RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 12, to amend the Railway Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment is contained in the single clause of the bill, which provides that a return ticket issued by any railway company between any two points in Canada shall be accepted by any other railway company whose lines run between the same terminals.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. W. JACOBS (Cartier) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 13, to remove the necessity of the reelection of members of the House of Commons on acceptance of office.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Explain.


Mr. JACOBS:: Mr. Speaker, this bill was
before the house last year but failed to get past its second reading, and I now introduce it again. The explanatory note will place before the house the object of the bill. The British parliament passed an act for the same purpose, which is found in the imperial statutes, 16 and 17 George V, chapter 19, assented to on July 15, 1926. This principle was adopted in New South Wales in 1906 and always has been in force in South Australia and New Zealand. It is now in force in

Questions
Tasmania and Queensland, and appears to be progressive legislation which I think should be introduced in this country.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 14, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Explain.
Mr. CHURCH:: This amendment to the
Navigable Waters Protection Act requires the approval by parliament of the plans of power companies which intend to operate in international streams. There is a provision that harbour works are not affected, but power works will require the consent of parliament where they are in international navigable boundary waters between the United States and Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ELECTRICITY AND FLUID EXPORTATION ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. A. STEWART (Leeds) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 15, to amend the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Explain.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: The object of
this bill is to amend the existing law relating to the exportation of electric power. A similar bill was introduced last year but did not pass the final stage. The object of the bill is to provide that for the export of hydroelectric power we must have the approval of parliament instead of the approval of the governor in council. There are certain reservations in the bill providing for existing licenses and emergency cases.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. RENNIE:: 1.	Has any property been purchased for, an extension or addition to the Hamilton post office?
2.	If so, when, what amount and at what price?
3.	Is the said property under rental at the present time?
4.	If so, how long has it been rented, at what rental, to whom, and for what purpose?
5.	What rental is paid by the Post Office Department in the city of Hamilton for other buildings, and what is the total rentals paid for such buildings since the acquiring of the above mentioned property?


Mir. RINFRET:: 1 and 3. In 1914 the property at the corner of John and Main streets, 136 feet 10 inches on John street and 69 feet on Main street, was purchased for $142,503.58 for the purpose of constructing an addition to the public building.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Since July 1921; (b) From July, 1921, to October, 1921, at $50 a month. From November, 1921, to April 30, 1922, at $25 a month. From May 1, 1922, to present time at $50 a month all year round, (c) C. Caug-hell and R. J. Hanna; (d) for washing, parking and repairing cars.
5.	Rents paid by Department of Public Yorks: (a) Postal station B, corner Kinrade Ave. and Barton St., from November, 1913, to May 1, 1921, at $1,200 a year when postal station was removed to building erected by Department of Public Works; (b) Postal station C, ground floor of Sanford building, from October 1. 1923, to March 31, 1928, at $2,446.40 a year, when postal station was moved to Duf-field building; (c) Duflield building, comer Jackson and John streets, for Post office, National Revenue, Pensions and National Health departments for five years from April 1, 1928, at $20,000 a year; (d) Space, Grand Trunk railway station for storage of mail for five years from March 20, 1925, at $150 a year.


HAMILTON CUSTOMS OFFICE
Mr. RENNIE:: 1.	Has any property been purchased for an extension or addition to the Hamilton customs office?
2.	If so, when, what amount and at what price ?
3.	Is the said property under rental at the present time?
4.	If so, how long has it been rented, at what rental, to whom, and for what purpose?
5.	What rental is paid by the Customs department in the city of Hamilton for other buildings, and -what is the total rentals paid for such buildings since the acquiring of the above-mentioned property?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: The answer to this question is contained in the answer given to the last question; the Hamilton customs office is in the same building as the Hamilton post office, and the rents are all included together.
so
Questions


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY
Mr. HEAPS:: Will the government, before issuing permit or license for the canalization or water-power development on the St. Lawrence river, submit same for the consideration of the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Navigable Waters Protection Act provides that no works may be constructed in navigable waters unless the site has been approved by the governor in council nor unless such work is constructed in accordance with plans and regulations approved or made by the governor in council. In the case of any application for the construction of works in the St. Lawrence river, coming within the scope of the act in question, it is the intention of the government to follow the procedure in force hitherto, as prescribed in that act.


VOCATIONAL AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Has the government received requests for the renewal of the $10,000,000 grant made in 1919 in aid of vocational and technical education, which grant expires on the 31st March next?
2.	Has the government given consideration to this matter? If so, what is the decision of the government ?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. Notice has been given of legislation to be brought down during the present session providing for the amendment of the Technical Education Act. This legislation will set out the intention of the government.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Thomas Langton Church: Po-r a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, agreements, orders in council and all other documents during the years 1925 to 1929 between the government of Canada or any member thereof or any officer thereof and the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, or any officer or member thereof, regarding the return of the natural resources of these provinces or any re-adjustment thereof.
He said: In view of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, I would ask that this motion be dropped.
Motion withdrawn.


BEAUHARNOIS POWER PROJECT
Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, letters telegrams. agreements, notices, orders in council and all other documents between the govern-

ment of Canada or any member thereof or the Minister of Public Works and any other person or persons relating to the passing or approval of plans of any company or companies under the Navigable Waters Protection Act or as to the legislation of the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Co. or any director or official thereof or any other similar company seeking similar powers for the development or generation of water-power from the St. Lawrence river between Cornwall, Hungry Bay and the head of navigation at Montreal or with the governments of Quebec, or Ontario, or any member thereof in relation to the said question commonly known as the Beauharnois power and canal proposition.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. KENNEDY:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between any person or persons and the Post Office department or any other department of the government and any person or persons and the Postmaster General or any other member of the government, and also a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the different departments of the government, relating to the mail contract between Enilda and Grouard, for the years 1927, 1928 and 1929.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald MacBeth Kennedy: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between any person or persons and the Post Office department, or any other department of the government. or betw-een any person or persons and the Postmaster General or any other member of the government, and also a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the different departments of the government, relating to: (1) The opening of the post office at Fairview; (2) The proposed transfer of the postmaster from Waterhole to Fairview; and (3) The appointment of the postmaster at Fairview.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CAMPBELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, orders in council and other documents between the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Board of Grain Commissioners, and any other government departments, the various wheat pools, and any other parties, in connection with the operation of section 150 of the Canada Grain Act, from January 1, 1927, to date.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of all orders in council in respect of the Canada Grain Act passed during the years 1926, 1927, 1928, and 1929.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thanksgiving Day-Mr. Oershaw


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the day to be observed hereafter for national Thanksgiving day shall be Armistice day, November 11th.
He said: This resolution is brought forward as a tribute and to do honour to those who served in the great war. This proposal did1 not come from the returned soldiers, but since it appeared on the order paper many branches of the Canadian Legion have expressed approval of it, and many resolutions have been passed by that body expressing such approval.
We have about eight or nine public holidays in Canada. We have set aside a day in memory of that great sovereign Queen Victoria, known as Victoria day. We have another day set aside to commemorate a great event in the history of our national life, Dominion day. This resolution asks that the day set aside as Armistice day shall have special importance. We hope that the day shall be called Armistice day, so that the significance of the armistice shall not be forgotten. We hope that the memory of that great event with all that it brought to those then living in the way of joy and sorrow, relief from tension and hope for the future, will never grow dim. I feel sure that this day will not be observed in such a way as would glorify war.
The armistice was signed at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918, and at that time the horror and sadness of war was uppermost in the minds of all. It was felt that a war had been fought which would stop all future wars. If that sentiment and that feeling cam be projected! into the ceremonies which take place in the future, much can be done to perpetuate the will and desire for peace in. the hearts of the people.
Perhaps we have enough holidays at present, because the schools have found it difficult to keep open for two hundred days during the calendar year, and the request is made that Thanksgiving day shall be merged with and observed on Armistice day, November 11. Thanksgiving day is a proclaimed holiday; it does not refer to any great event in history. I understand they have no Thanksgiving day in England. In the United States, Thanksgiving day has been observed since the time of the Pilgrim fathers. It is a day of festivity. When the crops are gathered it is celebrated by the getting together of the people and 78594-6
their taking part in a few sports and other diversions. During the first winter the Pilgrim fathers were in America, many of their number died, but when the spring and summer came there seemed to be some hope for them and the first Thanksgiving day was celebrated about that time. During the revolution eight special days were set apart for thanksgiving in order to celebrate special victories or special deliverances from danger. Since the days of President Lincoln Thanksgiving day has been the last Thursday of November.
It is a family day, a day of returning home for religious services, and none of us would like to see those splendid things come to am end; but it is close to Christmas, which we observe in much the same way, and the day that is known as Armistice day can still be a day for family reunion.
In fact, in Canada Thanksgiving day has not always been celebrated in the fail of the year and has not always been celebrated because a generous harvest has been reaped. The first Thanksgiving day celebrated in Canada was on the 10th of January, 1799, because of the signal victory over our enemies and the manifold blessings which our kingdom had enjoyed. The next was held on August 12, 1802; the next on April 21, 1814, for the glorious victory over our enemies; the next on September 13, 1814, on account of the ending of the war in Europe, giving the dominions the blessings of peace. The next Thanksgiving day was in 1815, on account of the end of the war with the United States of America and the blessing and restoration of peace. The next was in 1816, because of the end of the war between Great Britain and France; the next in 1833, because of the cessation of the cholera plague; the next in 1834, on account of the quarantine of ships at Grosse Isle; the next in 1838, because of the termination of rebellion; the next in 1850, for the cessation of grievous disease; the next in 1856, for the restoration of peace with Russia; the next in 1859, for the abundant harvest and the continuance of peace, and the next in 1863, for the abundant harvest.
Since confederation, Thanksgiving day was observed on the 15th of April, 1872, for the restoration to health of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, and again on the 6th of November, 1879, for the blessing of a harvest. Since that time there has been an annual Thanksgiving day. No one wishes to do away with Thanksgiving day but we are most anxious that Armistice day shall be suitably celebrated in the years that are to come. I hope the house will pass this resolution and that its object will be attained. War is a



S2 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Thanksgiving Day-Mr. Neill
disaster; the greater the war, the greater the disaster, but if the lessons of war are to be learned from past experience, surely much will be gained by keeping these experiences before us and celebrating Armistice day in honour of those who deserve the honour.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: Mr. Speaker, I have much pleasure in seconding and supporting this resolution. In order that the house may be fully informed of the situation, I may explain that in 1921 the Union government passed an act which is now chapter 9 of the revised statutes of 1927, the second section of which provides that:
The Monday in the week in which the eleventh day of November shall occur .... shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Armistice day.
The next section goes on to state that the holiday commonly called Thanksgiving day shall be proclaimed and observed on the same day. It is on that that this resolution rests. Experience has shown and the feeling of the returned men as expressed by their bodies is that Armistice day is very liable to be and is in process of being merged and forgotten in Thanksgiving day. One cannot very well conceive the permanency of a celebration which may be moved anywhere within a week. Can you picture Christmas day, if it fell on a Saturday, being observed, for instance, on the previous Monday? Yet that is the situation in this case. Armistice day, according to the law passed in 1921, is to be observed on the Monday of the week in which it falls. The object of this resolution is to reverse this situation and have Armistice day held on the eleventh day of November and Thanksgiving day on the same day if necessary.
I have under my hand a resolution passed by the Dominion convention of the Canadian Legion of the British Empire Service League. It is only a few words, and I will read it:
Resolved that whereas November 11th is a day sacred to all ex-service men-
I would like to emphasize -the point that in the opinion of returned men and indeed in that of all of us it should be a day sacred to all ex-service men.
and the date set apart by the federal government for observance is a day other than this date;
Be it resolved that this convention requests the federal government to amend the present act so that in unison with other parts of the English-speaking world Canadian citizens may be enabled to commemorate the actual day upon which the armistice was signed as a national memorial day, and substitute it for Thanksgiving day.

I have a number of other resolutions from various branches of the legion, mostly in the district which I represent, and I will briefly quote from one or two. One of them reads: We feel that this day should be set apart from any other holiday as Armistice day cannot come on any other date any more than Dominion day can be called Christmas.
This is another one:
Whereas Armistice day heretofore has been made subservient to Thanksgiving day-
That is the point they have taken, that Armistice day has been and is made subservient to Thanksgiving day.

this branch hereby resolves, and do pray that thanksgiving and Armistice day be annually celebrated on November 11th of each year.
Another one, after expresing the sentiments I have already read, goes further and says amongst other things:
Further, that the matter of the considering the advisability of arranging for Thanksgiving (lay to always be observed on Armistice day, be left to those in authority for due consideration.
In other words, they do not absolutely demand or ask that Thanksgiving day be held on the same day, but they do ask that Armistice day be held on the 11th of November.
I have several more telegrams along the same lines, but I will not read them.
Two objections have been raised against this change, and I will deal briefly with them before I sit down. One is that it would cause two holidays in one week, and that is calculated to be embarrassing to business people and to business interests. It is not necessary to have two holidays in the one week. It is quite possible, as I have suggested and as the resolution suggests, to have Thanksgiving on November 11. This would would do away with that objection. Besides, if necessary, Thanksgiving day could be held in October. It has been held in October before now and we are not particularly committed to holding it in November. Labour day comes in September; Thanksgiving day might well come in October and Armistice day on November 11, but that is a matter for the government to decide. That does away with the objection that we cannot afford to have two holidays in one week.
The other objection, which is one that is given great weight in some quarters, is that it is inconvenient for travelling men and those whose business takes them away from home to have t-he holiday on any other day than Monday. It also interferes perhaps with those living in a town who wish to visit their relatives or friends in the country for what is called a long week-end; unless Armistice day

Thanksgiving Day-Mr. Church
comes on a Monday that is prevented. It is undeniable that it would be more con' venient for travellers to have the holiday on Monday, but I would point this out: Thanksgiving day, Labour day, Victoria day, and these other days are intended to be public holidays, and to be for the convenience of those away from home and for those who wish to visit their friends, but Armistice day was not intended at all for that purpose. It was never designed or set apart as a public holiday for the convenience of those who wished to visit their homes or their friends. It was intended and designated-it was consecrated, I might say-to the memory of the men who died at the front and those who had the good fortune to come back, men equally gallant, equally brave, equally ready to take the risks of war, in order that the rest of the population, and especially the rising generation, who were mere children while the war was on, should be reminded of, and should be instructed in, so to speak, the reverence and the respect and the obligation we owe to these men who risked their all at that time. As the resolution of the Dominion Convention of the British Empire Service League says, it is a day sacred to ex-service men; it has nothing whatever to do with a week-end holiday, and therefore I submit that Armistice day should be observed as such. I would point out that in every other English-speaking country with which I am familiar, they observe Armistice day on November the 11th, and not on the previous Monday or on any other day.
Again the argument is used: After all, that is a mere matter of sentiment that should not be allowed to interfere with the convenience and material interests of the everyday workaday world. Well, a great poet once said that it w'as sentiment that ruled the world, and that is quite true. What would this world be without sentiment? Why do we spend large sums, both as nations and as individuals, for the relief of the sick and the poor and the destitute? Is it not from sentiment. from a spirit of charity and sympathy nd goodwill? What about the war memorials scattered throughout this country, which must in the aggregate cost an enormous sum? They were erected purely from sentiment, and from a worthy and proper sentiment. I do not think the argument is a good one that this is a matter of sentiment and should therefore be ignored. Think of the tombstones that dot this land. They are erected from a spirit of sentiment, and sentiment only.
I do not anticipate that there will be any serious opposition to this resolution passing the house. This house may be divided for 78594-6i
this purpose into two classes, those who went to the war and those who d:d not. I am sure that those who were at the war will appreciate the spirit of their comrades in asking for this change. It is even more incumbent upon those of us who did not go [DOT]to the war to see that the wishes of the men who were at the front are respected in this matter, and that they are granted this comparatively trivial change, which in the end will hurt no one, but will be paying to these men the respect and reverence to which they are entitled.


Thomas Langton Church: The action that was taken by parliament in setting aside a day for general thanksgiving was not taken without national reasons, and national reasons in a matter of this kind should be paramount. The religious bodies, trades organizations, military bodies and many other social organizations represented that the best day for thanksgiving was Monday, which would best meet the convenience of commercial travellers, and those attending the public and separate schools and collegiate institutes. It also meets the convenience of a very large number of employees in the urban and industrial centres whose only chance to get back to their homes in the country, owing to the existing railway rates, is for the weekend during which Thanksgiving day comes. In Ontario especially there is a very large urban population whose homes are in the rural parts of the province, and owing to the action of the railways in doing away with the prewar chea,p excursion tickets that existed before the war, these young people are able to get home only once or twice a year, at Thanksgiving and at Christmas. All along the shores of the St. Lawrence, lake Ontario and lake Erie, and in many cities and towns across the border, there are tens of thousands of Canadians -working away from their homes in the United States. In Detroit, for instance, which to-day is the third largest city in the United States, there are over 250,000 Canadians. These young people once in a while come back to their homes in this country for a week-end at Thanksgiving, and many of them have to stay in the United States, where they have been driven to get a job by the fiscal policy of this government, and they have to celebrate the American Thanksgiving day. From what I have seen of this agitation, I know it is the opinion that Monday is the best day from the standpoint of the religious bodies and from the standpoint of the military man. The military men can get off for the week-end, but they cannot get off on the eleventh, if it comes on a Wednesday, for instance, be-

Thanksgiving Day-Mr. Rinfret
cause their employers will not let them go. A big store like Eatons, for instance, employs almost 20,000 people, many of whom come from Ontario and some from the west, and they try to get home for the week-end on Thanksgiving day when it is on a Monday. I would urge that no change be made in a matter of this kind until proper representations have been made, first, from the provinces, second, from the municipalities and third, from the military organizations and religious and social bodies in this country. The present arrangement has been found to work very satisfactorily, and I have heard no complaint against it.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I desire to say only a few words on
this motion, which has been so ably presented by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw), and commented upon quite fully by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill). As Secretary of State, I have myself been the recipient of a large number of letters and resolutions covering practically the same ground.
There is no doubt that there is a fairly widespread desire in this Dominion that we celebrate Armistice day on the very day of its anniversary, that is on November 11th. In fact, there exists some confusion in the minds of a great number of people as to these two holidays, Armistice day and Thanksgiving day. Some people are under the impression that we celebrate Armistice day on Thanksgiving day, but that is a wrong impression. Just the reverse is the case. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni has alluded to the statute. As it is very short I might clear the situation up by reading a few clauses which I have before me.	[DOT]
The act respecting Armistice day was passed in 1921 and is now chapter 9 of the revised statutes of 1927. Clause 2 deals with Armistice day, and clause 3 with Thanksgiving day. Clause 2 reads:
throughout Canada in each and every year the Monday in the week in which the eleventh day of November shall occur, being the day in the year one thousand nine hundred .'and eighteen on which the Great War was triumphantly concluded by an armistice, shall be a legal holiday and shall be kept and observed as such under the name of Armistice day.
Clause 3 reads as follows:
The holiday commonly called Thanksgiving day, being a day usually appointed in the month of October or November by proclamation as a day of general thanksgiving to Almighty God, shall whenever appointed be proclaimed and observed for and on Armistice day.

So it will be seen that we are commemorating Armistice day on the Monday of the week in which the 11th of November falls, and we are directed by this act to proclaim Thanksgiving day on the same day. So that practically the only change suggested in this resolution is that these two holidays, instead of being celebrated on the Monday of the week in which the 11th of November falls, shall be celebrated on November the 11th, whether that be a Saturday, a Sunday or a Monday. Apparently the only practical objection to the adoption of this resolution is the desire to have the holiday follow a Sunday in order to extend the time available for travel. This argument does not appeal very much to me. I think the sentimental reason for observing Armistice day on November 11 is of such a lofty character as entirely to outweigh any considerations of personal convenience. Speaking for myself, I may say that if the resolution should be pressed to a division I shall vote for it. But this does not appear to be a matter for government policy, and the government will be directed by the desire of the people as expressed by their representatives in this house. In the event of the motion being adopted I shall endeavour immediately to bring down an amendment to the act to give effect to the wishes of the house.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: I
quite see, Mr. Speaker, that the present legislation leaves something to be desired, because it does by inference, if not directly, provide that the celebration of the original armistice be made subservient to the celebration of thanksgiving. However that may be, legislation or no legislation, the people of this country are still too regardful of what Armistice day means to celebrate it on any other day than November 11. Ever since 1918 they have continued to celebrate it in the most solemn and fitting way on November 11; they so celebrated it last year and they will do so again this year and in the years to come. I should be very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to see Armistice day degenerated into a public holiday in which the celebration of the armistice would play only a small part.
I do not care what you do with Thanksgiving day, but I do not believe there is any desire among our people that we should make a general play day or holiday of Armistice day. Have Thanksgiving on any day you like but on November 11. Let us continue to commemorate the conclusion of the war by the most impressive ceremony of a two-minute silence on the morning of the day in proud

Family Allowances-Mr. Letellier de St. Just
and loving memory of our glorious dead, and of their deeds, in a spirit of thankfulness that their lives were not given in vain.
Above all things, Mr. Speaker, I hope the members of this house will consider very seriously that the adoption of the proposed amendment would make the celebration of Armistice day subservient to what is one of the great days of football, travel and visits of a more or less convivial nature. Let us be very careful not to do anything to detract from the solemnity and sweetness of Armistice day as we have it now.


Mr. J. T. THORSON (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary). I think that November 11 should be commemorated for the things that are sacred to that day, and that its objects should not be combined with those that are generally associated with Thanksgiving day. If we are to have a day of general thanksgiving for material prosperity, I suggest that that day be fixed for, say, the middle of October. Let us preserve Armistice day for its own special purposes. It is sacred to our returned soldiers, and it is sacred to the memory of those who gave their lives for Canada.
Motion negatived.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. E. LETELLIER DE ST. JUST (Compton) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, the question of granting family allowances should be studied, taking into consideration the respective jurisdiction of both federal and provincial parliaments in the matter, and that the said question should be referred to the committee on industrial and international relations, with instructions to inquire into and make report.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to have this opportunity of bringing before the house a question of such vital importance. I regret that I have not a sufficient command of the English language bo do full justice to the subject, but hon. members will understand that I am doing my best to convey to them the purpose of this resolution.
I desire to quote the opinion of experts. Professor Paul H. Douglas-
Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Can we have a
Mttle more order, Mr. Speaker? We cannot possibly hear in this comer.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I was about to observe
that too many conversations are being carried on in the chamber. I would ask hon. members to refrain from conversation.


Mr. COOTE:: We cannot even hear the
Speaker.


Mr.   LETELLIER@: Professor Paul H.
Douglas, of the University of Chicago, who is an authority on industrial relations, has this to say:
The most effective way in which society can protect children is in providing their parents with sufficient income so that they can be brought up properly. It is folly to expect wage-earners with unduly low incomes to feed, clothe and rear their children in any adequate fashion. Even the necessary knowledge of child hygiene is a costly affair which is beyond the reach of the mothers of the poor. Give a family of average intelligence sufficient money and it will not only be able to take care of its children but it will gradually learn to do so.
It is the most cruel form of unconscious hypocrisy for business men to pay insufficient wages to those of their employees who are fathers of families and then by contributing to child welfare agencies to feel that they have discharged their duty. The child-caring agencies, for all their efforts, cannot remove more than a small fraction of the injury which the children suffer from the poverty in their homes. Employers and social workers alike need to beware of thinking that social work, for all its valuable contributions, is an adequate substitute for a decent wage. The most pressing obligation is for industry to put its system of wage payment upon an adequate basis and, until this is done, social reform will swim against the tide.
How, then, may an adequate wage be secured? Here a curious obliquity in the claims of the advocates of the living wage doctrine should be noted. They have urged that all the workers should be guaranteed enough to support a family of five, forgetful of the fact that this would be far more than was needed by those with fewer dependents and less than was needed by those with more. The twenty-seven per cent of our adult males who are bachelors patently do not need enough to support such a family nor do those married men who either have no children, or but one or two. How dominant numerically such families are. has been shown by the 1921 British census which showed that forty-two per cent of the married or widowed men in fourteen countries either had no children under sixteen years of age or made no statement, while twenty-three per cent had but one child and sixteen per cent had only two. Only nine per cent of this group actually had three such children to support, while slightly over ten per cent had four or more children. These results are in general corroborated by such American investigations into the composition of our families as those incidentally made by the United States Bureau of Labour in 1901, and by Professor H. A. Millis for the Illinois Health Insurance Commission.
To pay to all male workers a wage sufficient to support a family of five would then only meet the actual needs of at the most not more than a tenth of the men; it would be insufficient for another tenth and more than was needed by at least four-fifths. Many adults, particularly bachelors and childless couples, would be supported in more than a handsome style while a large percentage of the children would still lack the essential things of life. For while probably only ten per cent of the
86	COMMONS
Family Allowances-Mr. Lelellier de St. Just
men have more than three dependent children, yet, since these are the large families, probably somewhere between thirty-five and forty per cent of the children are members of these families. The family-of-five advocates seem to believe that by grossly overpaying many workers they will atone for greatly underpaying others.
I wish now to quote from the Labour Gazette of November, 1928, volume 28. I desire to quote this because it is so important:
The cost per week of a list of twenty-nine staple foods for an average family of five in terms of the average retail prices in some sixty cities was $11.28 at the beginning of October, as compared with $11.15 for September; $10.99 for October, 1927; $10.93 for October, 1926; $10.89 for October, 1925; $10.31 for October, 1924; $10.65 for October, 1923; $10.23 for October, 1922; $11.48 for October, 1921; $15.83 for October. 1920; $16.92 for June, 1920 (the peak); $13.54 for October, 1918; and $7.99 for October, 1914. The most important advances were seasonal increases iu the prices of eggs, milk and butter, while less important advances occurred in the prices of veal, mutton, salt pork, bacon, lard and beans. Potatoes were substantially lower, while the prices of sirloin steak, evaporated apples and yellow sugar showed slight declines. Including the cost of fuel and rent with that of foods, the total budget averaged $21.52 at the beginning of October, as compared with $21.28 for September; $21.18 for October, 1927; $21.14 for October. 1926; $21.11 for October. 1925; $20.67 for October, 1924; $21.16 for October, 1923; $20.87 for October, 1922; $21.01 for October, 1921; $26.46 for October, 1920; $26.92 for July, 1920 (the peak); $21.48 for October, 1918; and $14.48 for October, 1914. Fuel was practically unchanged, while rent was slightly higher.
I do not care to take up too much of the time of the house, because I know that many important questions have to be dealt with; but you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the subject in some detail from the standpoint of the historic city of Quebec.
Children have always been justly considered as the greatest blessing of the marriage state, and the best asset of a nation. One has but to turn to the pages of the Bible to ascertain that the birth of a child is ever represented as a legacy bequeathed by God to those who serve Him; and modern economists agree, with Adam Smith, that a high birth-rate is the most convincing sign of the prosperity of a country. How then does it happen that in our modern society the large family has become a social and economic problem demanding prompt solution? To give a satisfactory answer to this question, we must first realize that if a child represents an asset to the country', of which it will soon become a wealth producer, the position is somewhat different for the parents. At an earlier period, when the burden of raising children was relatively light, the parents were soon compensated by the increased production which additional

hands were able to assure. This is no longer the case, for present day education imposes a heavy burden Which, for many years at least, brings no compensation. In other respects, too, the conditions which modem civilization imposes on fathers of families are distinctly more difficult to bear than those which formerly' obtained, so that the status of the large family is precarious indeed.
Among the causes which have contributed to this unfortunate state of affairs in social economics, we would place in the first rank the unequal distribution of family burdens among' adults. Formerly the large family was the general rule; marriages were contracted at an early age; young men started home-making often before the age of twenty; after twenty-one they began to be looked upon as old bachelors, and after twenty-five -their cases were considered hopeless. This is the reason Why most families had many [DOT] children; this is why bachelors were few in number. The result was that as most of the adults were burdened with families, they lived cn a modest scale; the standard of life was set by plain living, with consequent low costs, and these conditions were practically uniform for the bulk of the population.
During the last twenty-five years, and especially since the war, conditions have been turned topsy-turvy. The increase in the cost of living in the last decade -has made itself particularly felt, and the spending and luxury indulged in by young people of both sexes as soon as they are earning a salary delay young men in establishing homes. Before they obtain the income necessary to support a family, ten, fifteen or perhaps more years have usually slipped by. This is why the number of bachelors and married men with small families has increased considerably. We have no available Canadian statistics on this point, but those of other countries reveal the gravity of the situation. It has been estimated that in Belgium, out of one hundred adult males, twenty-nine are unmarried; twelve are married without children; sixteen have but one child; twelve have two children; eight have three children, and twenty have four or more children. Thus 44 per cent of the male adults in Belgium have no family responsibilities; 36 per cent have but light ones, and only 20 per cent cany heavy ones. In other words, 20 per cent of the adults raise twice as many children as the other 80 per cent put together, and a similar state of affairs exists in olher countries.
Economists have pointed out the unfortunate consequences that result from this unequal distribution of responsibilities. When,

Family Allowances-Mr. Woodsworth
in a community, all adults have equal resources of income, and when the majority of these adults have scarcely any family responsibilities, that same majority are well off and even rich; they spend more money; they increase and multiply their wants; they develop expensive tastes; soon the standard of living risese for the whole population. The large families submerged in this mass cannot lodge, feed, clothe, educate or amuse themselves as they could two centuries ago. They are in the grasp of social needs and, lacking resources, are exposed to intolerable privations.
The situation is further complicated by the lowering of infant mortality. When children were dying like flies, couples having ten or twelve children often lost half or more, and carried eventually the burden of a moderate family; at present the progress of hygiene, medicine and surgery has resulted in the saving of many children who formerly would have died. In addition to the fact that medical treatment, which formerly was dispensed with, is now a fresh source of expense for the head of the family, it often happens that the children saved from death by a more enlightened medical intervention remain weak and sickly, and for years are a source of care and expense which impose a heavy burden on the income of the father and an increase of fatigue for the mother.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I ask for the support of this house in order to permit this resolution to go to the committee on industrial and international relations, where it may be studied in all its aspects. Any report made by that committee would receive the consideration of experts and would come back to this house, in order that the federal and provincial governments, the municipalities and the industrial corporations might assist in solving this problem, which I am sure all married men without children and bachelors will agree is worthy of serious attention. I am sure this Liberal administration which has passed so many splendid measures which have been so greatly appreciated by the people of Canada, will give consideration to the resolution which I have the honour to present today.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to
second and support the resolution just introduced. In the older state of society, when the majority of individuals owned their own tools of production, it was quite possible that there should be some direct relationship between the reward for what was produced and the effort put forth, but at present, as we all
know, we are living in the midst of what has been called the wages system, under which the vast majority of men simply receive a wage which does not bear any direct relationship to the amount they may produce. Under these circumstances it becomes necessary for us to see that at least the wage is adequate to the proper support of the individual and his family. Some of us would like to see the present wages system radically changed; I am not advocating that to-day, but I am saying that we have to deal with the situation as it is, and the least we can do is to insist that an adequate wage is provided. Two years ago I introduced in this house a resolution urging a minimum living wage, taking the ground that the least that could be done would be to see that the worker was paid a wage sufficient to support himself and his family in decency. That resolution wient before a committee, and a report was made. One of the difficulties in all legislation of this character is that there has never yet been a satisfactory decision given regarding the jurisdiction of the Dominion and the provinces. It seems to me that we can only keep urging legislation of this kind upon the Dominion government in the hope that before long some satisfactory arrangements may be arrived at between the federal and provincial authorities.
While I advocate a minimum wage I recognize that this proposal is not altogether the scientific way of arriving at the proper solution. In discussions of what the minimum wage should be we have more or less to postulate a standard family. This is generally taken as being a man, his wife and three children, because, in order that the population be maintained, it has been found that a family of that size is necessary. As a matter of fact there is no standard family, as the mover of the resolution has pointed out. In some families there is only one child, while in other families there may be five or six, or eight or ten children. Then in other families there are no children at all. Under these circumstances it is perhaps hardly fair to ask that the workman should be paid sufficient to maintain a standard family, because in this case some workers would be paid too much and others would receive too little. I think it would be much more satisfactory to try to ascertain the size of the family and the obligations of the wage-earner, and then we would know what the minimum wage should be.
I know the contention will be put forth by a good many that parents should support their children. I quite agree with the general
88	COMMONS
Family Allowances-Mr. Woodsworth
principle that parents should be responsible for the support of their children, but I would also point out that there is a growing burden in bringing a family into the world1. It is very difficult to-day for the majority of wage-earners to rear a family. This is one reason why we have to spend millions of dollars in trying to induce people to come to this country. I know of scores, yes, hundreds of working-class homes where the coming of a new baby is a positive disaster to the family. That kind of thing ought not to be, and it seems to me that we have to look at the facts as they are.
As I interpret the situation, we have been passing from an agricultural to an industrial state of society. In the pioneer agricultural state the family was an asset. At a very early age the child could do a little work around the farm, what we commonly call the chores. By the time the child reached the age of eight or ten years he could render great assistance in the carrying on of the work of the farm. Many a boy of twelve or fourteen years of age was able to do a man's work. The child early became an asset, and in any case his support was not a very great burden as there was generally enough produced on the farm to support the family. But when we come to an industrial state of society, where the residence of the wage-earner is in the city, we have an altogether different situation. All who live in cities know something about the costs of living under present conditions. Rents are very high, especially in such large cities as Montreal. If the wage-earner lives in the outskirts of the city he has to pay car fare, which again very .materially increases his costs. Under these conditions there is absolutely nothing that the majority of children can do to help supplement the earnings of the father. There is no farm around about the residence, especially when that residence is a flat. If the child can keep from being run over, or otherwise bringing new disasters upon the family, he is doing very well. About all the parents can do is to send the children over to the playing field, if there be one. In an industrial state of society, children, instead of being an asset, have become a very decided liability.
Side by side with this tendency there has been a general development towards a higher standard of living for the child. In the pioneer days the child went to school for two or three years, and he then went to work in a practical way. In most of our provinces to-day we insist that the child shall attend public school until the age of fourteen, fifteen or sixteen years, in order that he may

be better fitted for his life work. This means that the father and mother must support the child, not for six or eight years, but for twelve or fifteen years of his school or college career. A very heavy burden is thus laid upon the father and mother of families.
It is itrue the state has done something to meet this condition. In most of our provinces we have free public schools, and in some cases free text books. Other provinces have provided free medical assistance, and thus to a small extent the community is helping. However, a great part of the responsibility still falls upon the father and the mother. I know there are those who will say that they ought to carry the whole responsibility when they bring children into the world. That is precisely the argument which was used when it was first proposed to have public schools in Ontario. The opponents of public schools said that if people wanted to have children they should educate them, but it has been discovered that the education of children is, to a certain extent, a matter of public concern and the least the state can do is to provide some assistance in that respect. It is quite easy to find precedents for the extension of action along this line.
Further, there is the debt that industry owes to the family; industry is entirely dependent upon the family for its labour. Every industrial manager provides a certain amount in his estimates for the installation of machinery, and he also provides for the replacement of same, and for what he terms " obsolescence ", that is, for the machinery becoming out of date. There is no provision of like nature made with regard to labour. There has been a steady stream of labour into this country in the past, and the employer has taken the man, fully developed, and with strong muscles, has used him to the limit, and then has thrown him aside and taken on some young fellow who was anxious to get a job. This has worked, I say, because in the past we have had a steady stream of labour. It is becoming more and more difficult as the days go on, and we have had to resort to immigration in order to get a sufficient supply of labour in this country. In the older countries they are experiencing some difficulty in getting a sufficient supply of labour, and the proposal that is advanced to-day has been adopted in Europe at the instance of the manufacturers themselves. They are realizing that they must in some way do something to keep the supply of labour up to the mark. I am not advocating this at all on that basis. But even on that basis, from the standpoint of labour as a factor in industry, we should arrange that

Family Allowances-Mr. Woodsworth
industry recognizes in a very material way something of its responsibility to the family which provides the labour that is needed in industry.
There are some who are very much afraid that if this kind of legislation is introduced, it will tend greatly to an increase in the size of families. That is a matter upon which we might have some differences of opinion. I am strongly of opinion that if we raise the general level of well-being in the community, the question of the size of families can be left very largely to take care of itself. But we face again the facts. We have large families; we have families smaller, which yet are a burden to their parents. What are we going to do with those children? When you have a surplus supply of kittens you can take them out and drown them. No one would propose that we should do that with children. There are some who urge: Well, the easiest and best solution is to limit the size of families, personally, I think there is a great deal to be said for that. Into that I do not intend to enter to-day. The situation which faces us to-day is simply this:	The
families are here; our responsibilities are here, and yet the wage earners to-day are not receiving sufficient to maintain those families in decency. The very least, surely, that we as representing the state can do is to insist that those children shall have a fair chance in life.
This proposal that is being brought forward is not a new thing. It is quite true it is new in Canada, but just recently the United States Bureau of Labour Statistics made a very exhaustive survey of family allowances in various foreign countries. This, I have no doubt, will be available for the use of the committee but I would quote simply one statement near the beginning of this report:
The number of persons employed under such systems in Belgium. France, Germany and Italy in 1924 and in the Netherlands in 1923 combined, was more than 7,500,000.
Therefore, when a system has been so thoroughly tested as this in other countries, we may very well give it consideration in Canada. It is quite true that in France and Belgium, where it has been longest in operation, it is not on the basis that personally I should like to see it in this country. It is left there very largely in the hands of groups of large industrialists. Perhaps that is the reason why in English-speaking countries there has been some hesitation in adopting the measure, but in recent years in Great Britain, also in Australia and New Zealand there has been a great deal of agitation for legislation along this line. For some time we have had it as a provincial measure in New South Wales and they have been investigating its application in the federal field as well. In England, both inside the labour movement, within the Liberal party and in the community at large a great deal of education has been carried in the last few years and the results of the inquiries are now available. Miss Eleanor F. Rathbone has done a good deal of preliminary work in that country.
There are certain objections that may occur to anyone in a first consideration of this proposal. One is this:	Suppose that men with
families, receive an allowance, will not all the employers immediately endeavour to secure single men and thus the condition of the married men with families be worse than it was before? That trouble is overcome in that the wage paid to married and single men is the same in any case, and the allowance that is made is made to the father or, perhaps, better to the mother on account of the contribution which she is making to the welfare of the state. The levy is made on the basis of the numbers of people employed in the industry. All in the industry have to contribute to that; but whether a man is employed in this or that particular establishment does not make any particular difference. Therefore that objection is quite easily overcome in the working out of the details of the legislation; it has been overcome in those countries in which the family allowance scheme is in operation.
There is an objection-and I may as well be frank in stating it-on the part of labour and I know some of my labour friends will question the wisdom of my advocating this matter at the present time. The objection is that there is a possibility that the regular wage may tend to be lowered to the very lowest minimum. In the past we have been endeavouring to maintain a standard wage sufficient to enable a man to support himself and his family. Will this standard be endangered? Personally I do not think that objection is well founded. I understand that in the practical working out of this scheme it has been found that wages have not been lowered; the objections of the wage earners in various European countries have gradually died down, and they have generally accepted this new arrangement as in the interests of labour.
As I said in the beginning I am not-by any means advocating this as a solution of all the labour problems. Some of us believe we must have the most fundamental changes with regard to the whole economic structure

Titles of Honour-Mr. Bennett
of society, but at the present time we feel that the best thing to do is to proceed along humanitarian lines in at least insisting that the wage earners should not be treated, as the treaty of Versailles says, as a mere commodity, but that rather we should understand they are human beings. If we treat them as human beings, the least we can do is to insist that their families be given a fair chance. It would seem as if we were not going very far in asking that this proposal should be investigated by the committee.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: As the resolution calls only for
the submission of this question to the committee, I do not propose to discuss the question at this time further than to say that the government is quite willing that it should go to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.	[DOT]


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February. 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cahan:
That a special committee of this house consisting of eleven members be appointed forthwith to investigate and report upon the advisability of qualifying, amending or rescinding the address to His Majesty the Ring, which was adopted by this house in May. 1919, dealing with the conferring by His Majesty of titles of honour or titular distinctions upon His Majesty's subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada; and also to consider and report upon the appropriate action, if any, which the parliament of Canada should take with respect to the acceptance, enjoyment or use by persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada of titles of honour or titular distinctions or decorations conferred by any foreign government, governmental authority, potentate or power; and also to consider and report upon the advisability of instituting orders of merit, distinctions or decorations, which may be conferred by His Majesty upon persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, on the advice of the government of Canada, in recognition of distinguished public services; and that such committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to report from time to time to this house.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose
to make any extended observations with respect to this resolution. The appointment of a committee to deal with a matter of this kind does not commend itself to my judgment. It did not do so with respect to judges' salaries, nor does it with respect to most matters of this character. It might be well, however, to direct attention to the fact that there is a real question that should be
[ Mr. Woodsworth. ]
considered by a committee, and that is how far a resolution of this house that has been followed by subsequent action by the sovereign should be entirely disregarded by citizens of this country.
The Prime Minister yesterday made clear that the advice tendered to the sovereign, so far as the government was concerned, was that no approval should be given to the wearing of foreign decorations awarded or granted or conferred upon Canadians or persons usually domiciled in Canada. That is what Hansard shows, and I think I followed my right hon. friend correctly as to that.
It might be well, in the first instance, to recall that this matter came before the House of Commons in 1919, on the motion of Mr. Nickle, the member for Kingston, and when the motion came before the house, the then acting Prime Minister moved that the matter be referred to a select committee of the house, which select committee was small in number. At page 1479 of the Hansard for April 14. 1919, it will be found that Sir Thomas White's motion was as follows:
That the subject matters of the said motion and amendment together with the questions of conferring honours, titular distinctions and decorations upon the subjects of His Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada, including those who have performed overseas, in Canada or elsewhere, naval, military or civilian services in connection with the war be referred for consideration and report to a special committee consisting of the following members: Messrs. Nickle, Green, Peck, Buchanan, Clark (Red Deer), Thomson (Qu'Appelle), Cowan, Whidden, Nesbitt, Middlebro. Pardee, Richardson. Cock-shutt, Murphy. McCoig, Ross, Ames, McMaster, Lemieux. Robb, Fielding, Elkin, Copp, McCurdy, Sinclair (Guysborough).
That motion carried on division, the vote being 71 to 64. That committee met, and they made a report, and the report of that committee, of which Mr. Nickle was chairman, will be found at page 2395 of Hansard of May 14, 1919. I direct attention to the recommendations of that committee because in the address that was forwarded to the sovereign, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, a part only of the resolution was included for the obvious reason that the report of the committee as adopted1 provided for other methods by which portions of that report might be made effective. I think it might be well to have the report of that committee put upon Hansard, and I therefore read it to the house, although I had not intended to do so:
House of Commons of Canada,
Ottawa, May 14, 1919.
The special committee appointed to consider and report upon the propriety of presenting an

Titles oj Honour-Mr. Bennett
address to His Most Excellent Majesty the Ivins, praying that His Majesty may be graciously pleased to refrain hereafter from conferring any titles upon such of his subjects as are domiciled or living in Canada, except such titles as have reference to professional or vocational appellations conferred in respect to commissions issued by His Majesty to persons in the military or naval services of Canada, or to persons engaged in the administration of justice in the Dominion; and that His Majesty may also be pleased to consider the question of taking measures to ensure the extinction at the death of the present possessors of the hereditary titles at present in existence in the Dominion; and further that His Majesty may also be pleased to take into consideration the question of in future conferring honours, titular distinctions and decorations upon subjects of His. Majesty ordinarily resident in Canada, including those who have performed overseas, in Canada, or elsewhere, naval, military and civilian services in connection with the war, beg leave to present the following as their report.
Your committee are of the opinion and recommend that an address be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty the King, in the following words:-
"To the King's Most Excellent Majesty.
"Most Gracious Sovereign.
"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled, humbly approach Your Majesty, praying that Your Majesty may be graciously pleased;-	_
"(a) to refrain hereafter from conferring any title of honour or titular distinction upon any of your subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, save such appellations as are of a professional or vocational character or which appertain to an office.
"(b) to provide that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to ensure the extinction of the hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, dignity or title as a peer of the realm, on the death of a person domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada at present in enjoyment of an hereditary title of honour or titular distinction, dignity or title as a peer of the realm, and that thereafter no such title of honour, titular distinction, dignity or title as a peer of the realm, shall be accepted, enjoyed or used by any person or be recognized.
"All of which we humbly pray Your Majesty to take into your favourable and gracious consideration."
That ended the address that was to be made to the sovereign. Then followed the balance of the report, reading as follows:
A suggestion was made that the titles of "Eight Honourable" and "Honourable" be discontinued, but the suggestion did not meet-wit}\ the approval of the committee.
Your committee, however, do not recommend the discontinuance of the practice of awarding military or naval decorations, such as the Victoria Cross, Military Medal, Military Cross, Conspicuous Service Cross, and similar decorations to persons in military or naval services of Canada for exceptional valour and devotion to duty.	.
The last paragraph is as follows:
Your committee further recommends that appropriate action be taken by legislation or otherwise to provide that hereafter no person
domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada shall accept, enjoy or use any title of honour or titular distinction hereafter conferred by a foreign ruler or government.
That last paragraph is the paragraph to which my hon. friend the member for St. Lawrence-tSt. George (Mr. Cahan) referred yesterday. When the report came up for consideration by the house an amendment was moved by Mr. Nicholson, the member for East Algoma which amendment, however, did not carry, and finally the report was adopted by the house on a vote of 96 to 43, and the appropriate motions were made that the part of the report which dealt with the address to be forwarded to the sovereign should be dealt with through the proper channels.
Yesterday my hon. friend from St. Law-rence-St. George made some reference to the action taken by the sovereign in connection with foreign orders and medals and decorations. He read from the regulations issued by the sovereign, and I think in Hansard they printed only from the first part of the report, and not from the second part from which he read, for the regulations dealt with two separate matters. The first part of the regulations dealt with foreign orders and medals applicable to persons in the service of the crown, and the second part of the regulations, or B, dealt with foreign orders and medals applicable to persons not in the service of the crown. I direct attention to the report of the committee and to the language which I have just read, which was adopted by the house. The judgment of the house involved appropriate action being taken to prevent the granting of foreign orders or decorations to Canadians or to persons usually domiciled in Canada. Now, that appropriate action was taken by the sovereign, for the regulations to which my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George referred yesterday, and from which he read, are dated at the Foreign Office, in January, 1926, which was some six or seven years subsequent to the date on which the report was adopted by this house. I take it that the right hon. the Prime Minister's advice to the sovereign is the basis of these regulations, which read as follows:
1.	It is the king's wish that no subject of His Majesty shall wear the insignia of any foreign order without having previously obtained His Majesty's permission to do so, signified either:
(a)	By warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, or
(b)	By restricted permission conveyed through the Keeper of His Majesty's Privy Purse.
2.	When permission is given by warrant under the Royal Sign Manual, the insignia of the foreign order may be worn at all times and without any restriction.

Titles oj Honour-Mr. Bennett
When restricted permission is given the insignia may only be worn on the occasions specified in the terms of the letter from the Keeper of His Majesty's Privy Purse conveying the royal sanction.
5.	Both in the case of full and of restricted permission the matter will be submitted to the king by His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who shall be under no obligation to consider applications for permission unless the desire of the head of a foreign state to confer upon a British subject the insignia of an order is notified to him before the order is conferred, either through the British diplomatic representative accredited to the head of the foreign state, or through the diplomatic representative of the latter at the Court of St. James.
6.	When His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs shall have taken the king's pleasure on any such application, and shall have obtained His Majesty's permission for the person in whose favour it has been made to wear the insignia of a foreign order, he shall signify the same to His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, in order that he may cause a warrant, if it be a case for the issue of a warrant as defined in Rule 2, to be prepared for the Royal Sign Manual.
When such warrant shall have been signed by the king, a notification thereof shall be inserted in the Gazette, stating the service for which the foreign order has been conferred.
Persons in whose favour such warrants are issued will be required to pay to His Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department a stamp duty of ten shillings.
In other words, by appropriate action taken by the sovereign, as indicated by the regulations issued by the Foreign Office in 1926, it was provided that any foreign orders or decorations that were awarded to Canadians, or those usually domiciled in Canada, would be of no validity so far as they were concerned1 unless approval of the sovereign was sought and obtained and notice published in the Gazette.
It wild be observed that in the return brought down, to which yesterday the hon. gentleman referred, the letters " L.G."-London Gazette-appear after all the decorations that are sanctioned by His Majesty the King. That is, when, as was the case, the Prime Minister of this country had conferred upon him the Grand Cross of the Legion of Honour, there appeared in the London Gazette authorization by the sovereign that that honour might be accepted by him and the appropriate decoration worn on suitable occasions. But as the Prime Minister intimated yesterday, and in my judgment very properly, notwithstanding that the resolution precludes His Majesty from conferring titular distinctions and honours upon his subjects domiciled in Canada, yet the heads of foreign countries are in a position to confer such honours, and apparently have been conferring them on British subjects domiciled in this country.

Therefore there does arise a question of some importance as to acceptance by Canadians of foreign orders and decorations against the advice tendered to the sovereign by the Prime Minister of this country, so far as the approval of the sovereign is concerned, and in direct, violation of the provisions of the regulations issued by the Foreign Office-acting under the suggestions contained in the resolution, I take it, passed by this house in 1919-and that question should foe considered carefully by a committee. Because it is not right or proper, as the Prime Minister has observed, that there should be a number of Canadians accepting such foreign orders and decorations and, in contravention of the provisions of the regulations and of the order of this house, wearing them, while our sovereign may not confer honours or decorations of any kind upon any of his subjects in this country. That, as the Prime Minister very properly intimated yesterday, is something that should be considered by a committee. Indeed, I think it is a matter of such importance that the house is under a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) for having presented his resolution in very moderate language and in such a manner as to enable a committee to deal with it in a way that, I trust, will be acceptable to the country as a whole.
Mr. WOODiSWORTH:	Would the hon.
member suggest that legislation might possibly be introduced penalizing individuals who act in this way?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I Should suppose there
would be no reason why this parliament might not exercise its legislative functions in that direction. But it would appear to me that when this House of Commons has expressed its views by legislation and has asked that appropriate action be taken, and the foreign office has promulgated the regulations to which I have just referred, and this government following the recommendations of the resolution of this house has recommended the sovereign not to give his approval, and such has been the case, then it is a little difficult to understand, as has been said, why there should be conferred foreign orders or decorations upon those who are usually domiciled in this Dominion.
May I venture to make one further observation arising out of the remarks made to this house by the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Maophail) ? It is an entire mistake to assume that the granting by the sovereign of recognition to one of his subjects involves a title. A very serious conflict of opinion

Titles of Honour-Mr. Bourassa
arises by reason of a failure to appreciate that some of the highest honours that are granted by the sovereign carry with them no title at all. Need I remind the hon. member and this house that the late Mr. Thomas Hardy possessed the Order of Merit-one of the greatest orders in the world and limited to twenty-four members outside of honorary members; that one other possessor of that order whose name is plain "Mister" is Mr. Lloyd George. Under those circumstances is it not rather undesirable that we should couple with the question of recognition of meritorious service on the part of subjects of the crown in any part of the world, but especially in this Dominion, an attack upon titular distinctions which need not be involved in the granting of such recognition? I desire to make that abundantly dear. For my part I have no hesitation in saying that I do believe now, as I have always, that it is highly proper in a democracy, whatever its form may be, that merit shall be given some recognition by the state. Whether it involves titular distinctions or not is not a matter of importance for the moment, but we should not deny to the sovereign appropriate recognition of leaders in literature, art, science and otherwise, that is, to men who have achieved success in some particular line of activity, by granting to them the Order of Merit or the Companion of Honour. Some of you may recall that the latter honour was conferred upon Mr. Smuts, who was for some time Prime Minister of South Africa. He has no titular distinction beyond that which is enjoyed by the Prime Minister of this country, namely, that of right honourable, a courtesy title which attaches to his position as a member of the imperial privy council. In the same way we address a judge upon the bench as His Lordship, although in some of the older provinces the title His Honour is used. I mention that because it is so easy to appeal to that which my friend from Southeast Grey desires so much to deprecate, that is. caste and class distinction. Of necessity there is nothing of titular distinctions involved in recognition by the sovereign of merit in any of his subjects. In some instances there were created great orders for the express purpose of meeting the situation to which attention has been directed.
I regard1 this as a matter of some importance in view of the Mtion taken by this parliament in 1919, and in view further of the very persistent disregard of the provisions of the resolution of this house and the subsequent action taken by the foreign office and the sovereign. Therefore I associate myself with
the Prime Minister. While I have usually found committees very unsatisfactory tribunals for dealing with matters of this kind -we had a very unsatisfactory instance last session1-yet in view of the attitude expressed by the Prime Minister that the resolution should go to a committee, I heartily place myself in accord with that view.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: May I intervene in this all important debate as a friendly intermediary between the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett)?


Miss MACPHAIL:: Thank you so much.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The hon. member for
Southeast Grey dismissed the question with a certain degree of sarcastic levity, while the leader of the opposition-quite properly, having regard to his present position and, possibly, to his future,-has treated it with a great deal of solemnity.
Is this issue one of those questions of state to be submitted to the next convention called upon to frame the future policy and destiny of the great Tory-Liberal-Conservative-Nationalist party? So far as I am concerned -to state at once the points on which I agree with the leader of the opposition-I concur in the opinion of my hon. friend that this question ought not to be coupled with any of the great principles of either democracy or aristocracy.
Let me observe, first, a very singular fact. Years ago I travelled a good deal, and often sojourned, in the United States, and I do not know of any country in the world where so many fierce upholders of democracy are so anxious to have their coats ornamented with labels and medals of various kinds, by which they get around that article of their constitution which forbids the acceptance of any foreign decoration. They create as many orders of merit-or demerit-as they can in order to satisfy that instinct or appetence. I do not think, therefore, that it is a question of aristocracy or democracy or of any form of government.
That it relates to human instincts I have not the slightest doubt; and I must say I was struck with that thought-which affected much what faith I might have had in the seriousness of the subject-by the very kind and humane attitude of our dear old friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I was one day waiting for him in his parlour in Laurier House. He was in his library upstairs and I expected every moment that he would call me up. Instead he came downstairs in his morning

Titles of Honour-Mr. Bourassa
slippers, so that I did not hear him, the reason for this being that there was someone in his library at the time and he wished to see me immediately. I happened to be looking with some curiosity and merriment upon a vast show case, in front of the window, containing all the decorations which he had received. Coming up to me and slapping me on the shoulder, he said, "Henri, you are laughing at this, and quite rightly. Human nature is the same everywhere. Negroes put these things in their noses and ears; we pin them on our coats because we have coats. But after all it means the same to us all." That is what I call the humour of the matter.
Speaking somewhat more seriously, let us look at the political aspect of the question. After all, although absolutely ridiculous if looked at from a certain philosophical point of view, there is some reason for which all governments have followed the policy of decorating heroes and big men, thieves and scalliwags, according to the need that governments have had and have of various forms of human aid. There is some human reason for it, something which evidently goes to the roots of human nature. And that brings me to the point, a very interesting point, suggested by the motion of my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). Is it proper, is it sensible that Canadians still connected with the British crown should accept from foreign governments decorations which they are supposed to refuse, upon an address of this house, to accept from the British government? Again, it depends. If decorations are made use of by governments to foster devotion to their policy, to secure cooperation, diplomatic or political or financial, from men of influence in various countries, then I should say that from one point of view, the international, it should not be permissible for Canadians to accept such decorations from foreign governments while being forbidden to accept them from the British crown.
Let us avoid dragging the name of the king into a question of this nature, for everyone knows that the king has no more to do with the granting of decorations, either in England or elsewhere, than he has to do with any other function of government. Those knights and lords, whatever their titles are, are created by the British government-in other words, by a cabinet of politicians who for the time being control the policy of the British Isles on matters important or insignificant. Up to within recent years everyone thought-at least naive colonials thought- that men were called to the House of Lords because of services rendered to the state. But,

thanks to the somewhat cynical frankness of Mr. Lloyd George, who will be forgiven many a crime for his fits of candour

something so rare among great leaders of men and of empires-we know that the traffic in seats in the House of Lords has been going on for many years past, and it is only a question of acuteness of mind to account for the distribution of these favours to those who are able and willing to pay the highest price for them. If to-day there remains to Mr. Lloyd George and his handful of political partisans some chance of winning some elections in England, everyone knows that it is because he was sharp and energetic enough to preserve the fat electoral fund which he gathered during his stay in power by the sale of seats in the House of Lords. I understand that it brought to his group, under his personal control, something in the neighbourhood of three or four million pounds.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I interrupt my hon. friend? I do so in justice to the memory of one whose name is greatly honoured. I believe it is a fact, that, Mr. Asquith was called to the House of Lords by His Majesty the King on His Majesty's own initiative; there "was no recommendation on the part of any government at the time Mr. Asquith was created Earl of Oxford and Asquith.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not dispute it. There are a very few exceptions which confirm the rule. Once in a while the king is given the liberty of rewarding a man of indisputable reputation by elevating him to the House of Lords. But that happens once in ten years. My hon. friend will not dispute the rest of my statement.


Mr. CAHAN:: Is it not exactly the reverse of what my hon. friend has said?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not know; that is what I learned in London. I take my text from the gospel. This is no new thing, either in Canada or in England. Why not be a little more candid about it? In the early days of the Liberal government of 1896 I remember talking to Sir Wilfrid Laurier about some question or other. The conclusion had been reached that it was necessary to carry on a campaign of education in order to bring forward some public issue which had not been discussed during the general election. At that time he was not Sir Wilfrid Laurier, although the fact that be later received his title did not change him at all. and he told me quite candidly, with a humourous little smile, " But you know

Titles oj Honour-Mr. Bourassa
that will have to be carried on through the newspapers, and that takes money. At present, just after an election, we have no great amount of campaign funds, but we expect to have a few Senate seats to dispose of before long, and that will help us through." Of course that has been done by all parties.


Mr. FORKE:: Why blame it on Sir Wilfrid Laurier?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am not blaming it
on him; I think perhaps he did a little less of it than anyone.


Robert Forke: You are advertising it, anyway.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Everyone knows that
Sir John A. Macdonald advertised it quite freely for years. Sir Wilfrid Laurier used to do this in a decent way; he would say, " Go and talk to Mr. Sifton," or " Why not see Mr. Tarte?" Usually they were the disposers of these helps to government policies. Everyone knows that these things are for sale in almost every country.
But with regard to the international situation, it is different. As I have already said, it seems absurd that Canadian people should be allowed to accept foreign decorations while they are prevented from accepting British decorations, but on the other hand we must admit that British politics still have a great deal to do with the undercurrents which govern Canadian politics. If we admit, as we should, that one government in England may be interested in having a certain policy promulgated in Canada while another government may be interested in another policy, then I think the exercise of that so-called royal prerogative in the hands of English politicians throughout the various dominions for the advancement of their own political views is one thing against which we should vuard. Such men as Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Charles Tup-per, taking them at random, were entirely above these considerations; I do not think the fact that they were titled by the crown under advice of the British cabinet changed them at all in their policies. Sir John A Macdonald never carried on more courageous fights against the encroachments of the British government than he did after being titled by that same government, because he had been offered and had accepted those decorations as a statesman can afford to accept such acts of courtesy from another government. But there are weaker and vainer men, and that brings me to another aspect of the situation, because I do not wish to stray too far from the humorous side.
Some years ago, long before the war, a very highly distinguished and amiable lady was much concerned about launching a charitable work of some kind, I do not remember what it was. Naturally she wanted to interest moneyed people. One day she questioned a gentleman who formed part of one of Canada's numerous administrations and who had had many occasions to test the conscience and lack of conscience of various brands of Canadian citizens and British subjects. She asked him how she could approach the wealthy men of Montreal and Toronto in order to interest them in this project, to which he replied, " Well, madam, if you have some influence with the men in England who dispose of titles, a commodity especially appreciated among these people, that might have a good deal to do with the success of your enterprise." He told me later that some time after this conversation he read with a great deal of amusement in Toronto and Montreal papers that this charitable project had been launched and was on its way to success, and heading the list of contributors were the names of prominent gentlemen in Montreal and Toronto, followed by a designation of the financial institutions with which they were connected, because personal advertising and business advertising always go together. On another page of the same issue appeared a list of the birthday decorations for that year, and that list contained these same names. A mere coincidence? Perhaps.
That is what I would call the charitable aspect of the question, and if it brings forth good, if it helps the poor, and serves some good purpose, why not give a chance to these people who are not amenable to the direct call of the poor, the miserable and the suffering upon their hard-earned and sometimes stolen millions? Why not give this chance to influential people who thus can find a key to those hearts and those coffers?
Nevertheless it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that there are a few subjects more pressing than this, matters concerning the present and future welfare of the people of Canada, which might well deserve the attention, the study and the close scrutiny of the statesmen who lead the country at present or those who aspire to do so, of course altogether against their wish. There are questions concerning the welfare of agriculture, the assistance of large families which we have been discussing to-day, the balance between used and unused capital and many other matters connected either with the moral welfare of our people or the balance of economic forces of this country which might usefully occupy the attention of

Titles of Honour-Mr. Church
some of these eleven men who are to form the committee suggested in the resolution now under discussion. However, I have no objection to the appointment of such a committee; but if it were not considered too crude or too risky, it might be interesting for that committee to consider the various aspects of the question which I have brought forward this afternoon, borrowed, as I have already said, from the testimony of men who knew, and women also. I would say with the French writer; in these matters, as in others, " Cherchez la femme." The findings of that committee might not have any direct effect on our political life, on our internal, interimperial or international problems, but at [DOT] least they would serve the useful purpose of giving this parliamentary session, which threatens to be somewhat dull, a little touch of humour which might help us out in other things, just as the right proportions of salt, pepper and vinegar help very much in the digestion of heavy meals.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the course of his remarks my hon. friend referred to certain conversations with Sir Wilfrid Laurier. He was speaking very generally, but he made reference to four or five senatorships.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not remember the exact number.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend's remarks as I heard them were apt to leave the impression that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had given senatorships for a financial consideration. I knew Sir Wilfrid Laurier very intimately and I feel certain that anything of the kind was the last thought in his mind-. I do not believe Sir Wilfrid Laurier ever appointed anyone to the senate because of a financial consideration. I do not think my hon. friend would wish to do Sir Wilfrid's memory an injustice, and unless he is very sure of exactly what was said in the conversation to which he alluded I hope he will feel that he should qualify his remarks.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Of course everyone who knew Sir Wilfrid Laurier knows that he was not a man to traffic with senatorships in that crude manner. Under his regime, as well as under all regimes, some senators were appointed because of their personal services, others because of the large subscriptions they made to the party. It was all done honestly and openly.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: They are doing it yet.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: And I have no special objection to that so long as the senate is composed of appointees of the government.

I do not grudge that privilege to my right hon. friend, no more than I would make it a crime for his opponent on the other side. They may do what Sir John Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier did, and do it most honourably; it is one of the results of the regime. I mentioned that simply as an illustration to show that this question of political honours and rewards cannot be disconnected from the question of money. It may be done by honourable men in a decent way, but it is also done at times in the same way as it would be done by brigands, in isolated quarters far away from inhabited areas.


Thomas Langton Church: This question was closed some ten years ago and I think the country expects it shall stay closed. There is no demand for this resolution or for any change in the present regulation. There was such an agitation against titles during the days of the Union government that the country rose against the principle of granting them. They were granting titles to war profiteer's, hog kings, bacon kings, brewery kings, distillery owners, tobacco manufacturers, cigarette millionaires and all the rest of them, and the result was the country got sick and tired of it. The returned men working for $1.10 a day did not like the idea of raising a class distinction in this country.
This parliament has been assembled here for a week and nothing has been done. The hon. gentleman for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) brought forward his resolution yesterday, although it was not private members' day. Titles seem to be very popular in St. Lawrence-St. George, as a gentleman from that part of the country has already received the title of Minister Plenipotentiary and En voy Extraordinary to the kingdom of Japa* He is going over there and we have given him the title of His Excellency. Another excellency has also been appointed in Washington and a new house obtained there which has cost half a million dollars by way of capital charge and more money for maintenance.
It would be far better if this house ceased to be a mock parliament and appointed some committee to handle the business of the country. The government seems to find itself incapable of handling the business so far, or of bringing any on.
To-day is the first day of Lent, commonly known as Ash Wednesday. During Lent people should deprive themselves of something. and I would implore the hon. gentle-[DOT] man"from St. Lawrence-St. George to deprive himself of some of these high-sounding nothings and abandon his resolution. The coun-

Titles of Honour-Mr. Church
try has deprived itself of the luxury of titles for ten years and it has struggled along very well without them-very well indeed.
The country is still struggling along, with the result that 600,000 of our men, many of them returned soldiers, have had to join the ranks of the unemployed and go to the United States looking for a title to a job. I am surprised that the leader of the opposition and others are supporting this particular resolution. There is nothing to commend this to the wisdom or judgment of the country, and it is the wrong time to reopen the subject. Let the government, if it wants the motion, take the responsibility of reviving this innovation, and let the government govern. In the old days of the Union government we had hundreds and hundreds of honorary colonels-which reminds me of Kentucky where every Tom, Dick and Harry is a colonel; there are no privates down there. The number of honorary colonels in this country would make quite a standing army.
I might compare it to Virgil's army, which was so crowded they could not use their shields.
I know one man in Toronto who has ceased to call himself an honorary colonel. He calls himself a full colonel now, if you please, although he is only an honorary one.
I remember sitting on the exhibition executive board in the city of Toronto, where I was the twelfth man representing the city, and the other eleven were all honorary colonels. I do not want to be called an honorary colonel or any other kind of colonel, because I am not a colonel, and I am very much surprised that the mover of the resolution is seeking to establish in this country what I would call a landed aristocracy. He would set up the Restoration days for titles. The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George is dividing the people of Canada into cavaliers and roundheads of the old Restoration days. No doubt that minstrel show consisting of the interlocutor and the tamb and the bones, known as the tariff commission, will benefit, and they will receive titles for their efforts in digging up free trade facts and sounding the death knell of protection in this country.
After all, titles do not make the man. Yesterday in the United States they celebrated the anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln. The people of the United States honour Abraham Lincoln for what he did for humanity through the love he had for his brother men; for what he did for the working classes to make it a far happier country to live in. Another great man, Thomas Edison, celebrated his birthday last Monday. He is well up in the eighties and is working night and day for the betterment of mankind, yet 78594-7
he has no title. They say this is a democratic country, but from the Nipigon river in the west right down to the Ottawa valley every American who comes over here finds Canada a happy hunting ground. The title to practically the whole district from the Ottawa river to the Nipigon in regard to mineral wealth, water-powers and timber has been given to American millionaires. The people of the United States have found Canada a very happy hunting ground for titles to our timber, mines and water-powers, although we say that this is a democratic country.
I look upon the government of this country as a combination of appetites and big interests. It would be a blessing for the people of Canada if the Prime Minister would show the gate to some of the gentlemen who compose the big interests, the Beauharnois power, various crowds, and all the rest of them. What the government wants at present is a good chief bouncer to deal with these grabbers of the people's resources and turn the power grabbers and mineral wealth grabbers out of the parliament buildings and preserve the water-powers and the St. Lawrence water way for the people of Canada instead of conferring titles on this gentleman and that gentleman and making them power millionaires overnight.
This question was discussed in the days of Liberalism, in the days of the good Sir Wilfrid Laurier whom everyone admires, loves and respects. The Reverend Mr. Huxtable headed a deputation before Sir Wilfrid. Sir Wilfrid told them if the people by referendum voted for prohibition he would place a prohibitory law on the statue books. Mr. Huxtable said: "Sir Wilfrid Laurier,-" "Do not call me Sir Wilfrid," said Sir Wilfrid Laurier, "call me plain Mr. Laurier. I am a democrat to the hilt." Sir Wilfrid lived, no doubt, to change his mind on titles, as no doubt everyone is privileged to do, and he afterwards took a title.
The abolition of titles came up in the house on the 14th of April, 1919, and a debate took place. At that time a large number of people were out of employment in this country; conditions and times were bad; demobilization was taking place after the war. It was pointed out by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion), who is now one of the leading front benchers in this parliament, that if we wanted to give titles in Canada we should give them to those who served in the trenches for $1.10 a day and to the mothers and widows of those who fought and fell in

9S

Titles of Honour-Mr. Church
France and Flanders. Those are the people who should be honoured. How does the government honour those people? Do they get titles? Yes to the poor house.
Yesterday in one of the Toronto papers I noticed an advertisement in which, instead of giving those people a title, they have a tag day for the needy soldiers. They do not require a tag day to maintain Mr. Massey or Mr. Marler or Mr. Larkin or all those gentlemen, but they have to have a tag day for the needy soldiers:
To-day's Requisition for Needy Veterans
An immense number of articles of clothing is urgently needed by the poppy fund to supplement the donations of money. Last year a large sum was saved for other distributions through the generosity of Toronto citizens in donating warm clothing, shoes, bedding, etc., to help the families and children of destitute ex-service men through the winter months.
Just fancy that when we are speaking about titles in this house, men who have fought in Flanders and France, and their children, have to pass round the streets of Toronto in this second-hand clothing. The advertisement continues the plea for second-hand goods for soldiers:
Shoes-All sizes-especially children's.
Clothing-Babies' and children's, of every nature; underwear, overcoats, women's dresses, men's suits anything warm and wearable.
Bedding-Blankets, comforts, quilts.
Telephone Poppy Fund, 15 Queen's Park; Kingsdale 8710 or 8721-or, if passing, leave your parcel.
That is for the men who fought the battles of this country in France and Flanders. What did the Union government do? The Union government put the Conservative party in the cemetery for a long time by the way it dealt out titles.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Langton Church: The Union government almost put the Conservative party in Toronto out of business as well. There are many gentlemen who received titles and who did nothing for the party. The time has come in this house to speak out against this particular innovation on the part of the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George.
I notice a change in the parliamentary institutions of this country. To-day democracy is a failure in Canada, judging by the way the government has usurped the functions, privileges and powers of the House of Commons. The House of Commons has lost the functions it used to possess in previous generations. We have no control over supply. If we move to strike out a dollar, the government will resign if they are beaten. The 
House of Commons should have some machinery for checking up these cabinet proposals and title proposals and the government should accept the responsibility for them. Several bank mergers have been put through over the head of parliament. Natural resources like the Seven Sisters falls have been given to the Winnipeg Electric Company over the head of parliament. In the Beau-harnois deal the whole St. Lawrence waterway was nearly given to a lot of Americans and others who exploit for private greed and gain. It was only a miracle that the permit with respect to Beauharnois did not go through the cabinet which would have meant the death of the St. Lawrence waterway. The St. Lawrence waterway question is the greatest economic problem we have on the North American continent to-day, and yet we have no government that will settle the title to the St. Lawrence. The party that takes up that question and settles it will rule Canada for many a day rather than a party that is frying to introduce a lot of decorations and titles into this country for the benefit of a few figureheads and hangers-on of the party sj'stem. If this committee is appointed I would like them to examine some of the members of the Union government and of the Liberal government, as the Lloyd George committee did, and find out how much these power kings, tobacco knights, cigarette knights, hog and bacon kings and war profiteers paid for their titles. Let that be the first thing which the hon. gentleman does when he presides, as I presume he will, over this committee.
I see on the other side two hon. gentlemen who, I thought, were doctors and who, I find, are not doctors at all. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) has had the degree of D.C.L. conferred on him by the university of Saskatchewan. Like the educated and learned Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who has seven or eight degrees, including one from Yale and one from Harvard and who is becoming very popular by degrees, the Minister of Agriculture is trying to follow in the footsteps of his leader. The hon. member for Brandon, the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke), was urged to give up the department, go to the city of Winnipeg, wear a Windsor uniform and a three-cornered hat and become the lieutenant-governor of Manitoba. He was one of those urged to take the position and go to sleep among the butterflies. The Minister of Agriculture, who became a doctor over night last spring, now that he is a doctor, no doubt wants a title too. He did not have long to wait because he was

Tides oj Honour-Mr. Church
one on whom the university at Saskatoon conferred a degree last year. He was offered, it is said, the gubernatorial chair at Regina. He would do well with such a title and also be asleep among the butterflies.
The Liberal party down in the maritime provinces were in favour of titles too. They gave away the title deeds to the products of the sea, the soil, the forests and the mines to political favourites like Santa Claus hands Christmas presents off a Christmas tree. Those three provinces have thereby suffered untold ills, the result being that the Duncan commission was appointed which made recommendations for subventions and subsidies to remedy the ills of that particular district and recover the title deeds to the resources of the province.
There was considerable talk in this house on Monday about war jingoes, and some people seem afraid to mention the Americans above a whisper. The war jingoes are no worse than some of the peace jingoes and the title jingoes we have in this house. If this question of restoring titles is gone on with and titles are restored in this country, it will be found that the people who will be wanting titles will be those who have put up subscriptions, and we shall just be bringing into this country the abuses that obtain in the old land under the title system there. We had certain titled gentlemen come into this party from the Liberal party at the time of the Union government, but I am not aware that any recruits from the Liberal party have ever been any asset to the Conservative party. It would be better for this party if they stayed over there in their own party. If the government wants to reintroduce this innovation into Canada, let it do it as a Liberal government. But really, Mr. Speaker, there is no Liberal party in this country today. We have no great Liberal like Plimsoll, who forced the Plimsoll mark on shipping through the English House of Commons for the protection of the British sailors who had been sailing the seven seas in coffin ships. The Liberals we have in this country are not Liberals at all. The Liberal party in Canada to-day is not the party of George Brown or of Baldwin and Lafontaine. That was a real Reform party. Have we any reforms in the speech from the throne? No, the government had no business ready to go on with at all yesterday, and they gave the right of way to the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) to bring forward his resolution, although it was not private member's day. Why not give the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) the right of way to-morrow to go on with his 78594-7}
resolution regarding the natural resources of the four western provinces? The title deeds of the four western provinces have been referred to the Supreme Court, and no doubt the question will go on to the Privy Council. That is all we have in this country to-day- government by order in council, by commissions, and by courts of law. You cannot solve any problem in this country if you are sitting in opposition. You may have a bill to bring about a reform, and what happens to it? In the old days of the Family Compact, a member of parliament who was a Liberal could introduce a bill; it would receive first and second reading and a decision would be made upon it, but under this so-called Liberal government you cannot get anything done. The hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) had a bill on the order paper last session as to subsidiary companies, but it did not receive even a first reading.
I can find no demand for this resolution from the city of Toronto, but I have no doubt that if the hon. member for Labelle wants some title, the University of Toronto will be glad to give him the degree of LL.D. There are very few titles among the returned men in this country. They do not get into the cabinet. It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than it is for a returned soldier to get a seat in the senate or on the bench in this country. They give the returned men all the pick and shovel jobs, but when it comes to a title or to a seat on the bench or in the other chamber, that goes to the rank and file of the party who are civilians and have paid their dollar and joined the Liberal association. Workingmen can sit in the British parliament, but no workingman can sit in the Canadian senate, and very few workingmen can sit in this chamber either. We need to go back to the days of the old Family Compact in creating a titled class in Canada. The poet Browning has said that all service is alike before the Lord; that whether you sweep the streets or drive a tram-car or are a prime minister, if you do your duty, your service is alike before the Lord. Canada is supposed to be a democracy, but it is not a democracy at all. The people do not govern in this country. Democracy is becoming a failure in this country, if we are to judge by the way the power barons are being granted the natural resources of this country, which are being squandered by the government, and the title deeds to the country's natural resources and water-powers taken away from the people.
I ask the government to let the working classes vote on this motion of the hon. mem-

Titles of Honour-Mr. Church
ber for St. Lawrenoe-St. George, and they will soon see how popular this legislation is among the working classes, so many of whom are out of work. The government of the day has no right to put this proposition over, this monument of folly the way they put over the change of status-without the will of the people.
Let me tell the Prime Minister of this country that titles automatically became abolished in this country by Canada's changed status. The judiciary of the superior courts of this country are no longer entitled to be addressed, "My Lord," or "Your Lordship." The Prime Minister of this country settled all that by this magnificient dream of our new status, by this business of making Canada a nation overnight. Canada a nation of titles, with no navy except a few small craft such as row boats, now locked up in a garage at Halifax? That is the country that wants to restore titles 1
I think this country has had enough of this kind of legislation. Is this all that parliament has to do? Are we assembled here to discuss academic questions of this kind, titles, and all that kind of thing? Canada won a new title at the League of Nations, if you please; we have a seat at the league now. The League of Nations is going to cost us more and more in the future than all other agencies put together, and you would be convinced of that if you would only read the Empire and English Review. It shows the mischief that this particular agency is doing. If this opposition wants to be a fighting opposition, it ought to be up and doing, instead of being a sort of Woodrow Wilson opposition discussing titles and that kind of vanity and conceit; for it is a case of "vanity, vanity, saith the preacher; all is vanity".
I am aware of no demand for this resolution. The Conservative party had a platform at Winnipeg, and they were afraid to mention in it what has been the main plank of their platform ever since we became a party, the very backbone of the Conservative platform, namely, the title "protection." This government is giving away the water-power resources of this country to gentlemen who occupy offices on St. James street. There is too much government from St. James street and too little from Ottawa. Here we have been assembled for nearly a week, and instead of our trying to help the struggling men, women and children in Wales by sending them one or two million dollars, or studying the problem of the national coal supply and perhaps bringing out coal from Wales, we are sitting here dis-
cussing academic questions of this kind. The lowly carpenter of Nazareth had no title.
Last session we had a discussion on the table of precedence in this country. If you read it in the red book, "The Parliamentary Companion," you will find what a lot of has-beens members of the House of Commons are. They are twenty-third on the list in the table of precedence and are preceded even by honorary colonels-and this although such a table is abolished by Canada's new status.
Five hundred thousand Canadians went overseas and fifty thousand of them he buried in France. If the plain title of "Mister" was good enough for them, that style of address and salutation should be quite good enough for the civilians who stayed at home and became war profiteers. I believe that the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George would be far better occupying his time in getting the unemployed in his and other constituencies titles to jobs in their own land instead of having to go to the United States as they are forced to do now under our economic system.
One of the greatest prime ministers that Great Britain has ever had, Mr. Stanley Baldwin, is a commoner. He will rank as a greater than William Pitt. Joseph Chamberlain, who gave us the magnificent dream of an economic empire, was content to be a commoner; those great Liberals, John Bright and Gladstone, were commoners, and so were many others who stood for what they conceived to be the principles of liberalism. I submit that those who support titles are not true to those Liberal principles. This house should occupy itself in solving the great economic problems of the empire, trade, defence and migration, instead of frittering away its time on such a purely academic question as titles. Canada has earned the title of the greatest spendthrift nation of the world. In 1896 it took thirty-six million dollars to run this country; to-day it takes four hundred million dollars. In 1896 some of the provinces spent 5 millions; now they spend 57 millions. It would be far better to discuss vital economic problems than waste our time on titles.
If we adopt this resolution and appoint a committee, then automatically we adopt the principle of the resolution. Let those who are in favour of titles declare themselves now.
I see no reason for altering the decision come to by the house in 1919 when the argument for and against titles was stated at very great length. The only action we need take in regard to titles is to deal with one or two hereditary titles enjoyed by a small number

Printing of Parliament
of Canadians. There is no room in this democracy for hereditary titles and they should be repealed. If the government wanbs titles let them say so and take the responsibility as a government for their restoration. This feudal institution has been dead since 1919, and it should stay dead as far as the people of this country are concerned.
I move the adjournment of the debate.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I object, Mr. Speaker. The
hon. gentleman has spoken for forty minutes, he is not entitled to move the adjournment of the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed by the
Clerk of the House that the hon. gentleman has spoken only thirty-five minutes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Finish!


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has
five minutes more.


Thomas Langton Church: This is the first time that I was ever given five minutes extra. This resolution follows somewhat the form of the resolution of 1919, but goes a little further, if anything. Everybody respects the hon. membeT for St. Eawrence-St. George, he is one of the active members of the house, and has given a great part of his life to the service of his fellow-citizens, but notwithstanding that, on a matter of principle, I must differ with him on this resolution. Its purpose is to appoint a committee of eleven to further investigate. What? To investigate and report on the very same principle on which the committee of 1919 reported. At that time the Liberal party was very largely lined up against the title principle. In the debate at that time Mr. Michael Clark, the then member for Red Deer, made a very important speech covering the four corners of this resolution. He supported the principles of Liberalism. Mr. Nickle gave a history of titles from feudal days and pointed out that Canada being a democratic country did not want to retain this relic of feudalism. The mover of the resolution wants to have a special committee appointed, consisting of eleven members, to investigate and report upon the advisability, first, of qualifying the address to His Majesty the King. No doubt certain gentlemen are to qualify for certain titles.	I see the hon. member for East
Toronto (Mr. Ryekman); I do not see why he should not be made an honorary colonel. He is as much entitled to that distinction as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). Is it intended that this motion shall affect such decorations as are conferred by the
Knights of Pythias, the Knights of Columbus and the Black Knights of Ireland? This parliament has no power to interfere with decorations such as are worn on the twelfth of July or the seventeenth of March. The motion also suggests amending or rescinding the address to His Majesty the King. Let us see what that address asks of His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, February 14, 1929