Mr. BENNETT:

No, this bill does not go that far. This bill only goes to the extent of enabling a specific fund, namely, the profits from the revaluation of gold at $35 or the current market price as against $20.67, to be earmarked as a fund available on proclamation for the purposes indicated by the bilk No such powers as those suggested by my hon. friend are sought at this time, strange as it may seem.

Mr. SPENCER:

I take it for granted that this small amount, as some members think it is, is only one chip in the poker game, and if

at some future time the country needs more chips, certainly ways and means can be found of getting them.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Would this amount increase under section 5 if world market prices should increase?

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes.

Mr. POULIOT:

This follows the complete failure of the London conference of 1933. In a broadcast from London to Canada and the United States prior to that conference the Prime Minister said that unless the nations of the world came to an understanding with regard to the stabilization of currency the conference would be a failure. That was one of the four reasons for which the conference would have to succeed, and after the conference was over the right hon. gentleman said that he hoped1 the conference would meet some time later. At the time he said the conference had met too soon, that they were not ready for it. That was the famous world conference that the right hon. gentleman saved and which died a natural death three days later. It was a great success. It was just as great a success as the London conference of 1930 and the Ottawa agreements of 1932. Now \ve are told that it is the opinion of the governor in council that stabilization should be carried out by this government. The stabilization they should carry out is to give the Prime Minister a chance to remove himself from the picture. For years we have had fiasco after fiasco, but the government come here and tell us a lot about the success of this and that, and in a very serious way they speak of the stabilization of this and that, of sound money and of the attitude of the people. The right hon. gentleman said we should not look to the past, that we should look to the future. That was two years ago, but those two years have not been very successful. If the government want to continue their successful ways, let them drop out of the picture, and then public confidence will be restored for good.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

May I

ask the Prime Minister if this is purely in the discretion of the minister in charge? Does he direct the bank in regard to these securities, or has the bank a discretion in reference to them?

Mr. BENNETT:

As the section stands this is a departure from the preceding section to

Exchange Fund

the extent that the minister may direct that a certain portion of the money be invested in Canadian securities.

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):

Still the control rests with the minister.

Mr. BENNETT:

Yes.

Mr. RALSTON:

I wanted1 to ask the

Prime Minister if it is intended, when the special account is wound up, that it shall go to the consolidated revenue fund. I wondered if there was any doubt as to the actual ownership of the fund. The special account is in the name of the minister for the special purpose for which it is constituted, but when it is wound up where does the profit go?

Mr. BENNETT:

It was intended that

it should go to the consolidated fund, as the hon. gentleman said. That is, if it should be wound up it should1 seek its original lodging place, namely the consolidated fund, to reduce pro tanto the debt of the country.

Mr. RALSTON:

The original lodging

place would be the profit of the bank.

Mr. BENNETT:

No, the consolidated

fund. If I remember correctly the profit was to go to the consolidated! fund, not to the banks.

Mr. SPEAKER:

When shall the bill be

read a third time?

Mr. BENNETT:

By consent I would

move the third reading now, so that the bill may go to the senate. That can be done only by consent.