and what is the time limit for the filing of application forms?


PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT, 1935
Mr. STEWART:: 1.	What public works, consisting of buildings, harbour and river works, provided for in the main and supplementary estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1936, or by the supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935, have not been undertaken or been abandoned?
2.	What is the reason in each case for the failure to commence said works, or for the discontinuance of same?


PUBLIC BUILDINGS-PURCHASES OF COAL
Mr. STEWART:: 1.	How many tons of coal produced in *Canada were purchased by the Department of Public Works for use in public buildings in Canada during each of the years 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934 and 1935?
2.	How many tons of coal produced in the United States were purchased for use in the public buildings of Canada in each of the said years?
3.	How many tons of coal produced in Great Britain were purchased for the same purpose [DOT]during each of the said years?
4.	How much fuel oil was purchased for use in public buildings in Canada in each of the years above mentioned?
5.	How much coal under the above classifications was purchased by each of the other departments of the public service in each of the said years?



PENSION REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. C. G. MacNEIL (Vancouver North):: I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Power) with reference to order in council, P.C. 91, which was tabled by him last Friday. Is it the intention of the minister to bring this order in council under review by the house or a select committee of the house before it becomes operative, inasmuch as it appears that benefits previously awarded to former members of the forces are seriously restricted?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The hon. gentleman
was kind enough to give me notice of the question. As to whether it is the intention to submit the order in council to a committee of the house, it is rather difficult for me to reply at the moment because no committee has been set up, but I may say that it is the intention of the government to set up a committee on pensions and soldier problems. As to whether the order in council itself would be inoperative until such time as the committee has time to propose legislation, I regret

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Douglas
to say that I do not believe it has been either the custom or the usage of any government to submit administrative orders in council to committees or to 'the house. But if it is shown either in the house or in the committee that injustice has been done to any returned soldiers or to any class of returned soldier, there will be no difficulty whatsoever in amending the order in council to bring it in line with the requirements of the persons who are under the care of this department.



RETIRING ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Heaps:
Whereas there exists in Canada an acute unemployment situation:
And whereas, it is desirable that as many as possible be absorbed into the useful industrial life of the dominion;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government be requested to immediately introduce legislation granting adequate retiring allowances to all_ citizens over sixty years of age, thereby giving an opportunity to large numbers now unemployed to be reabsorbed into useful productive activity.
Mr. T. C. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: Mr. Speaker, I have no wish unnecessarily to prolong the debate on this resolution, first, because I would like to hear the views of the- Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) on this resolution-I believe that is what we are waiting for; second, because the next resolution on the order paper is one that I consider to be of great importance. When the house adjourned last night I was pointing out that some of the objections that have been raised against this proposal are absolutely unsound. I pointed out that the argument of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), in endeavouring to wave aside this entire resolution by labelling it state socialism, was 'beside the point. His own leader last year in a radio broadcast made a proposition which in principle was somewhat similar. When I made that statement I noticed the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) shaking his head. I have a great deal of admiration and respect for the right hon. gentleman; and so when he shakes his head I stop and ponder. Consequently I looked up the second of his radio broadcasts, and on page 16 I found these words:
There is another time in the worker's life which must not be forgotten; that time is when, because of old age, he is no longer able to work. As a citizen, he should have security.

It should be a normal and essential function of the state to see that its people, who have contributed to the productivity of the state, who have given their best to the support of the industrial machine, who have spent their vigorous manhood in labour, are not in want when their working days are over.
In the next sentence the prime minister of that time points out wherein he differs from the resolution. He says:
This system of insurance should be on the same social and economic principle as that of unemployment insurance, involving the recognition of thrift on the part of those who will provide for their old age. The present Old Age Pensions Act is unscientific and obsolete and must give way to something which will serve you better.
I do not read that because I wish to tie the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) up to this resolution but because I want to point out to the hon. member for Broadview that while in detail it is not the same, in principle it is the same; that it is simply beside the point to try to wave away this important matter by labelling the whole thing state socialism.
Then the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) tried to wave this proposal aside by attacking the underlying philosophy of the motion and saying that this was an age of scarcity rather than an age of abundance. I had understood, sir, that there were antediluvians who still believed in an age of scarcity, but I hardly expected to find them in the House of Commons. I am not prepared to go into a lengthy discussion of this matter because it is irrelevant, but in this day and age it is hardly necessary to point out to any group of individuals the fact that in every line of industry the power to produce has progressed tremendously even in the last ten years. The hon. member for Melfort based his assumption on a statement made by a well known Swedish economist, to the effect that in 1928 production and consumption were running very close together. But it should be remembered that he referred to effective consumption, and we know that effective consumption was possible only because of instalment buying and the mortgaging of the future; that even in 1928 it was very difficult to distribute sufficient purchasing power to consume the large quantities produced. But here is the remarkable fact, that even since 1928 we have gone a long way. In a recent radio speech the President of the United States pointed out that if we could return industry to its peak of 1928 there would still be in the United States six million men who would find no employment because their places had been taken by machines. In

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Douglas
other words we have progressed so far that in 1936 we are able to produce as much as we produced in 1928 without the services of six million men who were employed at that time.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: In Canada?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the United States, but the same principle applies here. In all the world to-day there are more than thirty million men who are unemployed, yet we are able to feed the people of the world and keep them up to some standard of living, which is adequate proof of the fact that we are producing far more than we produced a generation ago.
The hon. member for Melfort also attacks this resolution on the ground that the whole difficulty in Canada to-day is the fact that providence has not wept. After listening to a statement like that I think providence ought to weep. May I point out that providence wept in Ontario, providence wept in the British Isles and in France, Germany, Italy and Japan. Providence wept in other places, but in spite of that fact they had an economic crisis. If the entire problem that we are facing is due to the fact that we have had no crops and that this is an age of scarcity, then, Mr. Speaker, in Canada to-day we should have a shortage of wheat. Instead of that, however, the government is wrestling with a surplus of over 200,000,000 bushels, and if the crops had been normal for the last five years the surplus -would be nearer 800,000,000 bushels. Therefore I think the attack upon the underlying philosophy is simply an attempt to throw up a smoke screen in connection with this matter.
I do think, however, that the argument advanced by the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Deachman) is one about which we ought to think. It brings up the problem of finding money, and that is something that will interest the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning), as it ought to interest every member of this house. It is a remarkable thing that whenever one brings up legislation involving the welfare and happiness of the people of Canada, someone wants to know where the money is coming from, yet in this country we find money for a great many other things. In the Dominion of Canada we have a governmental service and governmental machinery that is preponderantly heavy. One prominent United States social scientist said to me in Chicago university some time ago, "In Canada you have enough government machinery to run Canada and the United States put together." In addition we have innumerable commissions, a great many of which-or so it would seem to the
public at least-are designed to provide jobs for people who are supposed to deserve their reward. It is costing the people of Canada millions of dollars every year to provide comfortable pasturage for worn out political war horses who have entered upon their reward. We also have a judicial system that has become heavy and complex, that overlaps and is expensive, yet no one asks where the money is to come from for that. In Canada we pay millions upon millions of dollars in interest on bonds. Much of that money was invested when money was cheap, but the interest is being collected to-day when money is dear, when the purchasing power of that money is much greater. Yet we keep on paying those interest charges and no one asks where the money is to come from. The other day we voted an estimate of almost $2,000,000 to look after the health of the cattle of Canada. No one asked where the money was coming from, but when we come to talk about looking after the old people someone wants to know where we are to get the money.
I want to suggest that in my estimation there are three ways by which money could be secured for this purpose. On looking over the past records I find that in 1931 some
63,000	people were receiving old age pensions, costing the country about $14,000,000. In 1935 that number had increased to 82,000 persons, which cost the country some $16,000,000. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a paltry sum compared to the service that is rendered, and compared to the huge sums of money that we spend elsewhere for services that are far less valuable to the people of Canada. I submit that we might find money first of all by curtailing certain expenditures, certain appointments and certain commissions; by reshaping our whole governmental policy in order to cut down duplication; by refunding or reconverting some of our loans at lower interest rates, and collecting income tax on government bonds. I believe in these ways sufficient money could be raised to meet the cost of this undertaking. It might even be possible that the Minister of Finance would be prepared to go so far as to institute, through the Bank of Canada, a national credit fund by which we would be prepared to issue credit against the security of the Dominion of Canada. If it is possible for the government to issue credit against government bonds deposited by financial institutions it should be possible for the government of Canada to issue its own credit against the security of the people of Canada. Of course the cry im-
Retiring Allowances-Mr. Douglas

mediately is "inflation," yet I need hardly remind hon. members that the most orthodox economists admit that the quantity theory of money shows that inflation takes place only when money is issued in excess of goods produced. For the last five years we have had deflation, very rapid deflation, the withdrawal of currency and credit coincident with increase of goods produced, the result being that the relationship between money and goods is out of balance. It would be possible to-day to set up a very large national credit account without in any way upsetting the proper relationship between currency, credit and goods produced.
I ask, therefore, that the house give to this resolution its most urgent attention. We support it not because we wish to place the government on the spot, not because we wish to stick on this detail or that, but because we know that all across Canada to-day there are thousands of men who have been replaced by younger men, salesmen, for instance, who five years ago were receiving fair incomes but whose places have been taken by young university graduates. Two months ago I stood in a foundry in Winnipeg among men who work beside a great electric furnace with a temperature of 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit, men who have served their day and generation, and who at sixty years of age are prematurely worn out. We heard of one man who after thirty-four years of service was told he was no longer required. His work had never been steady; it had been seasonal; every winter some men were laid off for at least part of the time. They had never been able to lay aside any large amount of money, and in the case of this man the result was that it meant resorting to public charity for himself and his wife. I ask hon. members most earnestly to give this resolution sober and thoughtful consideration, keeping in mind the men and women to whom Canada owes a debt. Let us do our best to see their need and meet their problem.


Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, first let me extend to you my humble congratulations on your elevation to your present position. The first time I haul the opportunity of observing the deliberations of the House of Commons it was under the speakership of the Hon. Mr. Lemieux, and at that time I was filled with admiration at the wonderful way in which he presided over the house. Since the opening of this parliament I have watched the manner in which you, sir, have presided over our deliberations, and in my opinion you have attained fully

to the ideal and worthily followed the traditions honoured in this house by the Hon. Mr. Lemieux.
I do not need to tell hon. members, especially those who have sat in this house before and have gone through the experience of rising in this chamber for the first time, how nervous I feel and with what diffidence, Mr. Speaker, I address the house through you. As I look back over Canadian history and consider the great men who have sat in this House of Commons since 1867; as I have read from time to time the speeches of those who led both the great historic parties from confederation to recent times, and as I consider those who to-day are leading all parties in this house, their patriotism, their devotion to public affairs, I am satisfied that never before have we had men more capable and more devoted to the best interests of the people. So it is with diffidence and humility and deference that I rise to advance any ideas before this house. Each of us, however, has an obligation to express his opinions and to voice the wishes of the constituents by whom he was sent here.
As I consider this motion I am satisfied I should not be doing my duty to my constituents did I not express in this house my unqualified support of the resolution-with this exception, that it calls for immediate legislative action. I quite realize, sir, that the question where the money is to come from cannot be left out of consideration. The government must have time to adopt policies which will enable them to provide the money before we can expect them to bring in such legislation. That is only responsible government. I will deal with that in a moment, but here I should like to say that as far as old age pensions are concerned, if there is anything that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has done that above all else has earned the grateful thanks of large numbers of people it is the legislation that he introduced providing for old age .pensions. Furthermore, the country has not overlooked those who supported that legislation, no matter in what part of the house they sat. Many old people have had the evening of their lives made happier by their action, and above all by the leadership in that regard of the Prime Minister. When the time comes that the Prime Minister finishes his work, one of the outstanding things for which he will be remembered in history will be the fact that he took one of the first steps to make things a little more economically secure for people who were unable to look after themselves.

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Tucker
Something was said in the course of this debate of which I desire to express my disapproval. It was suggested that one reason the party of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was not successful in the last election was that he expressed the idea that something of this sort should be done in Canada, that the people of Canada expressed their dissent from that view by not returning him to power. I suggest that the Conservative party was defeated not because he expressed that idea, but for other reasons, and in spite of his having taken that stand. I believe that the majority of the people of Canada expect this parliament to take steps to restore economic security to people who are unable to look after themselves owing to economic conditions over which they have no control.
As I see it, this resolution has to do with three types of people. First there are the old people between sixty and seventy who by reason of being physically unfit cannot get a job to enable them to look after themselves. I submit it is our duty to look after those who are unable to take care of themselves. If there is one thing that Christian society has recognized as its paramount duty ever since there has been Christian society it is that of looking after those who cannot look after themselves. I submit that the time is coming nearer and nearer when we shall refuse to leave those people to be looked after by charity, and shall recognize that we must use the resources of the state to care for them. That applies to returned soldiers who are now unable to eam a living. It certainly applies to those who are afflicted with blindness and cannot provide for themselves. As far as I am concerned I shall not be satisfied if before its life is over this parliament shall not have taken some real steps that will cause it to go down in history as having done more to this end than any parliament that has preceded it.
There is another category of people to whom the resolution would apply, namely those doing casual work, people who are eking out some kind of existence by competing in a precarious sort of way in the labour market, people who are preventing younger men and women from obtaining work. Although we do not know just what proportion of the total they constitute, we do know that many of them would gladly accept $20 a month rather than have to go on living partly through the charity of friends and partly through smashing down wages to a level at which a young man cannot possibly work and earn a living for himself and family. When we extend to those people the benefits of a measure such as the one before us, we are achieving two objects: first, we are looking
after people who have served the state faithfully and well for a period of possibly forty years; and second, we are furnishing a large measure of employment.
As in a humble sort of way I have studied public affairs for many years and have read about people who have been fortunate enough to obtain government positions, people who, having served the government for a certain number of years, eventually have arrived at the age of superannuation, and as I read about ordinary government employees being superannuated at $3,000 a year, my mind goes back to the pioneers who settled the country. I think of the people, for example, who went out to western Canada, men who, taking their wives with them, settled miles and miles away from medical assistance. They took the very lives of their children in their hands when they went to those areas. They worked and slaved for years and years. They did the work of the nation, because they were growing the food of the nation. When I consider that we say to those people that we cannot give them even $20 a month but that we can give $200 or $300 a month to people who have been more fortunate because they have secured government jobs, and did not have to face those vicissitudes, I am convinced that it is not fair. In doing that I submit we are giving less than justice to the people who settled the country, and endured great dangers and privations in doing so. We must do something more than simply dismiss their claim; we cannot be content with saying that we have not the money.
There is another category of people who would be affected, namely those between the years of sixty and seventy who are well able to make a living for themselves, who have no desire for this legislation, and whom, I understand, the legislation as explained by the proposer would not affect. With considerable hesitation I suggest that there is growing up in Canada among our young people a feeling that the older people are prepared to hang on to their jobs, even when they have reached eighty years, thereby keeping their grandchildren on the bread line, and in a position where they cannot get married and establish homes for themselves. In other words they are beginning to feel that their fathers and grandfathers are not treating them as if they were of their own flesh and blood. As the average longevity is increasing, due to the advance of medical science, we must give consideration to this problem. If a man who has reached the age of seventy-five years and has made a real contribution to the society of his day and age continues to hold his position for another ten years, he is thereby

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Tucker
depriving some other man of the dearest thing in the world, namely the chance to make his contribution to his day and age. As the resolution does not suggest any solution for this condition I say we should do something about it. One could not reach any conclusion in the matter without first giving it a great deal of serious thought and consideration. It is a fact however that the circumstance I have indicated is in the minds of our young people.
One now comes to a consideration of the cost of a pension scheme. According to the Canada Year Book there are 525,731 males and females in Canada between the ages of sixty and seventy. Assuming half those people were paid $20 a month, the cost in round figures would amount to $63,000,000. Suppose half the applicants for pension were able to compete on the labour market-and that is putting it at a very high figure-and that that half were given a pension, thereby leaving only a half of the total number to deprive others of work, we would provide jobs for 131,000 young people.
As the relief camp at Dundum is in the constituency of Rosthern, which I have the honour to represent in this house, I am keenly interested in the young men in the relief camps. I realize that I represent those boys at Dundum camp; I have visited them, and believe I know something of the attitude of the young people in Canada. I know what they expect; I believe they expect some real, wholesale measure of relief, and they will not be satisfied with any nibbling. They want jobs-lots of jobs. As I have indicated, the measure before us could be made to provide jobs for 131,000 young people. That would be worth while, and the people of Canada would be in a position to say, " Well, at least this parliament is doing something to justify its existence; they are not talking, and doing nothing else."
I do not intend to discuss the cost at great length, but I shall lay only a few facts before hon. members for their careful consideration. Although the facts I am about to detail are not new, I feel it my duty to state them. I do so without a chip on my shoulder; I do it in all humility and for the sake of the future of Canada.
First, I hear the statement on every hand that our public debt is due to the war. That is a popular suggestion. My figures, which I suggest are reliable and worthy of consideration, are taken from the report of the royal commission on banking and currency which sat in 1933 and reported to this chamber. According to the report I find that in 1914 the total debt in Canada, dominion,

provincial, municipal and public corporate debt-that is, the debt of us as a people, not including our private debts-was $2,232,000,000. In 1919 it had risen to $3,749,000,000, an increase of approximately $1,500,000,000. I was surprised, however, when I read that in 1929 the debt had risen to $7,445,000,000. In other words during a period of real prosperity in the ten years between 1919 and 1929 it had increased to twice as much as it had been immediately following the war.' What have those people to say who urge that our debt is due to the war. I find that by 1932 the debt had risen to $8,652,000,000. What does that mean? It simply means that from 1919 to 1932 the public debt of this country increased by more than one million dollars a day. And that was happening all over the world. We are told that that debt increased because people were saving up money and lending it out. I would like to know where the wealthy people are in Canada who have been saving a million dollars a day to lend to the government outside of what they lend to private corporations. I shall show, Mr. Speaker, that when the banks lend money they do not lend solely the savings of the people. It is true they lend the savings of the people, but they lend also credit which they themselves create.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Surely the hon. member must be wrong, because hon. members in the southeast corner are applauding him.


Walter Adam Tucker: 
Mr. DUNNING:: No, it just isn't so.


Walter Adam Tucker: I have the greatest respect for the Minister of Finance, but I have read this report with what intelligence has been given me, and I have given the house what I have found in this report. If the Minister of Finance or anybody else can prove that it is not so, I shall be right there listening with both my ears wide open to hear the explanation. The fact is that, according to this report, the banks borrowed from the Minister of Finance $48,000,000, and they can lend out nine times the increase in their cash reserves. Is there anything wrong with that? If they lend out nine times any increase in their cash reserves-and remember when they got that $48,000,000 from the Minister of Finance they put it in their cash reserves-then I fail to see how it can be otherwise than as I have stated; for the banks can lend several times the amount of their cash reserves, or they can buy bonds with the money. If I am wrong I hope the Minister of Finance, who is a good friend of mine, will enlighten me, but in the meantime I adhere to my view that that is exactly what happens.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot understand why there are so few banks in Canada if the making of money is so easy as that. Perhaps my hon. friend will give a little attention to that phase of it.

Retiring Allowances

Mr. Tucker


Walter Adam Tucker: I have, and I find that the banks in the past made ridiculous loans to people who never could repay them. In that way the banks have thrown away millions of dollars; they have put up buildings such as no other industry has been able to build; they have made twenty per cent on the amount of their original invested capital every year of this depression, when everyone else has gone in the hole, and after concealing every profit they possibly could. That is my answer to the Minister of Finance.


Charles Avery Dunning: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to submit to him that that is not an answer? The question I ask is, why in the world are there not more banks if it is so very profitable a business, as my hon. friend suggests.


Walter Adam Tucker: My answer is this. I am not sure, but I believe it takes $500,000 to start a chartered bank, and there are not many people who can get together $500,000. I know it could not be done in western Canada, if they got together all the farmers in the west. I hope the day will come when the great cooperative enterprises of western Canada will have their own bank and share to some extent in these profits. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that you and the house will pardon me if I speak with rather more heat than I should. I am a new member, and I must ask you to overlook my over-anxiety, if I may put it that way, to place my views before the house. I do so in all humility, in spite of appearances to the contrary, and I am ready to hear any correction which I think is due.
Now if it is all right for the Bank of Montreal to take government bonds, if it is all right for the banks to take $48,000,000 worth of government bonds and obtain new money against those bonds, then it should be all right for the Bank of Canada to advance whatever money this country needs against dominion, municipal and provincial government bonds. To-day, as I understand the Bank of Canada Act, the Bank of Canada will give credit in its books, dollar for dollar, against dominion government bonds. What should be done when the time comes that this country needs more credit and there has not been enough credit saved up to finance the government, as happened during the war? The credit of the country was extended and extended. Suppose we need to borrow some money; what happens? Suppose there is not enough saved up-and there will not be enough saved up to finance us if we continue the way we are going. We shall have to go through this process. The banks will want to buy some dominion government bonds. They

will take some of their present bonds to the Bank of Canada and get credit against those bonds, dollar for dollar; and on the strength of that credit they will be able to turn round and buy nine times as many bonds as they deposited in the first place. What has happened? We have used our credit and in effect we are paying interest on it at the rate of probably 30 per cent.
Is it any wonder that we have no money to take care of old people? Is it any wonder we have no money to look after the unemployed? Hon. members of this house will have to consider this question: Are they going to sacrifice the future development of this country, are they going to sacrifice the unemployed, the old and the sick, are they going to neglect to do the things which a civilized country ought to do, in order to be able to pay interest on a basis such as that? That is the question that must be settled. If the present financial system is cramping us, if it has this country in a strait jacket, which is more important-the financial system or the people? I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is up to this parliament to remove that financial strait jacket; it is the duty of this parliament to explore new avenues. I know that there are some people-the Minister of Finance is in that class-who takes the attitude that the suggestion I make is not feasible. Well, I say to him, let us have a trial of it. The present system is not working so satisfactorily that everyone should be ready to die fighting for it, and if some other method is advanced by great thinkers, why can we not at least have a trial of it? And if it works, let us extend it; if it does not work we can abandon it.
In that connection I would remind the house of what was done by the government led by the leader of the opposition; we have not forgotten it. The leader of the opposition will probably find fault with the way in which I am putting it, but in essence this is what was done. They took to the banks $35,000,000 worth of treasury bills of this country, $35,000,000 of obligations of this country, bearing interest at, I believe, 4 per cent. They said to the banks, "We want you to advance us $35,000,000 worth of credit against these obligations of ours, and you shall take these obligations to the Minister of Finance and he will issue against them $35,000,000 worth of new money on which he will charge you 3 per cent." In other words, we borrowed in that way $35,000,000 worth of credit which cost us only one per cent, and I submit that it should not have cost us a cent if we had set up our own central bank and financed that business for ourselves.

Retiring Allowances-Miss Macphail
Let me say this to my confreres, the members of the Liberal party-because I am a Liberal-I believe that liberalism has the future of this country in its hands, and if liberalism does not meet this problem, if it does not solve it, the people in their desperation may do we know not what. I venture to stand in my place to-day and make these suggestions as a Liberal, because our great leader has taken the attitude that people of all shades of opinion will be welcome within the ranks of the Liberal party; and if we can persuade the majority of the people in that party that our views are right, then they will adopt those views. I suggest-and I think I am right in this-that I have a better chance of persuading my friends of the Liberal party that these views are right than my friends down there to the left have. They may be better speakers than I am, they may be more able in their presentation of a case, but I know that in the hearts of my fellow members of the Liberal party, from the Minister of Finance down, there is after all a wish that we should be able to get together on this question and in some way meet the views of those for whom I, one of the humblest members of the Liberal party, venture to speak. I am sure there is more of a wish to do this than if I were fighting outside that party. That is why I stand here to-day, without apology, advancing these views as a member of the great Liberal party of this country.
As regards the expansion of credit, some people seem to think that if you work through the banks it is not inflation, but that if the country did it through its own banking institution it would be. I could read excerpts from both these reports which indicate this, that when the banks create credit and lend it against government bonds or deposits available to be checked out, they are creating the equivalent of currency just as much as if they had printed it, because more than ninety per cent of the business of this country to-day is done by cheques on deposit accounts. In other words we turn over to the banks ninety per cent of the control over the purchasing power of this country. They have the right to say how much money the people shall have to purchase with. If the banks do it, it is just as much inflation as though the government turned on the printing presses-just as much and no more. In that connection I would like to read from the Financial World of New York one or two paragraphs, which I found in the Magazine Digest, and which illustrate better than any words of mine what I would like to say:
In a democratic capitalistic country like the United States some 90 per cent of the total
business is done through the medium of net demand deposits in banks. Actual currency is used to but a moderate degree. Therefore, if there is to be a great recovery movement, there is required as a base (1) a large volume of net demand deposits and (2) the will to use them.
In times past great changes in the volume of net demand deposits have been due to expansion and contraction of bank credit. In other words, during periods of rising optimum banks have been prone to expand loans and with each loan expansion create a deposit. In this instance, however, we are witnessing the greatest and fastest expansion in net demand deposits in the history of this country with practically no contribution from the banks.
I would like hon. members to note this:
The 1919 boom was financed with a peak of less than 14 billion dollars of net demand deposits. These dropped to around 10 billion dollars in the sprinsr of 1933. On October 30, 1935, they totalled $16,657,000,000.
That is a rise from the peak of over two billion dollars.


Walter Edward Foster: Order. I am very sorry
to interrupt the hon. member, but he has exhausted his time.
Miss AGNES C. MAOPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): I wish to congratulate the new member from Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) who has just taken his seat. I am not sure that he knows how courageous he has been, but I venture to say that if he keeps it up, he will. I am beginning to think that if a majority of the Liberals sitting in the northeast corner share his views, the thorn in the flesh which the southeast corner has been to the government will be nothing compared with the thorn in the flesh that the northeast corner is going to be. It is very encouraging to hear a member within the Liberal party who takes at their face value the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that all kinds of people are welcome in the Liberal party and that that party is to be the fold for all shades of liberalism. If that is so. and there are many hon. members like the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, this government may be just what we have been looking for. I am waiting to be convinced.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why spoil it?


Miss MACPHAIL:: I am afraid hon. members might take me seriouslju The hon. member for Rosthem gave the Prime Minister today all the praise for the present old age pension bill. I was in the house in 1926 when an old age pension bill was passed, and if I understand that situation aright, the present and then member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) really was the man who got old age pensions. At that time the government needed votes, and they paid a high price.

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Wilton
I wish to say only a few things about the resolution proposed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps). First, I think that everyone in this house realizes that it is very difficult in these days to save enough to provide for adequate care in old age. There are two or three reasons for this difficulty. Wages are low, as are prices to the primary producers, and the savings which people have made are bringing in little at present rates of interest. It is almost impossible foT people to put aside enough out of wages or out of the sale of primary products to provide for their old age. Undoubtedly every member of this house knows from his own correspondence that the most difficult time for people of small means is the period between sixty-five and seventy years. In this highly competitive age, this age of machinery, it is almost impossible- one might eliminate the word almost-for a man or a woman out of employment at sixty-five to find work again or even to retain a place in the workaday world; he is almost sure to be retired before that time. So that while we may not do anything about pensions at sixty for the moment, we are going to have to do it before veTy long. As one sits for some time in this place one gets to know that changes come gradually, and it is not likely that we shall secure a pension law for people of sixty until we have got one for those at sixty-five. It will be a gradual process, but undoubtedly as time goes on the age limit for pensions will be lowered.
As I listened to the excellent speech of the previous speaker I thought of this thing we call inflation. It always seems so odd to me that if a government does anything to put more currency into circulation it is inflation, but if the banks do anything about getting more money into circulation, that is prosperity; anyway it is never inflation.
I want to emphasize the great need of doing something for two groups of people; one the blind, and the other those who are incurable invalids. There are not many countries that have done nothing about invalids; yet I know, and I am sure every member of this house knows, of many people who have been bedridden for many years, who have no sort of income, and no provision is made for them. So that while the matter is not, strictly speaking, included under this resolution, the house ought to set itself seriously to the task of providing for that group. I should like to see provision made at this session, certainly in this parliament, for pensions for the blind and for those who are invalids. We almost got old age pensions for the blind reduced last year to the age of forty. A Conservative

member, Doctor Cotnam, introduced a resolution asking that that should be done. The number of blind in Canada, as registered in the Canadian National Institute for the Blind, is 6,543. I have never felt very comfortable about the fact that we as a country have not been able to do anything towards taking care of our blind fellow citizens. I think that we as a parliament and as a country ought to be ashamed to say that we cannot afford to take care of the blind when they need care. The same might well be said of those persons who are invalids, incurably ill and unable ever again to earn for themselves. Surely both the blind and those who are ill and suffering pain are bearing enough without being required to worry and fret for lack of the little consolation and comfort that they would have if their bread and butter and their shelter were secure for them. One can get very easily-I hold one in my hand-a fist of what has been done for the blind in other countries. I am not going to take many of the countries-


Charles Avery Dunning: May I be permitted to
interrupt? There is a resolution on the order paper dealing specifically with the blind. I know my hon. friend will not take long, but I am quite sure if she proceeds to deal with this question someone else will think he has the same right.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: Quite so; it does not
really come under this resolution, so I will leave it at that point.
Everyone is worrying as to where the money is to come from with which to extend the idea of pensions. I do not believe pensions will be given at the age of sixty at the present time, but people worry where the money is to come from in connection with any extension of pensions. I have always had a couple of ideas as to where money could be obtained, not a great deal but still certain sums. In the estimates at page 24 you will find two items I should like to see struck out. One is an amount of $368,400 for the Royal Military College and the other is $150,000 for cadet services. You might be able to get something out of the nonpermanent active militia also. Then there are a great many other things which could be done away with or reduced. There, however, are two concrete suggestions as to where money could be obtained, and that would be sufficient to extend pensions to those who are invalids, at any rate, whether or not we went any further than that.


Mr. H. E. WILTON (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is a safe assumption that every member of this house is heartily in sympathy with any movement or any

Retiring Allowances-Mrs. Black
legislation which might help the man or woman who is in need. I think that is a foregone conclusion. I also think, however, that it is a good thing for Canada that we who are so frequently referred to as that small minority are sitting between the Amoses and the Andys. After listening to the addresses yesterday and to-day in connection with this resolution I am reminded of those radio broadcasts in which Amos and Andy talk about seven million dollars, ten million dollars, forty billion dollars and so on. One would almost think we could just reach up in the air and grab off money.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where does it come
from?


Herbert Earl Wilton: It is hard to say. I sympathize	sincerely	with	the	Minister ofFinance	(Mr. Dunning),	who	must realizethat he is in the presence of a great deal of superior ability in the matter of financing the country. As I said a moment ago we are all in sympathy with anything that will help the men and	women	who	are in need;that is a natural	thing,	but	after all the
question of financing these propositions is important, though some of the speakers have referred to the financial end of it as a mere trifling thing. It has been suggested that we float further loans or that we do something to increase our credit. Credits have been widely responsible for much of the financial problems existing in this country to-day. Speaking from the point of view of the municipalities I believe it would have been better for many of them if they had not been allowed the extension of credits they have enjoyed during the 1 ast few years, when many of them spent money like drunken sailors.
There is another angle to this matter, aside from the question of helping those between sixty and seventy years of age. In connection with all social legislation a certain percentage of the cost goes back to the municipalities, the mban centres and the counties. Everyone knows as well as I know that at the present time every municipality throughout Canada is taxed to the very limit. If that taxation is further added to it means a greater burden on the man who is trying to pay for his house so that he may have a place to call home. It is all very well to talk about doing these things and to put to one side the real argument as to where we are going to get the money. The only answer we have had to that question is, float more loans, sell more bonds and debentures, raise the tax rates in the municipalities so that 12739-23
home owners will not be able to pay their taxes and will be forced out. This thing, while good on its face, in my opinion will have a boomerang effect that will do more harm to home property owners than the good it will do those between sixty and seventy years of age.
I want to repeat, and I do not want to be misunderstood, that I am always heartily in favour of anything that can be done to help the men and women who need help, but I do not believe in doing that in such a way that it will react to the detriment of a larger number of people in some other sphere of life.
I am not going to take up more of your time on this question, Mr. Speaker. I notice that most of the speakers take their full forty minutes. I want to put myself on record now: if I am ever heard speaking in this house for more than fifteen minutes I hope someone will ring the bell.


Mrs. MARTHA LOUISE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say just a few words in behalf of the older generation in the Yukon? There an allowance of $20 a month is given by the federal government to men when they are absolutely unable to work, and that allowance is not limited to men of any particular age. I think all hon. members will agree when I say that men who went to that country in 1896, 1897 and 1898, who have worked out when the thermometer was 60, 70, and even 75 degrees below zero, and who have lived on the food on which they had to live in those days, have pretty well exhausted their physical endurance. If it is within the power of this government to make that allowance to men in the Yukon at the age of sixty, or even sixty-five, it would save these old timers a great deal of the humiliation they must endure when they apply time after time for a little help. That help is often given them, but at other times the commissioner has to say, "My hands are empty; I have nothing to give." We in the Yukon will all appreciate it if the minister is able to give this matter favourable consideration.


Mr. E. J. POOLE (Red Deer):: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak for the first time in the House of Commons. I have been rather struck with the procedure followed here, the things that are done and the things not done. It appears that every question brought up on the floor of this house revolves around one outstanding point, and that until such time as we can get beyond the framework of the present financial system it is

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Poole
useless to speak of extending social services; for unfortunately we have uplifted the question of finance and have submerged human rights.
I have listened with some interest to the discussion of unemployment relief. I can quite appreciate why many hon. members may not understand the depth of the poverty that exists in this country, because it is seldom one sees poverty on parliament hill. But if you go into the highways and byways of the west you will find to-day both old and young living in poverty, not because they are old, not because they are inefficient, but because governments refuse to recognize their responsibility by doing away with financial monopoly. Why should there be any debate on the question of old age pensions? Is there any man who has scratched below the economic surface who does not recognize that there are thousands of people who are physically and mentally below par and cannot be absorbed into the industrial life of the country because the field is narrowing and industry is choosing only the best? It is the duty of the government to make available the natural resources of the nation to aid those who have passed the age of sixty years. But again we are told, "It cannot be done; we have not the money and we cannot tax," and the question is asked over and over, "Where is the money to come from"? I believe that the members in this corner of the house can well answer that question. I know there are those in this house who smile at the new economics, who have grown up with the traditional outlook, but if you want to know where the money is to come from to do these things, the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) gave the answer when he said: You can make it just the same as the bankers make it. But unfortunately most hon. members in this house do not understand the functions of money. If the people of Canada understood the functions of money, its purpose and how it is brought into being, I am convinced that this monetary system would have been changed long ago. I have in mind the message of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) on the night of the election; it carries some hope. He said:
In the new era which dawns to-day the struggle for the rights of the people will, in the realm of economic liberty and security, be carried on as never before. Poverty and adversity, want and' misery, are the enemies which Liberalism will seek to banish from our land.
But "where is the money coming from"? The first duty of this government is to take from those who have the control of money and place it back in the hands of the state,

and to provide, not only for people who have reached sixty years of age but for every human being in the Dominion of Canada, economic security. Then hon. members may ask: What will you base your money on? Exactly the same as the bankers base theirs on; first, the natural resources of the nation; second, the ability of the people to produce, and third, the natural demand for goods for consumption. The only purpose of money is to distribute goods.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear-exchange.


Eric Joseph Poole: Exchange is the purpose. But to-day people get it only through wages, salaries and dividends, and therefore the total purchasing power of the nation does not at any time equal the total price values. The situation is aggravated by machinery which produces more goods with less manual labour and so displaces wages, salaries and dividends, with the result that as the nation produces more goods people become more and more poverty stricken, because wages, salaries and dividends are becoming less.
Turn again to the west. When we speak of the conditions of the producers there we are told that we must expand markets for their produce. Let me say again to this government that if they are depending for the future prosperity of this country upon expanding export markets on the same basis as in the days that are gone, prosperity will never come, The problem is internal and it is a financial one. The only purpose of an export market is to receive in exchange for goods which we cannot consume at home such goods as we cannot well produce in Canada. So we see as time goes on more men no longer needed in the industrial field. We have old men, men who have given their best to this country; yet when they say: Give us a pension, give us at least a pittance, some kind of security, they are told: No, it cannot be done; the money must come first-do not tax anyone else. But I say to you that what applies to the old of this country applies also to the youth of this country. Why do we measure everything in dollars and cents? There is a moral cost which this country will some day pay and pay in full.
I do not intend to speak at any length now because at some future time I intend to deal with these questions on an economic basis. This is not a matter to be dealt with merely on compassionate grounds; for I know that within the next four or five years, during the life of this government, they are going to face a crisis such as was never before faced in this country, and these things which we are advocating will be thrust upon them

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Young
or they will go to the wall. I say to the hon. member for Rosthem: I appreciate what he said; I think I understand his philosophy; I know he is sound, and if liberalism does not carry out the things for which hon. gentlemen on the government side were elected, my hon. friend will find lots of room in this corner, because we shall be the next government. We are here on the basis of co-operation, of course; we are here to help all we can. You may express all the sympathy in the world, you may shed many crocodile tears, but that will not feed one man or one woman in Canada. It costs money to feed people. You have the power to extract it. The first duty of this government is to feed its old people; that is the first step to greater things that must come later.
Mr. A. MacG. YOUNG (Saskatoon): It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to get up in the clouds about theories of finance and banking practice; I merely want to see if I can catch the spirit of this resolution and say a word or two from that point of view. I was not backward in saying on the public platform before I came here that I believe the age at which the old age pension now begins might reasonably be lowered, and I say that here. I believe the present age limit of seventy might be reasonably lowered to sixty-five, and I make that suggestion to the government. I am one who believes that we can find a way of financing a proper practice or principle; I believe we have been a good deal up in the clouds with respect to many of these questions.
As the resolution stands I do not believe I could give it my support. For instance, I see the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) in his seat; under the terms of the resolution he would be retired and would receive some sort of compensating allowance for his compulsory retirement. I do not believe the right hon. gentleman would require that. The resolution goes so far as to say that all persons would be retired at the age of sixty, thereafter receiving some sort of compensation. That may not have been the spirit of the. resolution, but I believe I have correctly indicated the wording of it, and for that reason I do not think hon. members could support it as it is drafted.
I believe the principle of giving old age pensions is a proper one, and as a member of the House of Commons at the time the bill was passed I was delighted to support that principle. I cannot agree with the hon. member who spoke a few moments ago, but is not 12739-23J
now in the chamber, in his statement that the principle of old age pensions was introduced by a private member from his corner of the house, because I do not believe they were in power at that time. Further, I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member say that that was the price we had to pay in order to gain their support. I have never put them down to a level quite as low as that, namely to a point where they could be purchased. I believe they supported the bill because they believed in the principle of it, the same as the Liberal government introducing the measure believed in its principle. I believed in it then and believe in it to-day. The age limit set at that time was seventy years, and under -the circumstances I believe it was the best we could do. Since that time I have met many men and women, and from talking with them I have learned their problems and their difficulties. From this experience I have come to the conclusion that with a great measure of justice we could lower the age limit from seventy years to sixty-five. Perhaps not this year, but I hope not later than next year or at least before this parliament dissolves, the government will have-the affairs of Canada in such satisfactory-shape, not simply by lowering the age limit: to sixty or sixty-five years but by the introduction of proper policies and by proper administration, that conditions will be immeasurably more prosperous than they have been. I believe we will be so prosperous that we will not be worrying about where the money will come from to give those older people that pittance to which, in my humble judgment, they are justly entitled.
I commend to the government the suggestion that they look into the matter, and that they have the age limit for an old age pension reduced from seventy to sixty-five years.


Mr. W. M. RYAN (St. John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words in connection with the resolution. Like the previous speaker (Mr. Young) I am heartily in sympathy with the principle of extending the age limit at which people may receive pensions, but I do not believe I could support the resolution as worded. If it did not leave the impression that it might be interpreted as compulsory I might be in a better position to support it. Under the circumstances,, however, since it appears to be compulsory, I do not believe it should receive my support. On the other hand if it provided for voluntary measures I should be only too glad to vote in favour of it.
356	COMMONS
Retiring Allowances-Mr. Dunning
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy task which I face on an occasion of this kind. It is very pleasant to be free to the degree hon. members are free to advocate in this chamber whatever they deem to be in the best interests of their constituents, and of the people of Canada. I question the sincerity of none. I do however deprecate a little the habit of some of putting those of us charged with responsibility in the position of valuing property rights more highly than we value human rights. May I say to some of the self-righteous members who always adopt that attitude that to my mind it is not ignoble to toe charged with the duty of conserving the funds contributed by all the people of Canada. That does not constitute the guarding of property rights to the exclusion of human rights, because as a matter of fact every matter which comes before this chamber affecting the economics of the people of Canada or affecting the taxes they pay has a [DOT]direct relation to their human rights and their human opportunities.
The resolution itself was not supported by its mover. On the records of the house appears the resolution:
That in the opinion of this house the government be requested to immediately introduce legislation granting-
Granting what?
-adequate retiring allowances to all citizens over sixty years of age, thereby giving an opportunity-
And so on. I repeat the expression "adequate retiring allowances to all citizens over sixty years of age." Mr. Speaker, that will appear in the socialist propaganda, from now on, as the policy of the socialist party in Canada. The people of Canada will be asked to believe that if the socialist party comes into power that resolution represents the policy they will put into effect. Witness what happened, however, when the mover of the resolution rose to address himself to it. He indicated that it did not mean what it said, at all. In order to clarify the situation I asked a question as to whether he meant all citizens. "Oh well," he said, "of course there would have to be regulations"-and he was delightfully vague as to that. I was a little more successful in getting him to state what he regarded as an- adequate retiring allowance, because he gave the figure of $50 per month. I believe I am correct in stating that he gave that figure as being an adequate retiring allowance under the terms of his resolution. If we assume that the resolution means what it says, and that under it $50 a month would be considered an adequate

retiring allowance, the plan it suggests would cost this country $500,000,000 per year. That is what it would cost, if the resolution means what it says. Of course the hon. member has protected himself against that by stating that it does not mean what it says, except I assume for propaganda purposes to indicate the policy of his party, if the country should ever be unfortunate enough to have it in power.


Mr. HEAPS:: I believe it is against the rules of the house for any hon. member to impute motives to another. I would say that hon. members in this corner of the chamber are probably just as honest as the minister, and if I made a statement before the house I meant what I said.


Charles Avery Dunning: Of course the hon. member meant what he said. If it will satisfy him at all I will say that if any word of mine imputed motives to him personally I withdraw it here and now. But will my hon. friend tell me this: Will not that resolution be printed and scattered broadcast across Canada as the policy of his party? Will he tell me that? I pause for a reply.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I will answer my hon. friend when he gets through.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, it will either be printed as the policy of the party or it will not, and we shall judge by what happens in that regard. However that may be, the resolution as on the order paper and as it will remain upon the records of this house, interpreted in terms of adequacy, as put forward by my hon. friend himself, of $50 a month, would cost this country at least $500,000,000 per annum. It is my right, sir, to give the house that information.
Now as to the necessity. Of course I do not think one should say or even imply that members in any section of this house desire to withhold from the sick and the needy in this country the wherewithal to live. That is an unfair imputation against any member of this house. It is unfair for my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Douglas) to point to two million dollars spent on the health of animals and then to imply that this house is not sympathetic in expending money on human beings, when in the very estimates from which he quoted there is no less a sum than $70,000,000 that I was able to pick out in just a few minutes to help human beings live and carry on. Of course, that is due them. But why is it necessary for members to stand up and put one another in the position of apparently being willing to spend money

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Dunning
on animals and not spend it on human beings? Surely we can carry on the debates of this house without that sort of imputation against each other.


Mr. LANDERYOU:: May I ask if the minister considers $70,000,000 enough to take care adequately of human beings in this country?


Charles Avery Dunning: 
Abraham Albert Heaps: Has the minister the figures as salaries and wages, distinguishing the one from the other?

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Cleaver


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the figures of the 'bureau of statistics are by groups. He has been to the bureau, as I have, to get information. There is not that distinction.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have not been there at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The word should be compensation, not wages.


Charles Avery Dunning: The leader of the opposition is right; I should have said compensation, which covers all classes of remuneration. But I am assured by those who study these matters that such a distinction, even if it could be drawn, would not materially affect the average figure I have given, for the reason that after the age of sixty a man is being paid for something which he has not when he is thirty-four: he is being paid for experience and ability and technique developed down through the years. The position of that large group over sixty as a whole is not so bad as the particular instances given the house would indicate that it is.
When I say all this, please do not think- I say this once more-that the government is not sympathetic to the extension of the old age pension provision as the position of this country will enable it to be extended. When we introduced the legislation into this house, as the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) will remember, the house then laid it down as a principle that we should make a start at the age of seventy and that we would watch the progress of the legislation and economic condition of the country and would advance, in connection with that particular piece of social legislation, as fast as the circumstances of the country would permit us to do so. That is the position taken by the government to-day.
We do not believe, in the face of the known condition of this country, that we should at the present time embark upon what the resolution calls for; I am satisfied that the house would not want us to do so, in the actual terms of the resolution; nor is the government prepared at this session to go further in the field of old age pensions- not because we would not like to, but because we are convinced that this country must hold tight for a while until we can see more clearly than any of us here can see to-day. When I say "any of us here," I mean any of us in the government. There are members in the house who can see more clearly than we can; that is evident from the discussion. There are members to whom it would be easy to raise the money required. There are methods which this country has not yet
adopted and which they say would be good. We regret, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot see that inflation on the scale and in the manner proposed would be good for the Canadian people; if we could, we would propose it.
Every member of the government is as much concerned with the welfare of every Canadian citizen as any member who has spoken. Those of us who are not bachelors are fathers; we have feelings, and we think pretty much in the same terms as other men think. And I say that our reasoned conclusion about this matter is as I have stated. We shall have to ask, therefore, that the resolution be voted down. We will ourselves vote against it for the reasons I have indicated.


Mr. HUGHES CLEAVER (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, may I place on record the reasons why I shall have to vote against the motion before the house? The hon. member (Mr. Heaps) who introduced it, if I understood his argument, sponsored the motion partly in any event as an unemployment relief measure. I for one do not agree that unemployment can be solved by the government going into the employment business; nor do I agree that it is economically sound that any government can spend its way into prosperity. It is my opinion that the only cure for our present unemployment problem is to place men back in profitable employment in industry.
I am in favour of an amendment to the Old Age Pensions Act which would reduce the pension age from seventy to sixty-five, not as an unemployment relief measure but on purely compassionate grounds; to pension men not because they cannot get employment, but because I believe many of our people in Canada to-day are physically burnt out at sixty-five years of age and so unable to earn a living for themselves and their dependents. I quite agree with the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) that our people are already burdened down under an almost intolerable load of taxation, but I suggest in all sincerity that if the members of the house, and more especially the private members, would withhold their applications to and their demands on the departments of Finance and Public Works for expenditures of money, and come forward instead with sincere and honest recommendations and proposals as to how public expenditures can be reduced without curtailing the efficiency of the different departments, we should have plenty of money to take care of proper old age pensions.


John Charles Landeryou: I had not intended to speak to this resolution, but I should like to deal with some of the remarks that have been made with regard to
360	COMMONS
Retiring Allowances*-Mr. Landeryou
it. I notice that yesterday the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. McLean) stated that we are in an age of scarcity, and he referred to Alberta as being frowned upon by providence. May I bring to this gentleman's attention the fact that that province, according to a report which appeared in a periodical published in Alberta, produced last year a total of $152,-
778,000	worth of agricultural products, including grain, fodder crops, root crops, dairy products, live stock and miscellaneous; that in addition Alberta had a fine crop of honey of over a million and a quarter pounds; that her coal mines produced about $27,000,000, and her oil production amounted to $3,800,000, the total figure being $222,078,000. I have also some other figures to draw to the hon. member's attention as to wealth produced in that province. In 1925 Alberta produced $261,000,000; in 1926, $298,000,000; in 1927, $378,000,000; in 1928, $341,000,000; in 1929, $233,000,000. It has been estimated that the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia combined have produced total wealth amounting to over $3,000,000,000 in a period of five years. If that is so, and Alberta being a part of this great dominion which has produced more than $10,000,000,000 of wealth in a period of ten years, why is it that Alberta is at the present time bankrupt? Why is it that the health facilities of the province are being undermined, and our educational institutions threatened? Why is it that the municipalities cannot meet their obligations? All these problems have come about simply because of the present obsolete monetary system. I would point out that the problem of unemployment is prevalent not only in Alberta but in Ontario, in Quebec, in any place in this world you care to go, and I would suggest that that is not because providence has not shone upon us. Our late king said:
It cannot be beyond the power of man so to use the vast resources of the world as to ensure the material progress of civilization. No diminution in these resources has taken place. On the contrary discovery, invention and organization have multiplied their possibilities to such an extent that abundance of production has itself created new problems.
That statement was made by our late king at the opening of the world economic conference in 1934. The statement of our late king that science, invention and organization have multiplied to such an extent our ability to produce that new problems have been created, is substantiated by a study of history. We know that in the age of hand labour, men, women and children worked for
fMr. Landeryou.]
long hours under great hardships to produce the fundamentals of subsistence, the bare necessities of life. But the king and many others have declared-


Walter Edward Foster: Order, I do not think the hon. gentleman has a right to bring the name of the king into a discussion.


John Charles Landeryou: I want to keep within the rules of the house. I suggest that many great economists recognize that we have solved the problem of production and we must now solve the problem of distribution.
I wish to refer to the remarks made yesterday by an hon. member on the other side of the house with reference to a question I asked regarding the coal situation in Alberta, dealing with the resolution I am discussing at the present time. It is estimated that Alberta contains fourteen per cent of the entire coal deposits of the world, yet we have coal miners on relief and farmers who have not sufficient coal to keep themselves warm in the winter time. Is the only solution of the problem this: We must have an outside market for the wheat and an outside market for the coal before these people can exchange their commodities inside the province. Where is the money coming from to enable the farmers of Alberta to buy the coal that we can produce in that province? The difficulty is that there may be sufficient credit available for this purpose, but those who have control of it are afraid to invest it in the creation of new wealth because they know the people to whom they desire to sell have not sufficient purchasing power to buy. There is not an hon. member who would invest money in the coal mines of western Canada, because they recognize that the farmers of Alberta, the closest potential market, have not the purchasing power to buy this coal. So I suggest that the community which is faced with this difficulty must appeal to the government responsible to see that credit is made available to producers and that it is distributed in such a maimer that those who contribute their labour to the production of wealth shall receive a fair wage and that those who furnish the raw material necessary for the production of wealth shall receive a just price for that raw material. In this comer of the house it is recognized that there is not sufficient paid out in wages, salaries and commissions to equate the cost of goods for sale, so we suggest that the government should not only issue a dividend that will adequately maintain men over sixty years of age but issue a dividend to all men, women and children in this country

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Neill
so that we may make up this deficiency in purchasing power which is so apparent in our
economic structure to-day.
In regard to giving pensions to men over sixty years of age, Mr. Speaker, surely we recognize that many men at the age of sixty are capable of rendering and willing to render more to society than they are at the age of thirty, forty or possibly up to fifty. We recognize that many men do not like to go out of employment or cease their contribution to society at the age of sixty, but we recognize also that many men are incapable of contributing anything to society at the present time. In many of our industrial enterprises the field has narrowed down until only young men are required. So I would suggest that we consider this resolution in that aspect, that to these men who at the present time have reached the age of sixty we grant an adequate allowance, the money not to come out of the taxpayers but to be created by the government as a new issue and to be given these men to take up a portion of this lack of purchasing power which is so apparent.
I feel that we should place a proper interpretation upon this resolution and weigh it without technicalities. I do not see the word "compulsory" in the resolution and I do not believe it is the intention of the mover to compel anyone to retire at the age of sixty. I believe the intent is to have this allowance given those who have reached the age of sixty and who find themselves no longer able to maintain themselves in proper food, clothing and shelter, and I commend the hon. gentleman for his resolution.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to be placed between the horns of the dilemma presented by this resolution. It does not matter what hon. members seek to read into it, I agree with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) in his exposition of what it really says; in fact I think he might have gone further. It not only proposes a retiring allowance to "all" citizens, but I would direct attention to the fact that it says:
-the government be requested to immediately introduce legislation granting adequate retiring allowances-
I assume that the word "adequate" would have reference to the man's previous income, so that if the man being retired at the age of sixty had been receiving an income of 85,000, it would be appropriate to give him an income of perhaps $2,500, because certainly an adequate retiring allowance for that man would not be $20 a month or anything like that.
What the resolution says, however, is: "Adequate retiring allowance to all" citizens.
I do not propose to be placed in the ridiculous position of demanding that the government spend a sum approximating 8500,000,000 a year. On the other hand during the campaign I willingly pledged myself to vote for a reduction of the age at which the old age pension might be obtained to sixty-five or, if possible, to sixty. I still wish to adhere to that and, if I vote against this resolution, I do not wish to be placed in the position of betraying the pledges I made. I am not called upon to be placed in that position, and I resent the scheme which is put forward-clearly for political reasons-to place a number of us in that light. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would direct your attention to the fact that the resolution is entirely out of order, inasmuch as it is well known that it involves a large expenditure of public money, and any resolution having that effect may be brought forward only by the government of the day.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker-


Walter Edward Foster: Order. If any hon.
member wishes to speak he should do so before the hon. gentleman closes the debate.


Alan Webster Neill: I raised a point of order.


Walter Edward Foster: I think this motion is properly before the house; I do not think the point of order raised by the hon. member is well founded. It is not proposed in the resolution that the money be expended immediately; the resolution states that in the opinion of the house the government should be requested to immediately introduce certain legislation. The hon. member who moved the resolution does not say that he wishes to bring in that legislation himself. He says that the government should introduce the legislation, and it would be competent for the government to do so if they saw fit. For these reasons I think the motion is in order.


Alan Webster Neill: May I be allowed a further word? I did not elaborate my point of order because I thought it was so obvious. Time and again similar motions have been deemed out of order. It is not a question of whether this hon. member wants to do anything; it is illegal and out of order to introduce in the house a resolution which is mandatory on the government to spend a large sum of money.


Abraham Albert Heaps: On a point of order-


Alan Webster Neill: I am speaking to the point of order.
362	COMMONS
Retiring Allowances-Mr. Bennett


Abraham Albert Heaps: You have given your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to know whether the hon. member is appealing from your decision.


Alan Webster Neill: Unless Mr. Speaker halts me I think I might be allowed to elaborate my point. I do not wonder that the hon. member seeks to interrupt me, because he knows I am right. The government, and only the government, has the power to introduce resolutions involving the expenditure of large sums of public money. The resolution, if it passes, demands or requests the government to immediately introduce legislation that will involve an enormous expenditure of public money. I defy anyone to look up the rules and the precedents that have been established for many years in the house and say this is not out of order.


Walter Edward Foster: I have given my decision.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I will appeal from your decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I suggest that your . honour look at the precedents, because I was looking at the matter casually and I think there is much to be said for the argument presented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). I think the language of the resolution is what causes the difficulty. A resolution might be formulated that would come within the rules of the house, but I say with deference that I think if your honour would look at the language of the resolution possibly you would think it well to consider the matter further, perhaps during the recess.
I do not rise for the purpose of making any extended remarks. I desire merely to read to the house what was said in the course of the broadcast I made last fall, to which broadcast reference has been made by several hon. members. I am quoting from the manuscript from which I then read; therefore I will have to read it:
By intelligent management, -with the aid of business, in cooperation with the provinces, by the splendid support of citizens in every walk of life, both those who could afford to contribute and those who could not afford to contribute, we have made definite headway. We have reduced unemployment. Unemployment which reached the high figure of approximately 7S3.000 in the low point of the depression in 1933, is now under 500,000, substantially *where it was in June, 1931.
Now I will ask you a question. Suppose that we were able to return this country to the conditions prevailing at the peak of the boom years, would we by so doing succeed in reducing our unemployed to the numbers as of that time? I say no. And it is vitally important * that you should understand why. And this is why. The great employment of more efficient

machinery in the last five or six years, the introduction of new economies, the development of labour saving devices, the elimination of duplication, growing concentrations of business, have made it impossible under the same conditions to employ the same number of people. It is calculated that, in the last five years, there has been added to our workers-the white-collar worker, the farm worker, the industrial worker-about 800,000 persons. Assuming we were to return to the level of 1929, the lag in the present volume of unem-
Eloyment would not be taken up by more than fty per cent.
But the business of this country has not increased to this extent, for the basic reason that the business of the world has contracted, and even if it had, it would have been necessary to put a stop, during the interval, to all concentrations of business, all economies in operation, all labour saving devices, which would, of course, have been as unwise as it would have been impracticable.
So, either way, you see it was utterly impossible, and so it will continue to be. For science and invention will not submit to a straight jacket, and to the rate of recovery of this shattered world, even assuming we could now look forward to recovery, there is a very definite maximum.
Now there is nothing particularly new in all this, and I am not suggesting that the proposal I have to make is one the soundness of which is supported only by very recent events. Its soundness in principle was apparent some time ago. But experience in the past year emphasizes the urgent need of its adoption.
Therefore I come to my proposal. In my opinion and in the opinion of my colleagues, the first step to be taken by way of a permanent solution of this problem is to remove from the labour market all those workers who have reached the age where, especially under conditions of to-day, the worker's social interest, the state's economic interest, equally sugest the wisdom of retirement.
It is, of course, clear to all of us that the old rules governing hours of labour and years of labour can no longer apply, because we live in changed economic conditions. That fundamental truth forces gundamental changes in our whole economic system. These changes embrace changes in conditions of work, hours of work. They also embrace changes in the age of retirement from work.
This new economic trend has already influenced the retirement schemes of certain private enterprises. And these enterprises, after careful estimate of all the factors involved, have met the new conditions by determining upon a retirement age of sixty years.
The government recognizes this principle. And, in conformity with it, will introduce into parliament legislation to make it effective.


Mr. YOUNG:: I rise to a point of order. The other day the right hon. gentleman spoke about reading speeches in the house, and now he is reading his speech to the house.


Abraham Albert Heaps: He is quoting from a document.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I take it that we all have the same privileges here. The right hon. gentleman may say that this is not the

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Bennett
speech he is making at the present moment, but certainly it is his speech which he made some time ago, or if it is not his speech perhaps he will foe good enough to tell us whose speech it was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I am reading from a speech which I made over the radio last year. I am within my rights in so doing.


Walter Edward Foster: I think the right hon. gentleman is not out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is running true to form:
This scheme has two basic merits. It provides the only possible means by which the youth of the land can secure employment when by age and training they are ready for employment. It provides the only means by which all people may obtain security and leisure and a chance for recreation and pleasure, when they have moved beyond that age where, in any Christian state, the workman should be forced to continue at his labours.
Let me make this proposal clear, because, a9 I say. while the idea is not novel, its operation will be enormously far-reaching. It is a bold, and, I believe will prove to be a triumphant, attempt to put an end to this curse of unemployment, to free the labour market from the dead weight of the unemployed, to put purchasing power in the hands of a greater number, to effect, in a sound and equitable way. a measure of redistribution of the wealth of the land.
The application of this principle will mean, in the first year of its operation, the withdrawal from the labour market of 120,000 people, and provide that number of jobs for younger workers.
I shall not read beyond that, Mr. Speaker. That statement which I made publicly last fall was made for the purpose of directing attention to what has been alluded to this afternoon by one hon. gentleman, namely conditions in the United States, where the president recently pointed out that if the high state of industrial activity that existed in 1928-29 were to return in that country there would still remain six million idle persons with the existing population. That, I figure, would represent in this country at least five hundred thousand, allowing that we have one-twelfth the population of the United States. It need not be a matter of surprise to hon. members to realize that this is so; all one has to do is to look at the laboursaving devices that have been developed, to go into any factory and observe where work that used to require seven or eight men is now done by a machine operated by one man or sometimes two. The other day I saw in operation a machine doing work which at one time was done by a very large number of men. There have been improvements by
which the number of men required was reduced and further reduced until we have half a dozen men doing work which at one time was done by a hundred men. The inventive genius of man has operated to prevent men from finding employment, so that even if *the conditions of employment which have been referred to were to return in Canada we should still have a vast number of unemployed.
That situation could be dealt with in two ways. The method that was suggested by me last fall is the one which the larger institutions of the country have adopted. For example it is well known that the banks are retiring their officials at sixty years of age. Some of their highest paid officials are being retired at sixty, and the pensions they receive are often large. The financial institutions throughout the country in addition to the banks are doing the same thing, and other organizations are following the same practice.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Might I ask the right hon.
gentleman whether these retirements are compulsory?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was coming to that.
In regard to those who contribute to the superannuation funds of their respective institutions the retirements are compulsory; about that there is no doubt. I know of half a dozen cases that have come to my immediate attention in which officials, having attained that age, have been retired compulsorily, but having paid in to the pension fund they are receiving in many cases the maximum they would receive if they remained on, and their places have been taken by younger men. That is true in many institutions. [DOT]
I will give the house the other side of the picture. The other day when I was in Calgary a man and his wife came to see me; she was sixty-six and he was sixty-eight. So far as I know he never in his life received as much as $1,800 a year. I think that is too high a figure, judging from inquiries which I made. They had brought up a family, bought a small house or two, and had saved during the period of his employment, and they asked me to be the medium of communication by which the sum of $11,400 in cash was paid to the government to secure for them on their joint lives an annuity of $1,000 per annum. That indicates what may be done under one set of conditions.
A few days later another man came to see me, a man whom I knew rather well, who had been in the same employment as the
364	COMMONS
Retiring Allowances-Mr. Bennett
first man. He had reached the age of sixty-eight. He had been retired from work; he received no pension, and he told me that all he had between himself and absolute privation was $200. He told me why he was in that condition. He had been receiving substantially the same wages as the first man, but almost every year sickness had dogged him and his family. An operation here, an illness there, a child laid aside for months, and at the end of his period of work with the corporation that had employed him. retiring without any pension, he had been able to save only $200. He had a little real estate which he had obtained by purchases in buoyant days, but I think probably the city is now the owner of it for taxes.
Those are illustrations of two sets of conditions which have to be considered. I am not going to elaborate upon them this afternoon. I had, before making that statement last year, prepared a definite plan for dealing with this matter. That is not of importance now, because it is no longer possible for me to give effect to it. However I do believe a contributory system of pensions should be enforced in Canada. I believe every man, beginning at a fixed age, should make such a contribution, and I had prepared a plan whereby a person would be able to obtain stamps at every post office, such stamps to be placed in a book. At the end of a given period of time, whether it be sixty or sixty-five years, or whatever period might be agreed upon, the annuity thus earned by the savings of the citizen, with interest computed as we now have it, at the high rate of four per cent, would determine the extent to which pension would be received. I had proposed that the state would bear the cost of administration, and certain other features that need not now be discussed, because there were certain actuarial figures which were not complete. However I do not think it fair to ask the state to bear the entire burden, looking to the long future. There is a lag, which must be taken care of. Some hon. members will recall the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in England when introducing a consolidated measure for social relief involving what is now called the dole. That term is applied erroneously in some instances, because it is a sum payable to individuals for which they themselves have made provision-they making a contribution, the employer making a contribution and the state making a contribution. It is a payment, not by the state covering the whole sum, but by three parties, namely, the state, the insured or the individual who

is to receive the benefits, and the employer. That of course applies only to industry or, in the broader sense, to where there is a relationship between employer and employee. But where the relationship between employer and employee does not exist, and it is one merely of a citizen to the state, it does appear to me to be reasonably clear-and I am told that the proposals I had prepared 'were sound -that the citizen and the state together would commence, early in the life of the citizen, savings of amounts which at a given age would enable him or her to receive just what his or her savings amounted to. This should extend alike to farmers' sons and daughters, and to everyone. Everyone should be given the widest possible opportunity to avail himself of the provisions of the proposals which I had formulated.
This proposal contemplates the state paying the whole amount, and that it should be payable to everyone. I ask the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) whether he has given any consideration to the effect that would have upon the character of the people of Canada. I mention that merely in passing, because after all we know that all these social measures-and it has been the experience of all countries-have a profound effect in, shall I say, creating national character. The first social insurance measure on a large scale of which we have any ready knowledge, that of Bismarck in Germany, it will be recalled was a contributory scheme. In other parts of the world the same is true. This is a proposal to have a pension paid without regard to any contribution being made by any party other than the state, and regardless of any consideration other than those of age and want, and, in fact, as the resolution reads it does not even include want.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether judges make any contribution to their pension, and whether that has a very serious effect upon them?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the hon. member has mentioned judges, for this reason: It is part of the contract by which men abandon large practices, from which they have been receiving large compensation, usually amounting to many times the salaries they are paid, that at the end of a given time they shall receive certain benefits by way of superannuation or pension. They make a contribution that is far greater than that. For instance in the legal profession there is a tradition which has prevailed for a long while in Great Britain, and I am sorry to say to a lesser extent in Canada, that the leaders of the

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Bennett
profession should not more than once refuse the request of the Lord Chancellor to abandon a highly lucrative practice and accept a small salary to serve in judicial positions, it being part of the contract between the state and the man who accepts a seat on the bench that he shall receive certain benefits at the expiration of fifteen years or upon the attainment of a given age.
If hon. members would look at law reports of recent date they would find that men have been appointed to the bench, at least one of whom I know was making not less than from $175,000 to $250,000 per annum and who is now receiving the sum of only $40,000, because he felt it was part of the great tradition of his profession and his duty to abandon his private practice for the purpose of rendering service to the state as a judge. Part of the contract was that without payment of any part of the premium he was to receive from the state a pension to the extent I have indicated. Of course that is not the rule in Canada to the same degree. Nevertheless in this country there are cases where men have abandoned lucrative positions, in which they have been receiving a very large annual compensation, to serve the state for a much smaller sum, on condition that in their old age, when they are no longer fit for service, they may receive the compensation I have mentioned. They have made a distinct contribution, a very distinct one, for the purpose of obtaining a pension.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the right hon. gentleman not say that people who have worked hard and long in almost any walk of life have made a proper contribution? Is it not merely the contract that is absent, and would not the passing of legislation contemplated by the resolution constitute a contract through which, if they had worked faithfully, at the end of a certain period they would receive security in their old age?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would answer the hon. member in this way: He contemplates their working faithfully, but under the working of the resolution there is no incentive to work faithfully or unfaithfully. All they have to do is to attain the age mentioned in the resolution, and they will get the money. That is the reason I suggest to the hon. member and to people within sound of my voice that the effect upon the national character of this country would be so apparent within at 'least the life of one generation as to make it extremely difficult to forecast the ultimate result.
Then, there is one other matter I should like to touch upon. I have heard several hon. members say that the age at which pension could be received should be sixty or sixty-five years, or something like that. One of the difficulties in connection with old age pensions has been this: It must be within the knowledge of everyone that fundamentally the question is one within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that to overcome the difficulty of jurisdiction contributions are made by the dominion under the terms of agreements made between the dominion and the provinces. The pension is paid by the province, not by the dominion. It is amazing to hear some hon. members speak as though the pension were paid by the dominion. The pension is in fact paid and distributed by the provinces. They become responsible for all investigations preceding payment, and although the awarding of the pension is subject to investigation by federal authorities, it is an act of the provincial and not of the federal authorities.


Charles Avery Dunning: It must be so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The general view is that it must be, although I think there is some doubt as to that. The provinces were originally assisted to the extent of fifty per cent, and under the late administration the amount was increased to seventy-five per cent, and it would have been increased to the whole one hundred per cent if the financial position of the country would have warranted any such action being taken. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, when it is desirable in the interests of Canada that the' government should give very careful consideration and attention to the question of a broad national pension system. I have very strong views upon the subject. I think such a system is feasible. It must be a system that is contributed to by every man who will seek the benefits of it. I would go further and say that if we are going to do anything to develop the character of our people, we should provide that in the event of such contribution not being made by any citizen, he would not have any claim upon the state for relief or other purposes under certain ' conditions that need not be gone into now because they are matters of detail. But the essential fact is that if we had a system based upon a broad national appreciation of our situation-and our numbers are only between ten and eleven million people-we would be aible to provide against the contingencies to which attention has been directed this afternoon and yesterday. In Great Britain, with a population of forty
366	COMMONS
Retiring Allowances-Mr. Bennett
million, they deal with this problem in a national sense; also in Germany, with a population of many more than forty million, perhaps sixty million at least, they do the same.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Sixty-seven million.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sixty-seven million, my hon. friend suggests. Germany deals with it in a national way, and the cost of administration has not become so great as to make it burdensome upon the people.
There is just one other thought that should be mentioned, and that is this: How to keep national pensions out of politics has been a matter that has engaged the attention of statesmen of older countries ever since these pensions were begun. There was an election conducted in one country upon the sole, simple issue whether the age for pensions should be reduced by five years; and without any regard for the actuarial facts, without any regard for the effect upon the finances of the country, the election was conducted on that issue. I am bound to say that there are always more people ready and willing to accept benefits than there are willing to pay for them, and the result was, of course, that the lower age carried, but unfortunately the finances did not warrant the providing of the money, and so for the moment they were not any better off than they were at the start.
I did not rise, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of doing more than clarifying the situation to which reference has been made during the present debate. I appreciate the speech of [DOT]the Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning). I have been compelled myself to make such a speech and I recall that in the position which I then took I had not the support of those who then sat to the left of the Speaker. I found an entire unwillingness to appreciate conditions, and talk about human rights as against property rights could be heard reiterated and reiterated in this chamber by those who then sat to the left of the Speaker. Now it is some consolation to realize that those responsible for the formulation of government policy-


Mr. McIVOR:: Might I say that my right hon. friend's remark does not apply to all those who now sit to the left of the Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course, I was referring to those who sat to the left of the Speaker from 1930 to 1935. So far as my memory serves me, the hon. gentleman was not one of them but I may be mistaken in that. At any rate I point that out only because it indicates how difficult it is in office always to be able to express just the views that were

held in opposition. It shows the wide gulf that is fixed between a declaration of policy in opposition and a declaration of policy in office. It represents the difficulty that a minister finds in providing money for the purpose of meeting what seemed to be a simple matter before the responsibility had to be met. Of course the minister himself was not here in those years.


Charles Avery Dunning: My memory of my right hon. friend goes back to the days when he stood where he stands now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the hon. gentleman
was not here between 1930 and 1935; he was engaged in far more lucrative business. I have no doubt that he realizes, as I said the other day, how easy it is to suppose that all that is necessary to be done is to have the banks lend enough money and the country would be provided with sufficient assets to make any payments that might be required. There are not lacking those who would be perfectly willing to accept loans, and there are others who perhaps would not so willingly accept the benefits that accrue from the assets thus created.
There has been some little consolation in listening to the observations of the Minister of Finance, and I would suggest to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) that having brought about this discussion, having found, as he said, that there are varying opinions, and this being a private member's resolution on which opinions have been expressed by members on all sides of the house, he might deem it well to afford the government an opportunity at least to consider its first budget before pressing to a division a resolution such as this. The government has not yet been able to present its budget to the house. We know not what its taxation proposals may be, and while such consideration was not extended to me, I do think in the light of my own experience, my own knowledge and my own unfortunate difficulties in dealing with these problems, it is not quite fair to ask the government immediately to introduce legislation granting an adequate retiring allowance to all citizens over sixty years of age. I ask my hon. friend whether he would regard that as just the sort of resolution he would like to have pointed at his head if he had just assumed office and had not yet been able to formulate his financial proposals for the year. He has brought about a discussion that I think has been useful, and that has indicated wide differences of opinions existing between members of the house on financial matters having nothing to do with pensions, and perhaps that has served his purpose.

Retiring Allowances-Mr. Bennett
In listening to the speech of the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker), one could not but be impressed with the fact that his simple solution, if it be a solution, of this difficulty is one that should not leave us in difficulty very long. We should be able to create in the house a bank, and having created a bank we would then be able, by multiplying by nine the cash reserves, to pay for all services. I hardly think he analyzed the Macmillan report with that care which is essential for the purpose of arriving, shall I say, at a working theory with respect to these matters. I have heard all these doctrines propounded and I have read them, as I think most members of the house have. I quite disagree with the hon. gentleman's definition of credit. I think credit is merely the ability to borrow.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry that his is the usual interpretation nowadays.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps a more reasonable interpretation to put upon the word "credit" is that it is a man's ability to borrow because he has no use for credit except to the extent that he may borrow. That is obvious, is it not? I agree with the minister that every borrowing implies a repayment unless it be a perpetual annuity, and so far as I know we have not sold many of them in Canada. There are, for instance, outstanding in this country by both railway systems perpetual four per cent debenture stocks, the principal of which is never payable but the interest, of course, has to be met. Sharing the views of the minister with respect to credit in a large sense, I do say that it is not quite fair for hon. members to conclude that because a government is unable immediately to formulate legislation to do something we think desirable, therefore it prefers property rights to human rights. I have listened to that charge against myself and I am most sympathetic with the position the minister has to take this afternoon. Some of those who made these observations may now realize what they sounded like when they were directed against somebody else.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never did that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Far be it from me to accuse the hon. gentleman; he was too orthodox to do anything of that sort. At any rate, I again suggest to the hon. member for North Winnipeg that he should withdraw this motion, not because it might not be advantageous in a political sense to see supporters of the government vote against it, nor because I might feel that I should vote for a resolution embodying that principle, though not in those words, but rather because the purpose to be
served is something higher than mere advantage for the moment. It is something nobler than the mere effort to secure a division or lack of unity or unanimity on the part of the house; and feeling as I do-


James Shaver Woodsworth: I rise to a point of order. The leader of the opposition, it seems to me, is going altogether too far in imputing to members certain motives in bringing forward this resolution or in putting it to a vote.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had about concluded what I desired to say at this time, except to point out that in addition to the objection that was made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) as to the resolution being in order, there is another point to which I had not expected that it would be necessary to direct attention, but in view of present indications I think it is desirable to do so. This resolution is not within the competence of parliament so far as giving effect to it is concerned. If adopted by parliament, it would be futile because it lies within the powers of the provinces in dealing with property and civil rights-a matter that must be known to most hon. members on this side of the house in view of the opinions that have been given from time to time by the law officers of the crown. I had not intended to raise that issue, but inasmuch as the discussion has assumed the character it has, I think it may be desirable to point that out.
The resolution consists of two preambles and a conclusion. Preamble number one relates to the unemployment situation. Preamble number two says:
And whereas, it is desirable that as many as possible be absorbed into the useful industrial life of the dominion.
That is, the resolution by the preamble deals only with the industrial life of the country. The operative part reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government be requested to immediately introduce legislation granting adequate retiring allowances to all citizens over sixty years of age, thereby giving an opportunity to large numbers now unemployed to be reabsorbed into useful productive activity.
It will be observed that the government is requested by this resolution, if it is passed, to immediately introduce legislation. It is
36S	COMMONS
Retiring Allowances-Mr. Bennett
an expression of the opinion of the house, not that the matter might be considered, but that the government should immediately introduce legislation. To immediately introduce legislation of the character indicated by the resolution would be to introduce legislation beyond the legislative competence of parliament, beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore I submit that the motion is out of order on that ground also.
Apart from that I desire briefly to point out contradictions between the preamble and the operative part of the motion, to which some reference has been made. It is desirable to absorb into the useful industrial life of the dominion as many as possible. To accomplish that end, allowances are to be granted to all citizens over sixty years of age; and the character of the retiring allowances is described as adequate. Adequate to what? Adequate to their present salaries, or compensation-to use the word I suggested this afternoon-or how otherwise? I do not know. But at any rate opportunity is to be given to large numbers now unemployed to be reabsorbed, not into industry, as pointed out in the first preamble, but into useful productive activity. I am not going to do more than say again what I said this afternoon, that if the resolution were to be adopted as it stands now the government would have either to introduce legislation or to resign. If it introduced legislation, that legislation would be futile, because it is beyond our legislative competence, and I think the rules of the house provide that parliament should not be asked to adopt a resolution that is beyond our power to pass. So far as that is concerned I will leave it at that.
There was one point, upon which I was interrupted this afternoon, that I should like to make clear. I pointed out that in my judgment this had to do with a large measure of social reform, and that whenever that measure is adopted by the house, as some day it	will have	to	be,	it will bealong the lines I suggested, by contribution being made by all parties, the state, the employer and the employee in cases where the relationship of employer and employee exists, and by the state and the insured, if you will, or the annuitant, or the pensioner, if you may describe him as such, in other cases. But there will be	a lag of	those whocannot avail	themselves	of	any	such provision. The	Chancellor	of	the	Exchequer,
when social legislation was being considered in England, pointed out that they have to make a yearly grant to take care of that situation, and that yearly grant represents

the capitalized value of the enormous sum of 750,000,000 pounds sterling. That will give the house some conception of what is involved in a matter of this kind. From year to year in Great Britain the state finds the sum necessary to take care of that lag until such time as the fund created by the joint contribution of employer and employee with the aid of the state is sufficient to meet the demands that may be made upon it. I hesitate to do so, but in the event of your honour concluding that the resolution is in order I would suggest the following amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) :-
That all words after the word "that" in the fifth line in the said resolution be deleted and the following substituted therefor:-
Whereas there exists in Canada an acute unemployment situation;
And whereas it is desirable that as many as possible be absorbed into the useful industrial life of the dominion;
Therefore be it resolved, that the government be requested' to forthwith take appropriate measures for investigating, considering and determining the extent to which, under existing conditions, useful productive employment may be made available for the unemployed, if employed persons of the age of sixty and over are retired from their employment, and paid an annual pension or allowance during their lifetime, of such amount and on such terms and conditions as may be determined.
That would enable the government, if it thought desirable, to refer this matter to a committee of this house for investigation or inquiry or to take other means that may be thought desirable to that end. I move this amendment with some hesitancy, and I move it only in the event of your honour concluding that the motion is in order.


Charles Avery Dunning: Does the right hon. gentleman move the amendment if the motion is in order?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is all.


Walter Edward Foster: Before six o'clock the point of order was raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) as to whether this resolution was in order. At that time, it may be, I was under the impression that because the debate had been going on for two days the motion before the house was in order and that it was only a suggestion that was made to the government to decide whether it should be taken up or not. Now the point has been raised by the member for Comox-Albernf that the motion is not in order, and the right hon. leader of the opposition stated that he himself thought it was not in order. I have reconsidered the decision I rendered before six o'clock. I find in Beauchesne's

Retiring Allowances-Speaker's Ruling
Parliamentary Rules and Forms, at page 167, under paragraph 562, that-
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to that house by message of the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
I have therefore come to the conclusion that this resolution appears to be one which, if it was to be properly introduced, should have been proposed by resolution assented to by the Governor General, and I think accordingly the resolution is out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I point out that it is only a short time ago since you gave a decision-


Walter Edward Foster: I did.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -in favor of its being in order? There was no appeal taken against your decision.


An hon. MEMBER:: Yes, there was.


James Shaver Woodsworth: That decision stands. I think it is an unheard of thing in the house that the Speaker, merely on the suggestion of a very highly placed member, should reverse a decision once given. We have had no opportunity whatever of arguing the point of order. I would point out, that, according to Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, in paragraph 558:
Motions advocating public expenditure, or the imposition of a charge, if the motion be framed in sufficiently abstract or general terms, can be entertained, and agreed to by the house.
Resolutions of this nature are permissible because, having no operative effect, no grant is made or burthen imposed by their adoption.
This is a rule which, ever since I have been in parliament, has been observed in matters of this kind. When any specific question or motion involving a grant has come up, of course it has naturally been ruled out of order, but it has been the practice for many years in this chamber for members to make suggestions as to changes in policy, or the adoption of new policies by governments. There is practically no sort of policy which can be thought of which does not directly or indirectly involve some expenditure of funds, and so in these motions we have been particularly careful not to place the burden directly upon the government, but rather to express an opinion of the house. The resolution is so framed that it is merely an expression of opinion by the house. Of course it will not be passed, with the government having so large a majority, but if it were passed it would not be obligatory upon
the government. Again and again we have had instances where much more specific resolutions have been put before the house, and adopted thereby.
In the present instance it is an extraordinary procedure, I submit, when Mr. Speaker, without having had any appeal against his decision, but simply on the suggestion of a member, should completely reverse that decision, and before having declared his reversal of it, give no opportunity whatever for an argument on the point of order. I would rather appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that it is a serious matter-if we are not going to know when we are in order or not in order, and if decisions can so readily be reversed.
As I have been trying to emphasize, the government does not have to carry out the terms of the resolution. I can look back over dozens of resolutions put forward in these very terms, as requests to the government, and those resolutions have been accepted. We have been here two days debating the resolution, and when one member confessedly states he does not want to face the vote then, forsooth, we have to have the decision of the Speaker reversed. I protest against this.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat in regarding as a serious matter whether or not motions before us are in order, particularly when a question of order arises out of the very consideration I brought to the attention of the house only a day or two ago when speaking on the first of these resolutions. I was careful to say to hon. members that while the government would welcome the fullest possible discussion of all private members motions, it vvas important hon. members should note that any motions which involved the placing of a charge on the treasury or the expenditure of public money, or which involved immediate action would not be motions which were in order unless recommended by the crown and preceded by consideration in committee of ways and means. I hoped by making those observations to the house at the time they were made that hon. members would be particularly careful to observe the precise wording of motions which might be brought up for discussion. The hon. member who has just taken his seat has quoted a citation from Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, section 558, bearing on standing order No. 60 as follows:
Motions advocating public expenditure, or the imposition of a charge, if the motion he framed in sufficiently abstract or general terms can be entertained and agreed to by the house.

370	COMMONS
Retiring Allowances-Mr. Mackenzie King
This motion is not in sufficiently abstract or general terms. It is a very concrete motion, and in very definite terms. The operative part of the motion states:
That in the opinion of this house the government be requested to immediately introduce legislation granting adequate retiring allowances,-
And so on. That is not general; it is specific.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out that we have had similar resolutions couched in the same words, previously.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not as specific is that. We have had resolutions which have asked the government to consider the advisability of doing certain things, and those resolutions have not been questioned. Often I think a degree of latitude which was questionable has been permitted. Certainly, however, so far as the present government is concerned, there would be every desire to allow the fullest latitude in the discussion of general motions. But when a motion is as concrete and specific as this one I submit that the citation which the hon. member for North Winnipeg has just quoted makes it as clear as possible that as worded the motion is out of order.
Let me go a step farther.
Resolutions of this nature are permissible because, having no operative effect, no grant is made or burthen imposed by their adoption.
The words are "no operative effect." Will hon. members say that a motion stating that the government should "immediately introduce legislation".is a motion which if carried does not place upon the government an obligation?


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I point out that there is merely a suggestion that "the government be requested" to do this; it is a request.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the house makes it an order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If the resolution carried it would be an order of the house. If it carries it is a demand on the part of the house to the government immediately to introduce legislation which will provide adequate retiring allowances to all citizens over sixty years of age. One has only to repeat what the hon. member for Winnipeg has said to make it clear that the ruling of His Honour the Speaker which has been given after consideration is sound in every particular.
I was not in the chamber before the dinner hour, but if I am correctly informed the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) did

raise the question of the motion not being in order and did indicate that if any immediate ruling were given declaring it to be in order he would wish to appeal.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But a ruling was given. My point is that a ruling was given, and without any appeal made at the time- with no definite appeal against that ruling- we have a reversal of the decision.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I repeat that I was not in the house but I gather from hon. members who were here that Mr. Speaker's decision was qualified, and that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni had it in his mind to appeal, if necessary. However as one of the older members of the house, my hon. friend knows it is customary for Speakers carefully to consider decisions when the house is not in session, and to give to the house the benefit of their mature thought immediately after it has assembled.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But Mr. Speaker made no attempt to reserve a decision; he gave it immediately.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His Honour the Speaker has given his decision now, and I submit the house ought to support the Speaker in the decision he has given. If not, should they so desire, let hon. members appeal from the Speaker's ruling, as it is now given and let us vote upon it. I should add that the Speaker's ruling is not debatable.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I think this discussion is somewhat out of order, but as some latitude has been allowed other hon. members I would crave the same indulgence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
think we have not settled this point of order. If Mr. Speaker persists in maintaining his position, then I appeal against his ruling.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is all the hon. member can do.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He cannot discuss it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: All I am saying is that other hon. members having been allowed a little latitude, I think I ought to fob allowed to quote one or two precedents where resolutions have been brought before us in other years and have been accepted by the government, upon which occasions no objections were raised from any quarter of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I shall refer to one resolution which occurred to me-

Retiring Allowances-Division


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has appealed against the ruling of the chair and with all due deference I submit there can be no further discussion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: May I point out-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I was pointing out-


Walter Edward Foster: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Put the question.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned the other evening I had nearly finished. However, like my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), when I get a little time something more always comes to light. We in this corner appreciate the tribute that has been paid to you, Mr. Speaker, this evening. We have been wondering why we were placed to the left of the Speaker, unless it is because we have here a better opportunity to get inspiration than have those on the other side of the house.
Railway Act-Rates on Grain

After having listened to the oratory in this chamber, for my own sake I quote again the words of Thomas Carlyle, who said:
A wise old owl lived in an oak;
The more he saw the less he spoke;
The less he spoke the more he heard:
Why can't we all be like that bird?
In order fully to understand freight rates, and to speak with authority, an ordinary member would need much time and considerable data. The only reason I am supporting the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) is that I want to see fair play, and if that is granted Fort William and Port Arthur will get their fair share of it.


Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only a word or two to-night in connection with this bill, which I think is very important to hon. members from British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There are many members of the house who did not expect this bill to come up this evening; most of them thought it would not be reached until Friday evening at least, and I know one or two who wish to speak to the bill. Therefore I would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



STEAM TRAWLERS

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Kinley:
For a copy of all orders in council passed [DOT]since the 1st of January, 1929, dealing with or referring to otter or steam trawlers.
Also a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, passing during the same period, to or from any minister of the crown or other officials and corporations or persons with respect to steam trawlers.
Hon. J. E. MICHAUD (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the first paragraph of the motion, but the hon. member may not have realized the expenditure of time and effort that it would take to comply with the terms of the second paragraph. I am informed that it would involve perusing twenty-four volumes of files and copying 2,500 pages of correspondence. So I would suggest that perhaps the hon. member would consent to the motion being amended to delete the second paragraph, and the files of the department will be available to him for whatever information he may desire that is asked for in the second paragraph.


Mr. KINLEY:: Mr. Speaker, this is rather an important matter. I realized when I put the motion on the order paper that it would entail quite a bit of work, but a.t the same
[Mt. Mclvor.]
time it is a matter of public concern, and of importance to a large class of people, However, in view of the minister's suggestion I ask the permission of the house to delete the second paragraph of my motion.
Motion as amended agreed to.



FREIGHT RATES ON GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Mr. Perley (Qu'Appelle):
That, in the opinion of this house, the domestic freight rate on grain and grain products moving from any point in the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan. Alberta, and British Columbia, to a point in any of the said provinces, or from any point, to another point, in any of the said provinces, be adjusted or reduced to at least not more than three cents per hundred pounds over the existing export rates.
Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order may I suggest that this resolution is very much in the same terms as the bill which was called a few moments ago.


Walter Edward Foster: I was just going to draw the attention of the house to the fact that this resolution is in somewhat similar terms to the bill, the discussion of which was suspended a few moments ago. In my humble opinion discussion of this motion cannot take place before discussion on the bill has been completed. I would say that the bill has precedence and that we cannot have discussion of this resolution of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I would quote Campion's Introduction to The Procedure of the House of Commons, page 152, where I find this under the heading Anticipation of Debate:
The anticipation rule, which forbids discussion on a matter standing on the paper being forestalled, is dependent on the same principle as that which forbids the same question being twice raised in the same session. In applying the anticipation rule preference is given to the discussion which leads to the most effective result, and this has established a descending scale of values for discussions-bills, motions, amendments, et cetera. Thus a bill or other order of the day must not be anticipated by (or more shortly "blocks") discussion of a motion, amendment, or subject raised on another motion, such as that for the adjournment of the house. A motion standing on the paper for leave to bring in a bill blocks discussion of a motion (except for the presentation of a bill), amendments, et cetera.
In my opinion the discussion on the bill that has been introduced by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) anticipates this resolution, and the resolution cannot therefore, in my opinion, be made the subject of discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is usual for opportunity to be given for discussion of

Freight Rates on Grain
a point of order before the chair rules upon it. By a singular coincidence I was looking up May on the question of anticipation about another matter when you called this order.
If your honour will look at the bill and at the resolution you will see that they are entirely different. It may be that in both cases arguments may be used that are somewhat similar. The bill proposes to amend the Railway Act -by striking out the proviso to subsection 5 of section 325 and substituting therefor the following:
Provided that, notwithstanding anything in this subsection contained, rates on grain and flour shall be governed by the provisions of the agreement made pursuant to chapter five of the statutes of Canada, 1897-
That is the Crowsnest pass agreement, which this resolution does not touch at all':
-but such rates shall apply to all such traffic moving from all points on all lines of railway west of Fort William to Fort William or Port Arthur, and to all such traffic moving west-ward-ly from Fort William, and from all points on all lines of railway west of Fort William, to Vancouver. British Columbia and to ports on the Pacific coast, over all lines now or hereafter constructed by any company subject to the jurisditcion of parliament.
In other words, if your honour will do me the kindness to look at the proposed amendment to the Railway Act you will find that it does not touch the question in the resolution of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) at all, for he proposes that the rates shall be -adjusted or reduced to at least not more than three cents per hundred pounds over existing export rates. There cannot be any similarity between these two things.
I dislike raising an issue on this question except to point out to your honour that it is usual for hon. members to direct attention to the rules with respect to points of order of this character. The rule with respect to anticipation might be raised against the bill because the bill is anticipated by a motion, but this motion deals with something entirely different, and it cannot possibly be said to be governed by the rule with respect to anticipation because this is not anticipation; this is after the event and could not under any circumstances be made a part of the bill. I point this out to your honour only because I am anxious to assist rather than to do otherwise in regard to the conduct of public business. On looking at the section of the bill and the resolution I am sure that your honour will observe that one is not in any sense a duplication of the other. I think what might be done, in view of what has been done, would be to permit the motion to stand on the order paper without losing its position,
if that is agreeable to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, for it is quite clear that the two-things are not similar.


Mr. PERLEY (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker,.
I certainly think the point is well taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and I am willing to allow the motion to stand without losing its position on the order paper.


Charles Gavan Power: The point of order having
been raised, and having listened to the observations of the right hon. leader of the opposition, although I am not quite prepared to agree with him in every respect, I am willing to admit that the point raised by him is well worthy of the consideration of the Speaker and the postponement of any decision by the chair. Under the circumstances, if the house consents, I would suggest that we allow the order to stand without losing its position on the order paper.
Motion stands.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East) moved:: Whereas it is detrimental to the best interests of Canada that there should be in the country groups to whom, because of race or religious beliefs, we do not extend all the right ot citizenship;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should' take the necessary measures to exclude from the country all persons belonging to those groups to whom we do not grant the full rights and privileges of citizenship.
He said: In the uncertainties of the situation I rather hesitate to get up for fear I may find that I am not in order even with this resolution, though I think it is a matter that has been discussed in the house on other occasions. But in spite of that discussion the problem remains pretty much the same. I can assure the house that I gave the whole subject a great deal of thought before putting the motion on the order paper, because I am convinced that it is one that should be considered and it is much better that it should be discussed on the floor of the house where we can, I hope, give it that impartial and serious consideration which we could not do in the heat of an election, on the hustings; where passions and prejudices can be brought into play.
The resolution asks parliament to take immediate measures to exclude from the country persons to whom, because of race

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Maclnnis
or religion, we do not extend all the rights and privileges of citizenship. I realize that even if this were done it would not meet the situation that exists in British Columbia, with which I will try to deal to-night. Of course, when I speak of persons to whom we refuse to extend the rights and privileges of citizenship, asking that they be excluded from the country, I refer to such persons as come here to stay permanently; the resolution does not refer to persons who may come into the country for a stated time.
In British Columbia, unfortunately, there are persons who are deprived of citizenship rights because of racial origin and religious beliefs. In the Franchise Act of 1934 the Doukhobors in British Columbia were deprived of one of the ordinary rights of citizenship, the right to vote. They were denied that right in British Columbia although they still have it in all the other provinces. I do not however wish to deal to-night with the Doukhobor situation, the present government, when in opposition, took a very decided stand, and in my opinion rightly so, against the disfranchisement of Doukhobors in British Columbia, and it is only reasonable to suppose that that discrimination will be removed from the Franchise Act when it comes up for amendment, as I assume it will before the next general election takes place. There are however in British Columbia other racial groups who are in the same position as are the Doukhobors in regard to the rights of citizenship. I do not know what the attitude of the government would be with respect to those groups, but I do know the attitude of some of its supporters. I refer now to persons of oriental origin, Japanese, Chinese and British subjects from India. These people are not allowed to vote in British Columbia, and they are debarred from other rights and privileges because they have not the right of the franchise. I may refer more specifically later on to these other deprivations.
If the number affected by this discrimination were insignificant, if there were only very few of them, I realize that the moral aspect of the matter would be the same; but the practical consequences would not be so important. I think it is unfortunate that this oriental question affects British Columbia more than it does the other provinces. I believe it would be correct to say that the other provinces have no oriental problem; yet the other provinces, through their representation in the house, cannot avoid responsibility for the situation that now exists in British Columbia.

Before I put the case as I see it, I think it would be well to give the house an idea of the situation in that province by indicating the extent of the oriental population. I will deal first with the Chinese. The number of Chinese in the province at the time of the census in 1931 was 27,139; that was not in the dominion as a whole but in British Columbia alone. Now there is an assumption, which has been very assiduously spread, that this population is growing rapidly. So far as the Chinese are concerned, that is not true. According to the statistics I have received from the bureau of statistics the number of Chinese births since 1931 to the end of 1934 was 488. The number of deaths in the same period was 693, and there has been no Chinese immigration, that is, at least no legal entry of Chinese during the last few years. We can see that the Chinese population is decreasing rather than increasing. The natural decrease for the period I have mentioned would be about 200, and I am told that there are quite a number of adult Chinese who have returned to their native land during the period. There are however no accurate statistics with regard to this category.
When we take the Japanese into consideration the situation is different; the population is growing. And it is for that reason that I say that even though those who are now coming in by immigration were excluded, as I am asking to have done, the Japanese population would continue to grow. I come now to the figures showing the number and the growth of the Japanese population in the province at the present time. According to the census of 1931, there were 22,205 Japanese in British Columbia. Births from the time of the census to the end of 1934 numbered 2,341. There was an increase by immigration during that period of 618, and the number of deaths in the same period was 503. Deduct the number of deaths from the number of births, and add the increase by immigration, and we find that the Japanese population of British Columbia is larger now by 2,456 than it was at the time the census was taken in 1931. The rate of natural increase, however, is declining. The number of births has been decreasing each year from 1929, as shown by the years for which I have statistics, until 1934. The number of births in 1929 was 842; in 1934 the number was 614. As I have pointed out, however, there has been a substantial increase in the population during the three and a half years for which I have given the figures.

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Maclnnis
The statement was made by one of the Liberal candidates in order to frighten the people of British Columbia that in 28 years the oriental population of that province would be greater than the white population. If that is correct, the situation with which I am dealing is even more serious than I believe it to be. We are adding yearly to the population of Canada by natural increase about 650 Canadian-born children who under present circumstances can never become Canadian citizens. That is true not only of children now born; it is true of those children's children for generations unless we deal with the matter in a better and, I would say, a more British way than we have dealt with it so far. I would quote from a speech made to the house by the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie) on June 30, 1934. He was speaking against the exclusion of Doukhobors from the franchise in the present Franchise Act. I am quoting the present Minister of National Defence because I agree with what he said at that time. I believe the stand that he took on that occasion was the right one. This is what he said, as reported in Hansard of that year at page 4530:
The province of British Columbia has punished these men and properly so but it is a pernicious, vicious and iniquitous principle to single out any race by name in any legislation of this country and to deprive them of the franchise because this will affect not only the people there to-day but their descendants
to the third and fourth generation_______ But
here we are to-day as a parliament representing all free peoples within this country, saying that any man because he is a Doukobor is absolutely deprived of the franchise and his sons and daughters and their descendants unto untold generations are also to be disfranchised. That is the most Tory measure I ever heard of in any parliament.
It was pointed out that the reason these Doukhobors were to be deprived of their franchise was that they would not observe the laws of this country. If it is a pernicious, vicious and iniquitous principle to deprive the law-defying Doukhobor of the franchise, how much more so is it so with regard to the law-abiding oriental?
I have a number of other statistics with regard to the Japanese population. Those statistics, however, are taken from a private source; I wish to make that clear. They have been gathered by a survey made by a number of university students of Japanese origin in the province of British Columbia. There are approximately 24,000 Japanese in British Columbia at the present time. Over 11,000 of them are Canadian-bom and are consequently in my opinion Canadian citizens, and 135 of those are Canadian-bom children of
Canadian-born parents. It is also shown by this survey that 3,685 Japanese were attending educational institutions, most of them being in the public schools of the province. It should also be noted that, of the Canadian-bom Japanese of ten years and over, 41i per cent read English only. Even if it were possible, which in my opinion it is not, to return these people to the land of their origin, they would be as much out of place there as if they were Canadian-born children of white parents. Forty-four per cent can read English and Japanese, and 14-3 per cent read Japanese only. From the same survey it appears that only 0-2 per cent of Canadian-born Japanese of ten years and over are illiterate. It would seem that according to these figures literacy among the Japanese in British Columbia is very high indeed. I have given the house those statistics in order that we might have, as far as population can show, a picture of the situation that exists in my province.


Mr. WOOD:: Would the hon. member be prepared to include Canadian Indians in his proposal? They are law-abiding citizens.


Angus MacInnis: Canadian Indians, I believe, come under another classification. I do not think there is any discrimination as regards Canadian Indians when they become citizens within the proper meaning of that term. So long as they are wards of the government I understand that they are not allowed the franchise, but if they leave the reserve I think the franchise is granted to them in the same way as to any other Canadian citizen.' I think those are the regulations, if you like to call them such, with regard to Indians. However, I have no objection to including them in this.


George Ernest Wood: May I ask another question then. If my hon. friend classifies Indians as wards of the government, how about those people we are keeping on relief? Are they not also wards of the government? Would he also disfranchise them?


Angus MacInnis: That is not germane to the point under discussion. The Franchise Act of 1934 specifically allowed those who were receiving relief to vote, though they might otherwise have been excluded from the franchise. I agree with the principle, and if I had my way I would extend it much further. However it is not germane to the question I am discussing.
The question may very properly be asked, I believe, as to the way in which this
376	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Maclnnis
relatively small racial group constitutes a problem that should be discussed in the house. That question can be answered definitely and clearly by saying that these people, citizens of Canada, are deprived of the right to vote, and that they are thus segregated from the rest of the population of British Columbia. They feel that they are in an inferior position; they feel that they should not be placed in this position, as intellectually and in every other way they are the equal of other races or national groups. Recent history has given ample proof of the dangers of discriminating against racial minorities. Canada has prided itself on the fact that there is no racial discrimination in this country. I am told, and I think I saw it somewhere in the press, that our representative at Geneva-and if my memory serves me aright it was the government leader in the other house-recently said that in Canada we had no racial problems. I am afraid that before making that statement the hon. gentleman did not see the advertisements of the Liberal party in British Columbia during the recent campaign; I am afraid he did not listen to some of the radio broadcasts dealing with racial problems in that province. I am quite satisfied that if he had done so he would not have made the statement he is supposed to have made. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is anxious to promote friendly relations between this country and the rest of the world and also that he is anxious that we should not have racial prejudices and racial antagonisms created within this country. For that reason I wish him to note the advertisement to which I am going to refer now, and which appeared in Vancouver newspapers during the last federal campaign. This advertisement appeared in the Vancouver Province of October 7, and it states at the bottom of the page that it is published by the Vancouver Liberal council executive committee. At the top in black type one inch deep or perhaps more it says:
50,000	Orientals in British Columbia
C.C.F. stands pledged to give them the vote. The Liberal party is opposed to giving these orientals the vote. Where will you stand on election day?
The deciding issue in British Columbia was your attitude towards the orientals, whether or not you were going to give them the vote. I should like to impress upon the Prime Minister that it was stated as the policy of the Liberal party that they were opposed to giving the vote to orientals, that they were opposed to giving the vote to these British

subjects, these Canadian citizens, because of the colour of their skin. Then they go on:
A vote for any C.C.F. candidate is a vote to give the Chinaman and Japanese the same voting right that you have! A vote for a Liberal candidate is a vote against oriental enfranchisement.
When the Japanese were members of the League of Nations did not they and the Chinese have in that body the same voting right that any other nation possessed? That was in the League of Nations, the greatest body of its kind this world has ever known. There they stood, the equals of all the other nations in the world, yet the Liberal party in British Columbia felt the need of securing votes so desperately that they had to appeal to low racial prejudices of that kind in order to secure election. I think that is a most unworthy motive. I am sure that there was enough, even if I do not agree with it, in the platform of the Liberal party to secure their election without making appeals of this kind. I wish to suggest to the Prime Minister that at some future time this sort of thing may create a very serious situation in Canada. As I have already pointed out, the oriental population is growing. They are an intellectual, proud people and they will not tolerate reflections of this kind without a protest.
This advertisement is flanked on either side by pictures of the six Liberal candidates in greater Vancouver. Here we have the picture of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). There is a short biography under each picture. I am not going to take the time of the house to read them, except to note that the Minister of National Defence is said to be a national figure and the right bower of the Prime Minister. I am sorry that the right bower of the Prime Minister had to stoop to something like this in order to secure election. Then there is the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. McGeer), the Liberal candidate for Vancouver East and the Liberal candidate for Vancouver South, who has since been made a judge. I am just wondering what may happen if he has to deal with matters concerning both whites and orientals. Here is the picture of the Liberal candidate for Vancouver North, and the picture of the Liberal member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). In another advertisement directly below we find the picture of the Minister of National Defence again, along with that of an assistant speaker, Mrs. Nellie McClung, the noted author. I understand, however, that Mrs. McClung did not help their election, at least as far as this

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Maclnnis
slogan was concerned, because she put herself on record as being in favour of extending the vote to orientals. I am sure that is very much to her credit.
I could show the house other advertisements of a similar kind. The whole issue was: where will you stand on election day? The determining factor was the stand on the oriental question. Of itself that would not be quite so bad. But it was not left at that. I have in my hand now a radio address delivered on October 4 by a man named J. Edward Sears, barrister at law, which was published by the Vancouver East Liberal campaign committee. Let me quote from this. Do hon. members who are living side by side with other races in eastern Canada, French and English, think this is likely to promote racial accord in British Columbia?
Maybe you have asked yourself. Why has the C.C.F. promised votes to the orientals? It certainly did not emanate from the ordinary white citizen of the province.
The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation members apparently are not ordinary white citizens.
Is it love of country that has prompted such a promise? Is it personal love for the oriental that has caused the promise of the gift of the franchise? Or is it because the orientals have paid for the promise of such a gift from the C.C.F. ? That is the question that I dare the C.C.F. leaders to answer.
I did not think the franchise was a gift; I thought for British subjects and Canadian citizens it was a right, and consequently people did not have to pay in order to get it. Then comes one of the filthiest things to which anyone could possibly stoop. It goes on to say:
White girls procured for orientals.
You mothers of young girls, wake up, when some one asks you to vote for a C.C.F. candidate in this election. Look behind the solicitor for a C.C.F. candidate and you will see an oriental leering over his shoulder with an eye on you and your daughter. Remember the terrible evidence that came out during the trial of the men of foreign extraction a few months ago, who procured and drugged innocent young girls and forced them into a life of shame.
Can hon. members imagine a great party stooping to a thing like that? It is true that trials were held and certain people were convicted and sent to the penitentiary. But they were not orientals; they were other Canadian citizens of foreign extraction who have the rights of citizenship. And in any event what did we do in this country? We brought thousands of Chinese men here; we kept them here; we did not permit their wives and families to come with them, and we should have known that Canadian women and girls would have
to pay for an immoral act of that kind. Now it is time that something should be done to rectify such a situation, but surely the way to do it is not to make these low appeals to racial prejudice.
May I also point out that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation is not the only organization in British Columbia that has gone on record in favour of giving the vote to orientals. The United Church of Canada in British Columbia has gone on record to the same effect. I wonder whether those members of the Liberal party when they went to their churches on Sunday and the minister preached to them, would see an oriental leering over his shoulder with an eye on their wives and daughters. I wonder I I quote again from this thing, although I am sure I have quoted enough:
Mr. Woodsw'orth, the leader of the C.C.F. party in Canada, had the effrontery and heathenism to announce in the Canadian parliament on the 22nd day of June last year that it was the policy of the C.C.F. party to grant the franchise to the orientals of this province and he gloried in it.
Well, he will be glad to find that at least he is in good company as far as his heathenism is concerned, because he is here associated with the United Church of Canada, and also with the Women's Christian Temperance Union, some more heathens I suppose!
Here is another one, very typically Liberal I believe:
C.C.F. would have orientals elect candidates.
I want you to stop and think what might happen in a few years if the oriental is given the vote. Maybe you want a small concession from the government, a job, or a small contract of some kind, or a piece of land-
How typically Liberal!
-or to have your child given a little special attention _at school. It is necessary to make a trip to Victoria and see the minister directly concerned. You go into his office in the parliament buildings and you see three or four orientals in the anteroom waiting. Finally you are ushered into the presence of the minister and find yourself gazing into the eyes of a yellow man. You state your business and are then politely told that the others waiting in the outer office are also asking for the same concession. What would be your chance of obtaining any help?
I will not quote any more from the vile thing. But that is what we have to contend with in British Columbia. I think I have shown sufficiently where we are heading if this appeal to race prejudice is going to continue. We know how easily clashes can be brought about by such appeals. As I have already pointed out, the oriental population in British Columbia will keep on increasing for a considerable number of years. As I have also
378	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Maclnnis
pointed out, the orientals are an intelligent and proud people and they will not forever put up with vilification and abuse of the kind I have just read.
What I would like to put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) is this: First, I ask that the agreement between the Canadian government and the government of Japan by which a certain number of Japanese come to this country each year should be terminated at the earliest possible date. If the Japanese cannot be given full rights of citizenship in this country then we certainly should not allow any more of them to come into Canada. We also should take steps to return to the land of their origin as many as possible of those who are here. But this in itself would not be a solution of the problem. The orientals are in our midst; why they are here, who brought them here I am not going to discuss to-night. The important point is that they are here, and as far as I can see they are here to stay. It would be very much more to the point, now that they are here, to do everything possible to make them good and loyal citizens, having pride in our institutions, than because of their colour to try to create race prejudice against them in the minds of the ignorant.
Speaking recently to the advertising bureau, I think it was, of the board of trade of Vancouver, Professor Angus of the university of British Columbia made this statement. He had pointed out that there was no possible practical alternative, so far as our oriental population was concerned, to giving them the franchise. Then he said:
It is the best thing to do from the selfish interests of us who are not oriental. We have to live with them, and it is much better to live with good citizens than bad citizens.
Some little time ago I was talking to a principal of one of the Vancouver schools at which there is an attendance of children of, as he told me, twenty-eight different races. He stated that there was no difficulty whatever, so far as racial grounds were concerned. The children played together; they worked together and so far as he could see race made no difference. My home in Vancouver is near one of the Vancouver high schools, and any day one can walk along the street and see Japanese girls accompanied by white girls, or Chinese girls and white girls walking arm in arm along the sidewalk. The same is true of the university.
Quite recently a farmer from the Fraser valley came to my home to talk over with
me the necessity for the exclusion of orientals. During the interview he made this amazing statement:	"It is not the vices of the

orientals to which we object; it is their virtues." By a proper approach to this question I believe the government of Canada could turn the virtues of our oriental citizens to good account, and I implore the Prime Minister, in whose sincerity on questions of this kind I have the greatest trust, to try to find some way of dealing with the matter. I am not asking that at the moment the franchise be extended to orientals, but I am asking that if it is not extended some other solution of the problem be found.
With the statement of Professor Angus I am in complete accord. As these orientals are in Canada I think it is much better that we try to make good citizens of them because it is better to live with good citizens than with bad. I believe the time at my disposal has expired. I trust that any hon. member speaking on the resolution will endeavour to see the situation as it affects British Columbia. This matter does not affect other provinces to the same extent, but I believe it cannot be settled without the assistance of the dominion as a whole.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I have been following with great care the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis). May I say to him immediately what he has been kind enough to say to me, namely, that I greatly respect his sincerity in everything he has said.
In listening to the hon. member however I found some difficulty in understanding his real objective. As I listened to his observations it seemed to me that they were directed towards the advocacy of the franchise being given to certain orientals in the province of British Columbia. I find however that the operative portion of his resolution asks the house to do something wholly different, and I believe it important to bring that difference to the attention of hon. members immediately, so that if the debate goes on for some time, hon. members will not be confused with respect to the real issue in the resolution as drafted.
May I point out that the resolution is divisible into two parts, the first constituting the preamble and the second the operative portion. The preamble reads:
Whereas it is detrimental to the best interests of Canada that there should be in the country groups to whom, because of race or religious beliefs, we do not extend all the rights of citizenship.
Hon. members will notice that the preamble relates entirely to citizenship, a question

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Mackenzie King
which is wholly domestic. It is intended to deal with that phase of citizenship which the hon. member has emphasized, namely the right of the exercise of the franchise.


Angus MacInnis: Without unduly interrupting the right hon. gentleman may I state I pointed out clearly that while I was anxious to exclude all those to whom we could not extend the rights of citizenship I felt that would not be a full solution of the problem which now exists.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I now come to the operative portion of the hon. member's motion:
Therefore be it resolved that in the opinion of this house the government should take the necessary measures to exclude from the country all persons belonging to those groups to whom we do not grant the full rights and privileges of citizenship.
That portion of the resolution makes it one for the exclusion of orientals. That is what it is, and my hon. friend agrees. We are perfectly clear on that point; as a consequence, I believe there will be very little difficulty in deciding the proper course for parliament to follow.
I agree with the hon. member when he states that questions of this kind can be discussed to much greater advantage in a deliberate assembly, such as the House of Commons, than on the hustings, and I am therefore glad the hon. member has brought the matter here for discussion. May I revert to the preamble, which deals impliedly with the question of the franchise, and say that if it is a question of granting the franchise to orientals resident in British Columbia, the province to which he has made particular reference, then the matter is one which it seems to me might come properly before the legislature of that province, in the first instance, and might come properly before this chamber during the consideration of our Dominion Franchise Act. If I am not mistaken, the party to which the hon. member belongs constitutes the opposition in the legislature of British Columbia, but I am not aware that the co-operative commonwealth federation party in the legislature has preferred any request to the government of British Columbia to give the right of the franchise to the orientals of that province. I would say that that would be the proper place to begin. As long as I can remember, with respect to the franchise, we in the federal parliament have felt it our duty to respect the points of view of the provinces in matters of this kind.


Angus MacInnis: Is that true in regard to the votes for women in the province of Quebec?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking in the broad sense.


Angus MacInnis: This is a very broad sense.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are
exceptions to every rule, and I am quite prepared to grant my hon. friend the exception. But certainly so far as orientals in British Columbia are concerned, any portion of our legislation respecting the franchise which touches on that question has been dealt with in parliament out of respect for what we believed to be the wishes of the people of that province. However may I state immediately in this connection that there is on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) a notice of motion reading as follows:
That a special committee, the members thereof to be selected at a later date, be appointed to study the Dominion Elections Act 1934 and amendments thereto and the franchise act 1934 and amendments thereto and' to suggest to the house such amendments to the said acts as they may deem advisable, and, furthermore, such committee shall study and make a report on the following subjects:-*
And so on.
I have no doubt that the house will adopt that motion and that the Franchise Act will come before the special committee, and there would seem to me to be the proper time and place for my hon. friend to present his proposal that orientals in British Columbia should be granted the franchise. So far as his motion has to do with the franchise in its relation to orientals, the two courses I have mentioned amply cover all that could possibly be desired with regard to settling a domestic question pertaining to citizenship and the exercise of the franchise by orientals in British Columbia, namely, to have it dealt with in the first instance in the provincial legislature of British Columbia, and in the second place dealt with here by a committee of this House of Commons appointed specially to consider what amendments to the Dominion Franchise Act may be necessary.
May I say just in passing that I am not aware so far as British Columbia is concerned that the orientals themselves who reside there have been agitating for this right of the franchise, nor am I aware that the public generally have been advocating that particular step. However, I mention that only in passing.
380	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Mackenzie King
The important point to consider is what my hon. friend actually proposes in his resolution, and here I think I can almost quote him in support of the point of view that I am about to set forth. The substantive portion of the resolution, as I have mentioned, is:
That the government should take the necessary measures to exclude from the country all persons belonging to those groups to whom we do not grant the full rights and privileges of citizenship.
The groups referred to, as mentioned by my hon. friend, are four: the Doukhobors, the Japanese, the Chinese and the Hindus.
My hon. friend says that so far as the Doukhobors are concerned, they have not been coming to this country for a long time past and therefore the question of excluding them does not arise.
My hon. friend also mentioned one other point, which was that members on the government side of the house at the present time opposed very strongly the denial in the Dominion Franchise Act of the right of the exercise of the franchise to Doukhobors residing in the province of British Columbia. I know that I opposed that provision very strongly at the time, and I am opposed to that section as it stands at present. I have no doubt that particular clause will come before the committee for consideration. So as far as the Doukhobors are concerned, they can be ruled out of the present discussion altogether.
The Chinese, I heard my hon. friend say, were diminishing rather than increasing in numbers in Canada, and from that point of view it would seem that exclusion of Chinese was hardly a step that it would be wise for this country to take at the present time even if there were not other very strong reasons for not taking action of that sort.
My hon. friend did not make quite clear just what he meant by exclusion, whether he meant to take the orientals already in the country and have them removed bodily back to their own native land, or whether he wished to exclude others from coming in. I think he did say that he thought they could hardly be sent back. He did not make the statement too positively, but he did think it would not do to send them back. I think I am right in saying that such at any rate is his view. If that, then, is the case, what the resolution narrows down to is simply the exclusion of others from coming in. We are agreed on that. So far as the Doukhobors are concerned we have seen that the resolution has no bearing as they have not been coming in. As far as the Chinese are con-

cerned, the hon. member himself, as I have pointed out, states that their numbers in the province are diminishing, and he admits that none have come in at all within the last couple of years; so exclusion there would not be very much to the point. There remain then but the two nationalities, the Japanese and the Hindus-the British East Indians, spoken of colloquially as the Hindus. That raises, Mr. Speaker, the very large question of the exclusion from our dominion of some of those who are British subjects and also the exclusion of citizens of a great friendly power such as Japan is. These are days .when the world is severely troubled with its problems. I should think it very unlikely that hon. members would wish to add to the world's problems to-day by raising at this time the question of exclusion from this country of the foreign peoples of the orient and of British subjects from India. I cannot imagine a single question which at this time would create more difficulties to governments, and which was calculated to provoke more in the way of hatred and strife than the proposal of exclusion.


Angus MacInnis: Does not the Prime Minister think the election propaganda of the Liberals in British Columbia was just as bad as exclusion itself could possibly be.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Like my hon. friend I deplore very much anything that is calculated to stir up racial feeling, but fortunately so far as political propaganda is concerned it is more or less localized. What my hon. friend forgets at the moment is that people in the orient who have never heard of our political discussions will read his resolution in the morning as a resolution that is being discussed in the House of Commons of Canada, and that makes it a very serious question indeed. I do not imagine that anyone in India has heard a single word of what was discussed in British Columbia during the last campaign with respect to East Indians, but if this resolution were to carry to-night I venture to say that the press of India to-morrow would be full of what this House of Commons had done to exclude British subjects in India from the Dominion of Canada.


Angus MacInnis: They are excluded now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They are not
excluded now. My hon. friend is quite wrong when he says that.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Why move to exclude
them if they are already excluded?

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Mackenzie King


Angus MacInnis: There is another class
that is not excluded; that is the reason for the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
to my hon. friend that this is a question which has caused all governments in Canada for many years past great concern. It is a question to which I personally have given a good deal of attention and investigation. I have in my hand a report which I prepared for the government of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier as long ago as the year 1908 after a mission to England to confer with the British authorities on the subject of immigration to Canada from the orient, and immigration from India in particular. Having taken up outstanding features of this problem, so far as Canada was concerned, with the British Government, I subsequently visited India and took the matter up with the government of India. Later on I took up the same question with the governments of China and Japan. I have had much to do with subsequent negotiations. So I think I can speak with some degree of authority as to the significance of this great question. May I be permitted to quote just one paragraph of the order in council under which I was appointed to go to England to discuss the matter with the British government and subsequently to India. It is as follows:
That moreover the whole subject of oriental immigration is one of first concern to Canada, and affecting, as it does, the relations of the dominion with foreign powers, and the relations of our people with fellow British subjects in India, involves considerations of the highest importance, not only to Canada, but to the British empire as a whole.
That was greatly true in 1908. Some twenty-eight years have elapsed since that time. I venture to say the problem has become infinitely more significant in its world aspects in that interval of time. It behooves this House of Commons to move very warily and carefully in whatever it does that might be interpreted by the great peoples of the orient and of India as something that is offensive to them as a people, and which reflects upon them as nations.
My hon. friend in speaking to-night said that the orientals as he knew them were a proud people; that they did not like the reflection on their race and their country involved in their being deprived of the franchise and were offended by it. I think he is right in regarding them as sensitive and proud, and just because I think he is right in that I feel we have to be very careful as to anything we say or do in this House of Commons which will be regarded as a reflection and as offensive,
not merely to the few orientals who happen to be in Canada, but to the peoples of the orient in their respective countries whether they be in Japan or China or India or other parts of the world.
That is why I have thought it advisable to intervene at an early stage in this debate rather than to wait for the discussion to run on for some time. As, I said, speaking in the house some days ago, I do not believe that those of us who are members of legislative bodies can begin to appreciate the possible significance of our words and above all of our resolutions at a time like the present, when the feeling of unrest among the nations of the world is what it is. This is one resolution which for this reason I trust the House of Commons, if it should come to a vote at all, will vote down in the most emphatic way. 1 have not the least doubt however that my hon. friend, when he has discussed the political issues of the last campaign in British Columbia, will feel that his purpose has been served and will withdraw the resolution.
May I point out that, the question being the important one it is, every government that has held office in this country has had to give very careful consideration to the best method of dealing with it. There are only two methods that can be adopted with respect to immigration from the orient to Canada. One is the method of exclusion, which reflects upon the entire peoples of those countries, which is offensive to them and which is certain to create bitterness as between the orient and Canada, and the other method is that of diplomatic negotiation-frank and direct communication with the countries concerned, pointing out aspects of the problem as they are of concern to us, and seeking by negotiation in a diplomatic way to effect arrangements which will achieve what is necessary by way of effective restriction and avoid what is so objectionable in exclusion.
The governments that have been in office in this country for thirty years past, whether Liberal or Conservative, have followed precisely the same method in dealing with this question; they have met those in authority in the other countries and explained the situation here, and have succeeded in securing arrangements in the nature of effective restriction. What my hon. friend has said to-night makes it clear that while there have been times when the number of orientals coming to Canada has been considerable, there has never been a time when the numbers coming in have been fewer actually than they are at present. So far as immigration from the orient is concerned, my hon. friend has chosen,
382	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Mackenzie King
from his point of view, the worst possible moment to introduce a resolution looking in the direction of restriction, to say nothing of exclusion. One of the chief reasons this country had for opening a legation in Japan was that we might avoid precisely the sort of discussion that threatens to arise in the house to-night in considering a question which means so very much to nations that are sensitive in matters of this kind. It was thought that if Canada had a legation in Japan and Japan a legation here, we could meet the representatives of Japan here and the Japanese could meet our representative in Tokyo and these matters could be talked over and a friendly arrangement reached. That has been done and done most successfully. The agreement we have with Japan at the present time is being carried out very faithfully by the Japanese. We have no reason to complain at all of the honourable manner in which that country has acted in the last few years with respect to the fulfilment of all the obligations arising out of the arrangement we have with her.
Again, so far as India is concerned, I should think it would be very unfortunate indeed if we attempted anything in the nature of exclusion. I think my hon. friend himself will agree that the number of East Indians coming to Canada at the present time is so small as not to make it a consideration; indeed, the hon. gentleman's remarks have been pretty much to that effect. So that the whole matter narrow's to the adoption of an act of exclusion towards Japan.
May I say to my hon. friend, that quite apart from the more serious and important considerations of which I have spoken, interested as he is above all in his own province of British Columbia, he surely must appreciate the importance to British Columbia in the development of its trade on the Pacific, of maintaining the friendliest relations with the countries with which Canada hopes to trade.	Within the last few
months, we have fortunately settled a trade difference between Japan and Canada in a manner which has avoided much bitterness of feeling, indeed has, I believe, ended it, and established in its stead friendliness and good will that will be very much to the advantage of both countries. Certainly, in the little time that normal trade relations have been restored, there has been evidence as a result thereof, of a very considerable development of industry in British Columbia. Many men are to-day employed who only a few months ago were out of work; wage

bills are being paid out at higher rates and more extensively in several of the industries in British Columbia as a result of restored trade with Japan. That is a development that means very much to our country at this time, and will mean more and more as time goes on. Any act of exclusion against orientals would pretty soon put an end to trade relations with countries against which that act might be directed.
I do not think I need say more. I believe that my hon. friend is truly desirous, as are all members of the house, of promoting good will as between the different nations of the world and this dominion; and particularly desirous are those who come from British Columbia and from the western part of Canada, of promoting the friendliest relations with those great countries that are across the Pacific. We shall be making no mistake if we continue by direct negotiation to seek to appeal to what is reasonable in the minds of others in effecting the agreements that are necessary to the succesful and peaceful management of our own affairs; but we shall certainly be creating ill-will, the consequence of which no one can foresee, if we adopt at this time any act of exclusion.
May I add this word in conclusion. I do not think that any country would for one moment take the view that immigration is not entirely a matter for each country to settle for itself. So far as the British empire is concerned, at the imperial war conference of 1918, if I am not mistaken, a resolution in quite definite terms was passed to the effect that as between different parts of the empire it was recognized that each part had sovereign right in the matter of regulating the entrance of people into its own domain and that this carried with it the right to restrict immigration from any other part of the empire. As regards our recognized right to do as we please with respect to immigration there can be no question whatever. But what it is best to do, and how it can best be done is something which no government can consider too carefully. I hope therefore that, having served his purpose in bringing out what he regards as deplorable features of the last campaign in British Columbia, my hon. friend will, when the time comes, withdraw the resolution, so that there may be no possible misinterpretation of Canada's attitude towards orientals, whether they be foreigners in the usual meaning of the term, or fellow British subjects in the wide sense of that phrase.

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Reid


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: The resolution now before the house deals with a matter, as the mover (Mr. Maclnnis) stated, peculiar to British Columbia. I was rather disappointed-and I say this kindly- that the mover of the resolution, although he started off upon a rather high plane, remarking that this was a question which should be discussed in the House of Commons, and without heat, rather than on the hustings, before long exhibited quite a little heat and brought in matters that occurred during the last election.
Let me say at the outset that perhaps no Liberal candidate can wholly disclaim the propaganda and advertisements which appeared in the press on behalf of his party. I am not adopting a " holier than thou " attitude, but I can assure the mover of the resolution that from one end of the campaign to the other never by word or inference did I mention the oriental issue. It is true that my picture and my name appeared in the newspaper exhibited, but I think in fairness my hon. friend will have to admit that I, although having nothing personally to do with it, must I suppose accept some responsibility. I am however actually no more responsible for it than he is for every speech that was uttered by every Cooperative Commonwealth Federation member throughout the campaign. In bringing up the matter as one that affects the best interests of Canada, the hon. member shows the house, and rightly so, that it is of vital concern and interest to the people of British Columbia particularly.
The right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) stated the matter very clearly, I think, when he pointed out that the federal parliament was merely carrying out the wishes of the British Columbia government. What annoyed many people in British Columbia and some British Columbia members of the house was that during the last provincial election in that province the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation candidates, knowing that it was an acute question, and a touchy one, invariably ducked the oriental question when they were asked about it. When the subject of the Doukhobors came up in the house the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) came out with a straightforward statement to the house and to the country that so far as he personally was concerned and his party likewise they, if elected to power, would give the orientals in British Columbia the vote.
Coming to the resolution itself, however, it is threefold. The first part I certainly do not agree with. It says
Whereas it is detrimental to the best interests of Canada that there should be in the country groups to whom, because of race or religious beliefs, we do not extend the rights of citizenship.
Again, to quote the words of the Prime Minister this evening, there are many groups in British Columbia who are being denied the vote who are not as much concerned about it as is the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation. I have met many Chinese; I have met many Japanese and Hindus. Let me say frankly that they are more concerned with making a livelihood, and so long as they can make a little money in British Columbia the vote does not interest them very much. Yet we have members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation who seem to be losing a lot of sleep over oriental groups in British Columbia who have not the franchise.
It is my desire to keep the discussion on a fairly high plane. First, however, I want to make some remarks regarding immigration into this country and some of the races which have been mentioned. The mover referred to Japanese, Chinese and Hindus. I think I am stating the matter fairly when I say that if there is any race that has a grievance against Canada it is those who came to this land from China. In looking up records I find that this race have contributed a total of 813,000,000 to the treasury of this country for their admittance to make a Living. I would also draw to the attention of the house that they are the only race which has a special act designed for their control. None of them, generally speaking, is admitted unless he comes under what is known as the Chinese Immigration Act. In view of the opening up of the orient and particularly of that great country, China, I think this is a matter of which serious notice should be taken. It is not that I am advocating the taking down of the barriers, because I quite agree we have had enough of these orientals, and I would like to see many more of them going back; for as has been pointed out, Chinese in large numbers have been returning to their own country. If my memory serves me correctly, many hundreds, if not a thousand or two, were taken back last year in accordance with some understanding with the Chinese government. Napoleon said, referring to that large country, China, "She sleeps, and it is well." But with her teeming millions beginning to awake I think it is about time we took serious note of the present discrimina-
Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Reid

tion; and if we are going to bar Chinese altogether, let us bar all orientals. Of course at the moment I am not going into that matter, nor am I now advocating such a step much as I would like to. But I say it is very unfair that this one country should have legislation specially designed against any one nation in the orient and then, by some agreement with a nation living alongside, allow that country's nationals into Canada.
I could have wished that the mover of the resolution in his remarks had spoken about the unassimilable races. Let me point out to hon. members that there is more behind this matter than mere voting power or the economic life of people in this country from the orient and from India. My personal view is that we should view very carefully if not with alarm the presence of thousands of an unassimilable race, and until the time comes when we either marry them or they marry amongst our people and begin to assimilate, I think we should go very carefully indeed before granting them too many rights and privileges. In saying that I am giving my own personal views.
In view again of the statement of my hon. friend who moved the resolution that he wished to keep the discussion on a high plane, I wonder that he did not draw the attention of the house to the fact that even the gentleman's agreement with Japan is a little one-sided. At any rate that is my view. We allow their nationals, also Chinese and Hindus, to come into this country, to own land, to make a living and to go about their economic and everyday life without let or hindrance. It is hardly necessary to point out that these groups in various phases of our economic life have been the means of keeping wages lower than they should have been. Again, in Japan, I understand, no one has the right to own land or to vote. So Canada's refusal to grant them just the vote is not wholly one-sided. Japan has made no effort to allow any foreigner to own land within her borders, and I say that when any new agreement is negotiated that fact should be laid before the Japanese government and a little fair play asked from them before her nationals demand too much from us. I doubt however whether the Japanese in Canada are demanding the vote in very large numbers. It is true that one or two students have gone around saying it is an insult to the race that they are not allowed to vote, but taking it by and large I think I am making a correct statement that they are not so much concerned with the vote as they are with making a living in this country. I think it also fair to state that so far as their standards of living are

concerned they are making a wonderfully fine living, in the province of British Columbia at least.
I note that many orientals, when they start in business, are very loath to engage Canadian help if at all, though Canadian industries, paying the same wages in many kinds of work, give them every preference in employment. Japanese concerns in British Columbia, either logging or fishing, do not hire one Canadian, and that is a very serious problem, which we view with some alarm. We see them encroaching on our fisheries, our farms and our forests, and now the statement is made in the press that Japan is getting tired of buying lumber from Canadian lumbermen and is beginning to acquire large tracts of forest land in British Columbia. I venture to state that if they do so not one Canadian will be given employment there; all the workmen will be Japanese, born either in' Canada or in Japan.
Under the old act Japanese born in this country could renounce their citizenship only with the consent of their own country. No one knows how many have done so, but under the new law Japanese can retain their citizenship by simply registering with the Japanese consul. I have no inclination to quarrel with them for not giving up their citizenship; it is their birthright; but why pretend that all Japanese in Canada, either born here or coming from Japan, are entirely British subjects or Canadians? We have no real data as to whether they belong to Japan or whether they are really Canadians.
The Doukhobor question was an entirely different matter. When it came up in the house I voted against the Doukhobor being given the franchise, and I am not apologizing for having done so. As is well known, the Doukhobors came to this country-after having been given every encouragement, it is true-and were allowed to live their own lives and go their own way. But when they refused to be registered; when they burned down our schools; when they tore the clothes off the policemen who went in to administer the law, and chased them; when, as the Prime Minister pointed out, they became the first race in this country successfully to defy the law, I have no apology to offer for voting against those people being permitted the franchise until they learn to obey our laws. In connection with the franchise, Mr. Speaker, I am more particularly concerned about our own people. I would rather see wider education in regard to the franchise and something more done to arouse our own people to the importance of voting, so that instead of only about seventy per cent of the registered voters

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Reid
taking advantage of the franchise at a general election we would have as nearly as possible one hundred per cent. When one remembers that we have to 'bring out practically all our voters or many of them will not come at all, I say that it would be far better to spend our efforts in educating our own people to the value of the franchise rather than to lose any sleep over the orientals not having votes because, as I say, they are not particularly concerned about that. They have enough power now without the franchise; I do not know just what more they want, unless it might be that a little later they would put up candidates of their own. Then we might witness one of them, either in Victoria or in Ottawa, presumably representing all his electors but-and I say this without fear of successful contradiction-really representing a great group of their fellow nationals, and perhaps being guided from abroad.
I want however to keep to the resolution. If it were simply a matter of keeping out orientals I feel that I could support this motion but- and I say this in all kindliness-I do not think the principal wish of the mover of the resolution is so much to keep out orientals as to deal with those who are already in the country and who are not allowed to vote, to the end that they be given the vote.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will not accept my own statement surely he must accept the resolution as it stands. I think it has been decided already this evening that it is the resolution, and not the intent behind it, that counts, and what is in the resolution is quite clear.


Thomas Reid: I may be a little dense, Mr. Speaker, but I assure the hon. gentleman that his remarks were not directed to the resolution, and of course I was going more on his own statements than on what is in the resolution, because I thought what he said was what he really meant. In the first paragraph the resolution states that it is detrimental to deny the vote to these people. With that I cannot agree; I do not believe it is detrimental to deny the vote to these classes of people. It is the inherent right of any country to deny the vote to any class it sees fit to deny it to. When I find certain countries denying the vote to citizens of Canada I ask: What kick have they to make when they themselves deny the vote to our nationals? In addition, of course, I do not think very many of these orientals are losing much sleep over the fact that they cannot *vote in this country.
I should like to say a word with regard t.0 our naturalization laws, because this resolution also touches that point. Some serious note should be taken of the fact that anyone bom on a British ship becomes a British subject. My opinion is that we should not lightly give citizenship to people just because they are born on a British ship, irrespective of the nationality of the parents. Citizenship should be given carefully, and if that were done I think we might have more pride in the fact that we are Canadian citizens.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If my hon. friend will allow me, he should make a distinction between British citizenship and Canadian citizenship. A person born on a British ship would be a British subject but not necessarily a Canadian citizen.


Thomas Reid: I understood that we followed the British law, which provides that anyone born on a British ship is a British subject.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: British citizenship applies to the whole empire. That would not necessarily make a person a Canadian citizen.


Thomas Reid: I shall have to accept the word of the Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) as to that. Then, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be going just a little too far to deny the right of entry to those people simply because we do not give them the franchise. In the course of his remarks the mover of the resolution gave some figures which I think he said were given to him by Japanese university students. The figures as to orientals in British Columbia form another bone of contention, and are not always correct. Only two years ago it was discovered in British Columbia that many Japanese who had birth certificates presumably showing them to be born in British Columbia really had been born in Japan. The whole problem is a very serious one. I might point out that in British Columbia we have some sections that are almost entirely Japanese. In my own constituency there is a school having fourteen rooms, of which in eleven the children are entirely Japanese, in two they are mixed and in only one they are white. Not long ago-I quoted this a year ago and I quote it again-I passed near my own district a school in which there were nine boys at play, seven Japanese and two white. One cannot but realize that with the great increase of births among those people in British Columbia this has become a very serious problem indeed, and I believe their numbers should not be allowed to increase by further immigration. However I realize that one's remarks might be wrongly interpreted abroad and by other countries, so I am not going to dwell on that aspect of the matter.



Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Neill
I say again I disagree with the first part of the resolution. Personally I do not believe it is detrimental to the best interests of Canada that the vote should not ge given to certain groups of nationals and secondly I object to barring any class of people from the country simply because we do not grant them the vote.


Alan Webster Neill: I have only a few remarks to make on this matter. It has been so well summed up by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) that I wish to add simply one slight observation. I would have had a great deal more respect for the introducer of the resolution (Mr. Maclnnis) if he had framed it honestly, and particularly-


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I submit it is quite out of order for the hon. member to say I have not framed my resolution honestly. I think he should withdraw that statement.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member should speak to the resolution.


Alan Webster Neill: If the hon. member had waited until I had finished my sentence he might not have been so hurt.


Angus MacInnis: Is the hon. gentleman
going to withdraw the statement?


Alan Webster Neill: What statement? I have not made a statement.


Angus MacInnis: Yes, he said that I have not framed my resolution honestly.


Alan Webster Neill: I did not say that.


Angus MacInnis: I heard that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: No.


Angus MacInnis: Then it was not made?


Alan Webster Neill: I was going to make it but I had not made it. I will take it all back and begin again. Mr. Speaker, the resolution is in two parts, and the hon. member certainly took advantage of his peculiar and unique wording of it to hang on to it an argument in favour of votes for orientals. There is no law against our discussing, or reason why we should not discuss votes for orientals in this chamber if we are so minded, but if I had been moving this resolution I would have begun honestly with votes for orientals and stuck to that and not mixed it up with the suggestion that we should exclude some. I timed the hon. gentleman; he devoted thirty-five minutes to speaking in favour of votes for orientals and in the last five minutes in one feeble sentence he made a casual reference to excluding them. The Prime Minister, as I say, summed up the matter so excellently that 
I can only endorse what he said. He said very truly that we should go to British Columbia if we want votes for orientals in British Columbia. That seems reasonable, does it not? It is on record that the party to which my hon. friend belongs is the official opposition in that province, and they have sat through two sessions of the local legislature and have not opened their mouths about it. Why not go to the source where you can get redress instead of whining about it in another place where you cannot get redress even if you wanted it?
The hon. member alluded to the Liberal party making an attempt to raise low racial prejudice. There stands the man-or sits- who introduced the low racial prejudice. The matter was dead. He says that the Japanese race will not tolerate this; well, they have tolerated it for thirty-three years, so why dig it up now? Who is digging it up; who is starting the low racial prejudice again? Surely not the people who are asking that things remain in statu quo as they have been for thirty-three years, as I shall show in a moment. I have before me the Law Reports, Appeal Cases, 1903, and at page 151 and following is the report of an appeal which was taken to the privy council of England, the highest court in the empire, by a gentleman of the name of Tomey Homma. He applied to the local courts for a mandamus to have the registrar put his name on the voters' list, and I believe he succeeded. Then the matter was taken to a higher court and he won there. Then the Attorney General of British Columbia took it to the privy council and in these pages is recorded the judgment of the privy council, delivered I think by Lord Halsbury. I will not quote it all, but among other things he says:
The extent to which naturalization will confer privileges has varied both in this country and elsewhere.
Then he goes on to state that:
From the time of William III down to Queen Victoria no naturalization was permitted which did not exclude the alien naturalized from sitting in parliament or in the privy council.
Does my hon. friend know that we do not even go to that extent? We do allow a Japanese to sit in parliament, that is, there is no law against his being a candidate, although we do not allow him to vote. The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation can rim a Japanese candidate at the next election; let them see how far they get.
Then the judgment goes on to discuss political rights. My hon. friend said earlier in the evening that the Liberal propaganda sheet asked whether the promise of the fran-

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Neill
chise had been made in return for some quid pro quo, and he said he did not know that the right of the franchise was a gift. Well, it is.
The term "political rights'' used in the Canadian Naturalization Act is. as Walkem J. very justly says, a very wide phrase, and their lordships concur in his observation that, whatever it means,_ it cannot be held to give necessarily a right to the suffrage in all or any of the provinces.
Then they go on to cite the history of the matter in Great Britain:
In the history of this country the right to the franchise has been granted' and withheld on a great number of grounds, conspicuously upon grounds of religious faith, yet no one has ever suggested that a person excluded from the franchise was not under allegiance to the sovereign.
The reference to religious grounds is that I believe for many years Roman Catholics were not allowed the vote, but nevertheless they were British subjects.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the Catholic
Emancipation Act was passed about 1830.


Alan Webster Neill: Yes. Now to put this into
the common language of ordinary people the privy council decided that British Columbia had the right to pass any kind of franchise act they saw fit. The franchise was not a privilege inherent in the fact of being a British subject; they can and do exclude British subjects now unless they can qualify in certain regards. They could exclude people with red hair; I heard it suggested that they might exclude Scotchmen. They have that privilege. That decision was given, as I have said, thirty-three years ago; it has never been challenged since; it could not be because it is a decision of the final court of appeal. The Japanese, being loyal subjects, accepted that decision and we have never had any trouble about it since. It has never been a matter for diplomatic exchanges with Japan; they have accepted the situation. But now it is dug up out of a clear sky-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alan Webster Neill: I should have said pulled
down from a clear sky. My friend says, very unfairly I suggest, that we seek to discriminate against them on account of their colour. Not at all; it is not on account of their colour, but on account of the well known fact, admitted by the Japanese themselves, that they are not assimilable with us and, more than that, they do not want to be. They do not wish to intermarry with us. They regard themselves as the proud Japanese race. They are proud of their race, and have a right to take that attitude. They
12739-25i
do not want intercourse with us; they do not want to intermarry with us, and for that reason they remain aloof. In many respects they claim they are superior. It is because they entertain these different ideals and ideas and because they maintain adherence to their own emperor, and so on, that we do not think it desirable to give them the vote. It is a local matter with which the people of British Columbia are surely best qualified to deal.
In his closing remarks the hon. member said that he is not asking that the oriental be given the vote. If he was not doing that, what was the whole purpose of ninety-nine per cent of his remarks? He said that he was not asking that they be given the vote, but only in his closing remarks did he make a suggestion to the Prime Minister that he do away with what is known as a gentleman's agreement. Look at the delightful consistency of the suggestion. On February 12, speaking on some other subject, he quoted the Liberal party as stating that they were opposed to giving votes to orientals. He used these words:
Note that, sir-the Liberal party is opposed to giving the orientals the vote.
I am glad to hear it; I hope they stay that way. Then he goes on to state:
What a wonderful help such a statement will be in their negotiations with Japan to improve trade relations between the two countries.
On the 12th of February he twits the Liberal party, stating that they are against giving orientals the vote, and that their attitude will handicap them in their trade negotiations. Now, if this resolution means anything, the last paragraph would exclude orientals altogether. As the Prime Minister has properly said, that will not facilitate good feelings between the two nations. The Prime Minister and hon. members generally know how bitterly I have opposed immigration from Japan, and how at last after a great deal of negotiating it has been cut down to 150 men, women and children in any one year. That is not as far as I wanted the Prime Minister to go, because I wanted it made exclusive, but for the reasons he mentioned to-night, namely, that we are not legislating for British Columbia alone, that was the arrangement made. We have to take into consideration international and world-wide conditions to which the Prime Minister referred, and for that reason I acquiesced in the reduced immigration which, I say, is a great improvement on the open door policy arising from the gentleman's agreement which existed previously, and
388	COMMONS
Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Woodsworth
under which as many as 1,700 in one year came in. Although I know it would be popular in British Columbia that we upset the present agreement, I am not asking that we do so. I would ask that it be rigidly adhered to and enforced and, for the reasons stated, not enlarged. I earnestly hope the house will turn down the resolution with its ostensible suggestion of excluding these people, but with the real object of giving votes to orientals in British Columbia.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) suggests that the mover of the resolution is responsible for digging something out of a clear sky. I am afraid his reasoning is almost as mixed as his metaphors. He deplores the introduction of racial prejudices and the stirring up of questions which, he states, are or have been dead. May I point out that in 1934 when we were discussing a bill to disfranchise the Doukhobors of British Columbia I pointed out incidentally that we had already gone too far in the way of regional disfranchisement and instanced the ease of disfranchisement of the orientals in one province. My friend immediately jumped up and asked whether I would advocate the enfranchisement of orientals-


Alan Webster Neill: That is not what I said.


James Shaver Woodsworth: -or was it the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie, Vancouver)? Yes, I think it was the Minister of National Defence. His question was not germane to the question, but it was thrown in, so far as I could see, for purely political purposes.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: However that may be, that was the question. I said immediately, "By all means, if otherwise qualified." In our Cooperative Commonwealth Federation manifesto, although we have not dealt definitely with orientals we have stated that our organization stands for equal rights to citizenship irrespective of race, colour or religion. I could not go back on the terms of that platform. Then the hon. member for Comox-Alberni went back to his constituency and published in the local press an advertisement in which he quoted from Hansard, and stated that we of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation stood for all sorts of things. Then the Liberal party took up the hue and cry and tried to make it one of the main issues in the last campaign. I am not surprised that my colleague from Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) should get a bit excited

when he recalled that in the last election campaign, in connection with a matter which should have been considered in a dignified way, a direct attempt had been made by the great Liberal party to discount another party lay an appeal to race prejudice-all over a question which we had not raised except incidentally, but one upon which they sought to capitalize.
I believe Professor Angus was justified when in a recent number of the Canadian Forum he stated, "The Liberals stoop to conquer.' The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) have undoubtedly conducted this discussion on a high plane. I wish that could have been done on the hustings. I believe the Prime Minister should have stated to-night, and perhaps earlier on the hustings, whether the Liberal party stand for an appeal to race prejudice. Further, he should have told us to-night whether the Liberal party stands for enfranchisement of orientals or of Doukhobors. He skilfully avoided questions of that kind and sought to direct attention to other matters.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has stated that we come here whining; that we should not come here at all, and that we should go to Victoria. Let me say to him that the Dominion Franchise Act was not passed in Victoria. It was passed in Ottawa, and if we are to get any redress from conditions imposed by the Dominion Franchise Act we must get it here, and not in Victoria. Further, we know that immigration regulations are laid down not by provincial legislatures; but by the federal parliament, and if the mover of the resolution urges that for certain reasons there should be an exclusion he is justified in coming here and advocating his views in this House of Commons. It is not his duty to try to pass the question on to the British Columbia legislature.


Alan Webster Neill: He did not advocate it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister has said that generally speaking we have followed the provincial franchise. Let me point out, as was suggested by my colleague, that that was not done in the case of the women of Quebec. It has been clearly demonstrated again and again and again, that the people of Quebec do not want their women to have the franchise.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: No, no, no.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No? Well, the present government does not want them to have it.

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Woodsworth


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: I think members of this house from the province of Quebec are all in favour of it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Again and again deputations have gone to Quebec asking for the franchise for women, but they have been turned down by people who are supposed to represent that province. Notwithstanding that fact we in this House of Commons insist that the women of Quebec should have a vote in federal affairs, and I think we are right. By the same reasoning, as I tried to point out two years ago, whatever may be done by the people of British Columbia in withholding the provincial franchise-that is their right, I suppose, as the hon. member for Comox-Alberni asserted-we in the federal parliament have the right to determine who is going to vote in a dominion election. I urge that it is not a good principle that we should discriminate in that regard between the provinces.
The same is true in connection with the Doukhobors. I have not time to go into detail to-night, but I recall that when a bill was introduced by the Conservative government here two years ago executing the Doukhobors and their descendants from the vote in British Columbia, it did not exclude them from the vote in Saskatchewan. I do not think that is a good sort of legislation. I said so then, and I say so again to-night. I think it is an outrageous piece of legislation. I have a friend, a descendant of a Doukhobor, a prominent lawyer in Saskatchewan. His wife was the daughter of a former lecturer of Queen's university. He has two very bright children growing up. If those children should move to British Columbia they would automatically be excluded from the franchise simply because on one side of the house they are descended from a Doukhobor. I say it is an outrageous piece of legislation and I would think a Liberal government that is true to Liberal principles would see that that piece of legislation does not remain on the statute books.


Mr. JACOBS:: Will my hon. friend permit
me to say that there were quite a number of Liberals who voted for the resolution he presented, and I had the pleasure of supporting it myself.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: So did I.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am glad to
acknowledge that and to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) say that he also supported it. My appeal would be, now that the Liberals are in power, that they should repeal that legislation that is so out of keeping with British traditions. That is one phase of the matter. In the case of the Doukhobors,
we legislated against people because of their religious beliefs.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not correct.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, that is correct; pardon me. There are certain groups in the Doukhobors-I do not think they form ten per cent of the whole body of Doukhobors- which misbehaved in this country. They call themselves the Sons of Freedom. They have done all sorts of things that nobody could condone, and they caused a lot of trouble to the government.


Thomas Reid: Is it not the case in British
Columbia that the Doukhobors are practically confined to one section?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very largely, but
we also find them in Alberta and Saskatchewan. I do not want to go into the whole question to-night, but I say the Doukhobors are not a race. The Doukhobors constitute a religious sect, and the legislation is to exclude them and their descendants from the franchise.
I am glad the Prime Minister takes the ground that we have a right to do as we please here in Canada. The question is: What is right for us to do? I for one do not want to add to the world's problems, as the Prime Minister suggests would be done, by excluding any one race, but I think that is not primarily the idea that lies behind the resolution. What the mover had in mind, and what I think he said clearly, was this: Is it going to be the policy of Canada to let people come in here to whom we do not propose to give full rights of citizenship?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But is not
the effect of the resolution to exclude them?


James Shaver Woodsworth: On the face of it,
I suppose it would be to exclude them, but I would say we are here called upon to consider whether w'e should adopt a policy of allowing people to come into this country to whom we do not propose to give the rights of citizenship. That is a general matter of policy and my colleague here (Mr. Maclnnis) has tried to state it as a general matter of policy. If we have in Canada a fixed policy that we exclude orientals from the franchise, then we might well consider whether it ought not to follow that we should therefore exclude them altogether from the country.
There are three or four different things mixed up in this question. There is first the problem of immigration. No one proposes to bring more people into Canada. We are told that the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation wants to flood this country with orientals. That is not so. Under present conditions I am opposed even to immigration from the British Isles. Then there is the other question,

Canadian Citizenship-Mr. Woodsworth
that of naturalization. A great many of these orientals are naturalized. Certain regulations are laid down. They have to know one of the two languages, and so on. That automatically excludes a great many of them even from becoming naturalized. The third question concerned those who are naturalized Canadians or who were born in this country, and our position is that if they are naturalized citizens it ought to be the policy of this dominion to give them the fullest rights of citizenship.
I visit Stanley park every time I go to Vancouver. In the park there is a beautiful monument erected to the Japanese soldiers who fell at the front. A great many of them enlisted, and the ones who enlisted were given the franchise. Other Japanese, just as loyal, did not enlist and have not the franchise. Among the white people are we going to exclude all those who did not go to the front? We do not do that. Further, the sons and daughters of the men who fell at the front are not given the rights of citizenship. We have a monument to those who fell; we give the franchise to those who came back, but we refuse the rights of citizenship to their sons and daughters. Is that how a grateful country treats those who have been willing to lay down their lives for their country?
I have visited several times one of those schools in Vancouver in which there are many oriental children. I was there last Christmas. I listened to their program of Christmas carols and patriotic songs. The principal said to me on one of my visits as we looked over the large number of bright Chinese and Japanese boys and girls, "Mr. Woodsworth, when are you people at Ottawa going to give these young people the vote?" Some people say that the orientals are more interested in the right to live than in the right to the franchise. That may be true, but the unfortunate part is that the refusal to give them the right to vote restricts greatly their opportunity to earn a living. Is it nothing in itself that a man should have the right to vote? We were told that the Boer war was fought very largely because Englishmen did not have the fullest privileges of citizenship in South Africa. Yet we are denying to certain people in this country the full rights of citizenship. I am thinking particularly of these second generation Japanese, people who were born in this country. Half of them cannot read Japanese; most of them can talk Japanese more or less, but they cannot read Japanese. They are brought up in our schools, sing our Christmas songs, go through our patriotic exercises, and

yet when they grow up they cannot vote. They attend our high schools and universities. They are absolutely cut off from Japan. I remember being in Japan just about a year ago and meeting some American and Canadian-born Japanese who had gone back to Japan with their parents. They were like fish out of water in Japan. There was no place there for them. They were Canadians and Americans. These young people do not want to go to Japan because there is no place there for them. They say that this is their country; they think they ought to have the rights of citizenship, and I heartily agree with them.
Just look at what this legislation means. I quote from a summary of an article by Professor H. F. Angus in a publication of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. He points out that the Revised Statutes of British Columbia of 1924, chapter 76, section 5 (a) disqualifies "any person of Japanese race, naturalized or not," from voting at any election. The effect of this statute which discriminates against oriental Canadians purely on the ground of race does not merely exclude these British subjects of oriental race from voting at municipal, provincial and dominion elections but also restricts them from various fields of occupation by the use of voters lists, provincial or municipal as the case may be, as the basis of qualification. It is by this method that Japanese-British subjects are excluded from:
1.	Election to the provincial legislature;
2.	Nomination for municipal office;
3.	Nomination at an election of school trustees;
4.	Jury service.
Other legislative provisions result in effective exclusion of British subjects of Asiatic race from:
1.	The legal profession;
2.	The pharmaceutical profession;
3.	Obtaining a licence for hand-logging;
4.	Becoming a contractor on any public work;
5.	Purchasing crown timber or logging such timber.
In addition to these statutory and regulatory restrictions against oriental Canadians, there are "de facto" exclusions from:
1.	Being employed as specialists in public service;
2.	Holding municipal offices.
It seems to me a serious matter to allow people to come to this country and compel them to remain in one or two particular kinds of occupation, and I do not know why they should be allowed in these any more

Standing Committees
than in the legal or the medical profession. At any rate, we exclude them in practice from certain higher positions which they are well qualified to fill. I do not think this is fair.
Not only is it unfair to these young Japanese bom in Canada but it is unfair to the Canadian people. Let this continue and what shall we have? We shall have here a subordinate race whose lower standard of living will be a constant menace to the standard of living of other Canadian people. We shall have here a large group of young people educated in our schools, trained in the ideas of democracy but denied absolutely the right to exercise their democracy. Is that a good thing for Canada?
Let me again appeal to Liberal traditions. Surely it is not a good thing to have in our midst a subject race, as well educated as we are, many of them better educated, because the Japanese are not an inferior people- it is not, I say, a good thing for us to have such people here trying to earn a precarious living while excluded from a great many occupations, and with a rankling sense of injustice because they are not granted full rights of British citizenship. I would make this suggestion. All of us have been drawn more or less into political considerations in our discussion to-night. I am not going to lay the blame on anyone but I would make a suggestion that this matter be discussed in a freer atmosphere.


Walter Edward Foster: It is eleven o'clock.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have just a few
more words to say. We face a real problem The government might refer a matter of this kind to the committee on industrial and international relations to study and report on some possible solution. That could be done without necessarily talking about exclusion or otherwise complicating matters. Let us try to solve this vital Canadian problem.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, February 21, 1936