Mr. CASGRAIN:

Hear, hear.

Mr. SPENCER:

Privately controlled.

Mr. BOTHWELL:

That is not stated in

the resolution. What the resolution may be intended to mean further I do not know, but taking its wording and the remarks of the proposer, I gather that what is meant by the resolution is that in the opinion of this house the time has come to consider the establishment of some new national system of banking. That is the only meaning I can gather from the remarks the hon. member has made.

Then referring to the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), I take it that he has in mind some system of banking that would shut out private banks of every description. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael), on the other hand, seems to favour the Australian system where they have a Commonwealth bank that enters into competition with the privately-owned banks of that Commonwealth.

Mr. HEAPS:

Would the hon. member tell me whether he has in mind any system which he thinks should be instituted?

Mr. BOTHWELL:

I have not. I must

say that I have not considered what new system of banking should be instituted. I do not believe that the members who have spoken have fully considered what kind of system they would like definitely to propose. At least I have not been able to gather that from their remarks this afternoon. There is no doubt that fault can be found with our banking system in some respects, but before this house should go on record as saying that the time had come for the establishment of a national system of banking, without knowing something of what is meant by those terms, I think it should have some definite system or proposal before it. If it were possible to refer the whole banking system to the banking and commerce committee and there discuss it, we might gain something from that discussion, but to carry a resolution which means, if I place the right construction on it, doing away with our present system without providing anything to take its place, is I submit, Mr. Speaker, to take a step that in the light of experience we would not be justified in taking.

Mr. SPENCER:

Would my hon. friend be in favour of having the question discussed before the banking and commerce committee?

Mr. BOTHW'ELL: I have no objection

to having it discussed, but not the resolution in the form in which it stands. With the change I suggested I would have no objection to a discussion of the resolution in committee. I would not like to go on record as saying that the time had come for the establishment of a new, national system of banking, but probably the time has come to. consider and discuss some new system. If it is suggested that the resolution as it now is drawn should go to the banking and commerce committee, then I am opposed to it. It has been stated by the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) that in his opinion every public utility should be owned by the public, and I take it that his idea is that all such things as railways, telegraphs, telephone lines, banking institutions and other corporations should be owned, controlled and operated by the government. That may be an ideal system, but we will have to go a long way in this country yet before we will be able, from the standpoint of the public, to take control of all these things that may be considered public utilities. It is rather difficult to define the term "public utilities." It is

National Banking-Mr. Robb

very broad, and may include practically everything that we do from the standpoint of production as well as from the standpoint of what we ordinarily term public utilities in a municipality.

I was rather surprised at the hon. member's suggestion that at the present time the United States and Great Britain are being agitated by the moneyed interests toward war. I do not believe for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that that is the situation. I do not believe that the moneyed interests, so-called, have anything to do with the newspaper reports that have been published recently respecting the relations between the two countries, and I do not believe that the moneyed interests are in any way fomenting trouble in that quarter.

The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) in rising to speak saw fit to direct the attention of the house to the fact that a number of members were not in their seats. It has been suggested that Hansard is being used for political purposes, and from the remark he then made I can only conclude that he used it for that particular purpose, because just at the very time, if he had taken the trouble to count the members of the two old parties in their seats, he would have found that his little group who were in attendance did not compare with the number of those present representing the government and the official opposition. But I would also like to draw his attention to this fact, that at that very time many of his own little group were not in their seats, and of those present representing the United Farmers of Alberta, the Progressives and Labour, their combined strength amounted to only a dozen.

Mr. HEAPS:

It is hardly fair to reflect

on the Labour group; we were here one hundred per cent.

Mr. BOTHWELL:

There was no distinction made by the hon. member for Kindersley at the time, and I took the trouble to count what he apparently considered the "little group" in that comer of the house.

Mr. CARMICHAEL:

Did he also count the number of members present from the two old parties?

Mr. BOTHWELL:

I counted on this side of the house twenty-four.

Mr. SPENCER:

Out of a hundred and

sixteen.

Mr. BOTHWELL:

I would suggest that in

the opening remarks of the mover of the resolution may be found an explanation why all hon. members were not in their seats, for he

said that the time is not immediately practicable for the establishment of a national banking system, or some such words.

Mr. WOODSWORTH:

The hon. gentleman again will do me the credit to quote me correctly. I said: The time is not

immediately practicable for the establishment of a fully developed system of national banking.

Mr. BOTHWELL:

I quoted the words I

took down at the time. But I want to be fair to the hon. gentleman; he may have added other words. Certainly he did state later that we had not a fully developed system. With practically every member in the house considering that we have now a national banking system, and the resolution calling for the establishment of a national system of banking, I can quite realize that members generally would not take the resolution as seriously as they would if the hon. gentleman had placed some definite proposition before the house.

Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that personally I have no objection to the resolution going before the banking and commerce committee. But I do take exactly the same exception to its wording as does my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell), and I hope that if it is referred to the banking and commerce committee for further inquiry and study my hon. friend who hasl presented it will confer with the hon. member for Swift Current and so modify his resolution that the house will not be understood to declare that Canada has not a national system of banking. Because, Mr. Speaker, I submit that when you compare the banking system and the bank failures of Canada in recent years with the bank system and bank failures of any other country in the same period, there can be no doubt that Canada has much reason to be proud of her system.

May I say at once that I have no pretensions to expert knowledge of banking. My experience with bankers has largely been that of a borrower, and the greatest kindness they have ever done me was when sometimes they refused to loan me money, for money borrowed must be paid back. And I submit to my hon. friend that when they ask the Dominion to go directly into the banking business-and I believe they are men of good judgment-it would seem that they have not carefully reviewed the record of the experience of the government in loaning money out in that particular part of the country which they represent.

National Banking-Mr. Robb

Now, there is one feature, sir, that I desire to put on record. In the first place, my hon. friend in moving his resolution took some exception to the business that Canadian banks have been doing outside Canada, and he emphasized the point by asking: Why

should we send Canadian money into other countries when it is needed at home for home development? Well, had my hon. friend carefully reviewed the published statements that are sent to the Department of Finance every month, he would have learned that our Canadian banks in doing business in other countries in competition with the banks of other nations are bringing more money into this country than they are sending out. Let me give the house the statement to December 31 last. My hon. friend can check up the records for each month and get the average. According to the published figures the aggregate commercial loans of Canadian banks elsewhere than in Canada were $264,708,072, and the aggregate deposits $374,425,788; or $110,000,000 more was received in deposits than paid out in loans in those countries. That money was available whenever Canada needed it. My hon. friend will observe that I am speaking of commercial loans. It is true that our banks had other deposits and other liquid loans outside of Canada. But the reason Canadian banks make these liquid loans outside the Dominion, largely in New York and in London, is that there is no liquid investment for the money at home, and rather than have it lie idle it is sent to New York and to London, where, although it is earning small interest, it is available whenever Canada needs it for the requirements of her own commerce.

Before I take up more particularly what our own Canadian banks are doing, may I reply to the remarks of the chief whip of the United Farmers of Alberta group to the effect that while our system may be satisfactory for the east it is not satisfactory so far as the west is concerned. He thinks that wie should adopt another system and that the Dominion of Canada should go into the banking business, loaning money and making it available for all who want it in all parts of Canada and particularly of the west. If I do not do the hon. gentleman justice I want him to correct me.

Mr. SPENCER:

That is entirely incorrect so far as my statements went. I advocated that the institution be used as a government bank only.

Mr. ROBB:

Well, we have had experience in loaning money. We know what it costs to IMr. Robb.]

loan money when governments go into the loaning business, for we have now on the books of the department over $2,000,000, loaned largely in 1915, and some of it loaned away back in 1880. This money was loaned on good seourity and to-day we cannot find the gentlemen who borrowed it, so that the department is considering the probability of the money ever being recovered. It is a question whether it will not be altogether lost.

Mr. EVANS:

Is the minister taking into account the tremendous inflation and deflation which occurred during those years and which operated detrimentally to the whole farming industry of western Canada?

Mr. ROBB:

At the time that money was loaned in the west the security was considered ample. But that is not the only experience of loaning money that we have had in this country. We have loaned not only in western Canada but in all the provinces over $100,000,000 under the soldier settlement scheme. And what is the position when the banking business is brought into politics? Hon. gentlemen have come to parliament year after year and have asked the government to revalue the lands on which the money has been loaned, informing parliament that the soldiers were not able to meet their payments. Perhaps they were right; I am not saying that they were not. But the general result is that under the re-valuation legislation the country stands to lose about $16,000,000. That is our experience when Canada goes into the loaning business.

My hon. friend from Kindersley (Mr. Carmichael) made reference to the Australian system; he spoke of the Commonwealth Bank of the government of Australia and told what it was doing for that country. And my bon. friend who moved the resolution (Mr. Woods-worth) as well as the hon. member for Rose-town (Mr. Evans) complained that a small group of men, about sixty I think, comprising an interlocked directorate, were handling the big business of the country. Now what was the condition in connection with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia? That bank, until after the death of Sir Dennison Millar, was managed solely by Sir Dennison Millar, the man in control. He was a real czar, for even the treasurer of the commonwealth government had nothing to say. Sir Dennison Millar alone was president, general manager and board of directors. I have nothing to say against the Commonwealth Bank of Australia; it is a good bank.

Mr. CAMPBELL:

Was he not responsible to the government?

National Banking-Mr. Robb