RULES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. SPEAKER:: The right hon. the
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has expressed the desire that I should state the rules of procedure on the reading in debate of written statements made outside the house. Points of order should be taken before and not after such statements are read and included in the official reports of debates. I have looked into the matter and I think it may be advisable to explain these rules.
The rules under which statements emanating outside the House of Commons may be read in debate are so restrictive that we may say the practice is not allowed. Unless a member intends to base a motion on extracts from such statements, it is irregular to read them during debate if they refer to, comment on or deny anything said by a member, (Bourinot 336); are intended to influence debate (May 316); reflect upon any vote of the house or use offensive words against either house or against any member thereof (standing order 41); contain unparliamentary expressions, as no language can be heard in quotation if it would be disorderly if spoken (Bourinot 336); allude to debates in the other house of parliament (May 316); utter treasonable or seditious words, or use the king's name irreverently

Powell and Unwin Case
(standing order 41); cast reflections upon the conduct of judges (May 295; Bourinot 358); refer to matters pending a judicial decision (May 316); reflect upon the conduct of persons in authority (May 316); make personal allusions to members (May 316); refer to other debates during the same session, or to any question not under discussion (May 317318; Bourinot 336).
Bourinot, page 335, refers to these objections when he says a member may read extracts from documents, books, or other printed publications as part of his speech provided in so doing he does not infringe upon any point of order.
When the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) quoted letters in an argument against the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and when the minister retorted with telegrams, I did not interfere because great latitude has always been given with respect to citations in this house. We follow the same practice as in England where the house itself seems to have settled the procedure in these cases. I take it that the same rule applies to telegrams and letters as to extracts from newspapers.
The practice of reading extracts or written statements in debate to support an argument has been followed in the British house since 1840 when Speaker Peel, with the acquiescence of the house, allowed a member to proceed to read passages from a newspaper. In 1856, when a member was called to order for reading an extract from a newspaper, the Speaker stated that on former occasions when he had attempted to enforce this rule, he had been overruled by the house. A similar statement was made by the chairman in committee on the 9th March, 1857 (May 318). These are the last precedents cited in the 13th edition of May, published in 1924.
The house may be indulgent in these matters but it is a well known principle that a statement made in this house cannot be contradicted by a statement made by a person who is not a member of the house.



STANDING COMMITTEES


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That the name of Mr. Little be substituted for that of Mr. Slaght on the standing committee on privileges and elections, and that the name of Mr. Slaght be substituted for that of Mr. Little on the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move the adjournment of the house, under standing order 31, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the advisability of the Minister of Justice granting the request made of his majesty's attorney general and premier of the province of Alberta for the remission of the sentence recently placed upon Messrs. Powell and Unwin in Edmonton, who are reported to be now incarcerated for an offence alleged to have been committed in the said province, which is administered by the above premier and attorney general.


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member was kind enough to give me notice of his motion.
I find that leave for introducing such a motion is covered by standing order 31, paragraph 3 of the said standing order being as follows:
(3) He-
The member-
-then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out,

And so on. I have read the document handed me by the hon. member, but I do not regard it as coming within the purview of this paragraph. I consider that it is not a matter of urgent public importance, and in consequence I rule that he cannot introduce the motion.


Mr. A. A. HEAPS (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order, arising out of your ruling. May I point out that paragraph 4 states:
If less than twenty, but not less than five, members rise in their places, the question whether the member has leave to move the adjournment of the house shall be put forthwith, without debate, and determine, if necessary, by a division.
Then, I find this further statement in paragraph 3:
If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than twenty members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
In other words I do not think the Speaker of the House may determine whether or not such a motion is in order. As I interpret the rule, if twenty or more members of the house are anxious that the hon. member introducing the motion be permitted to proceed with the
Powell and Unwin Case

question which has been brought to the attention of the Speaker, he can be given the right to do so.


Right Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I submit the hon. member (Mr. Heaps) is altogether wrong, The matter is entirely in the discretion of the Speaker, and the rule the hon. member has read does not at all substantiate his claim.
Paragraph 2 states that the member desiring to make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move the adjournment of the house for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, and states the matter. This the hon. member has done. Then, paragraph 3 states:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order-
That is, if Mr. Speaker thinks it in order- -and of urgent public importance-
Still referring to the Speaker-
-reads it out.
That is, if he considers it a matter of public importance, Mr. Speaker reads it out, "and asks whether the member has the leave of the house." Then the paragraph states:
If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than twenty members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
That is to say, if Mr. Speaker had thought the matter was in order, or of urgent public importance, he would have read the motion to the house. Then if objection were taken, but twenty members rose in their places, the hon. member would have had authority to discuss the matter. As it is, the Speaker has declared that this is not a matter of urgent public importance. And may I add, as my own view, that not only is it not a matter of urgent public importance that it be discussed, but it is a matter of urgent public importance that it be not discussed.



SHOP CARDS REGISTRATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 22, respecting the registration of shop cards by labour unions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to establish a system for the registration of shop cards by labour unions, and authorizes the keeping of a register of shop cards. It prescribes the conditions upon which regis-

tration may be granted, and provides that a labour union may authorize the use of any shop cards registered by it under agreements for the use of the cards. It provides machinery for the cancellation of registrations and for correction of the register.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with the business of the day I should like on behalf of those with whom I am associated to convey to the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) our heartiest congratulations upon the celebration of the thirty-fourth anniversary of his election to the House of Commons.
Thirty-four years is a long time in the life of any man; looking back, it must seem to the right hon. gentleman a very long time indeed. It is a fact to be remembered by all. and especially by the younger members, that the right hon. gentleman, who came here with little knowledge of the English language, by persistence and perseverance has made himself one of the most complete masters of the English language in this chamber. This should be a source of inspiration to the younger members of the house.
During the period of thirty-four years that has elapsed since he came to this chamber the right hon. gentleman has travelled far. We have not always agreed with him, and looking back I see less reason than ever why we should have-perhaps he would be the first to admit the correctness of that statement. He has made great progress, and, under Providence, has been permitted to play a not unimportant part in the life of our country. It is well that, where possible, continuity should be perserved in the representation of constituencies. The right hon. gentleman has been able to give an example of the affection and regard in which it may be possible for a member to be held by his constituents, and the fact that he has not always represented the same constituency goes to prove the universality of the affection in which he is held in his native province.
We congratulate the right hon. gentleman because he has served with distinction his day and generation, not only his own province but the country as a whole. In the profession to which we both belong, he has added lustre

The Minister of Justice
and distinction to the title of "Minister of Justice." In the Canadian Bar Association, as honorary president, he has rendered valiant service to the cause for which that organization was created. We wish him many years of useful service. All of us in this chamber, whatever the motives that brought us here in the first place, have, after all, the same desire to render service to the country we love so much. Whatever may have been the political predilections of the right hon. gentleman when he entered this chamber for the first time at the age of under thirty, I feel quite sure that to him party ties have lost much of their acrimony, blended smoothly and easily as they have been into that high regard for his country which has characterized his efforts in recent years and I am sure will be apparent in the years to come. We congratulate him upon his years of service and trust that in whatever capacity it may be- whether to the right or the left of you, Mr. Speaker, is a matter wholly unimportant-he may long continue to render service to Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the house may I express to the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) our warm appreciation of his thought and courtesy in extending the congratulations he has just extended to the one who in point of years of membership and service is, at the present time, the oldest member of the Canadian House of Commons. I need not say how wholeheartedly we who sit on this side of the house endorse his remarks. It would be impossible for any of us, most of all myself, to begin to say what we owe to the exceptional abilities, wise counsel and helpful guidance of the right hon. member for Quebec East the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). He has been at my side-my deskmate in fact-during all of the years I have held the position either of leader of the government or of leader of the opposition. His presence, I need scarcely say, has made my task very much easier and my place infinitely more secure, than it otherwise could possibly have been. I am glad to have this opportunity of repeating in public and in this House of Commons, what I feel I owe to the loyalty, cooperation and constant help I have had from mjr right hon. friend during my entire public life.
The right hon. leader of the opposition has referred to the remarkable manner in which the right hon. member for Quebec East has mastered the English language and the example he has been to us all in that particular. There is another particular in which he has also 51952-25
been a great example, not only to hon. members of this house but to the citizens generally of our country. He has taught us the wisdom of moderation and of toleration in all that pertains to differences between classes, between races, between provinces and between creeds. I am sure that there is but one wish in this house and that is that the right hon. Minister of Justice may be spared for many years to come as a member of the House of Commons in order that he may continue to give in parliament his exceptional abilities and qualities to the public service of our country.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Speaker, had the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation group been in his seat this afternoon I am sure he would have been only too happy to join in the compliments that have been paid this afternoon to the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe). In his absence I desire on behalf of our group to concur in the sentiments expressed by the leader of the government (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). If there is one thing that we appreciate about the Minister of Justice, it is his courtesy to all members of the house, no matter in what part of it they may sit. In this he sets another fine example which may be added to those referred to by the previous speakers. Even though we may not agree with what he says, he says it in such a way that we cannot but enjoy listening to his remarks. I wish to associate myself most heartily with those who have expressed the desire that the right hon. gentleman may sit in this chamber for many years to come.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, since I do not belong to any group I cannot let this opportunity pass without saying that I have always felt that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) has been the one member of this house who has sustained my faith in human nature. Many times during the sixteen years I have sat in this house my faith has been threatened, but the Minister of Justice has always conducted himself in such a way as to restore my faith in my fellow men and in the members of this House of Commons. I do not think it would be going too far to say to the Minister of Justice, who is to-day celebrating the thirty-fourth anniversary of his first entrance into this chamber, that he is a greatly admired and beloved member of the House of Commons.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, ever since I came into this house the right hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) haa impressed me as being a thoroughly good man. I believe he is enjoy-

The Minister oj Justice

ing to-day the harvest of a life well spent and I rejoice greatly with him in this day of celebration.


Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed pleasant for one to hear so many nice things said about him during his lifetime. I did not expect to receive this afternoon any flowers, either in the form of roses or of speech. I am deeply grateful to my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) for his kind words. He is a prince in handling these delicate matters. As he says, very often we have not been in agreement, but I hope I shall always be able to keep his warmest friendship. I thank my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King) for the kind things he has said about me, and I thank also the other hon. members of the house who have been so kind.
It is not an unmixed blessing to be a sort of dean of the house. I am just as proud of being a member of this parliament as I was of being a member of the eighth parliament, the first session of which was in 1900. I was pleased when I was first elected a member of the House of Commons in 1904. During all my years in parliament I have made it a point to follow attentively the debates of the house. The poor English I speak to-day has been achieved by listening in the house to masters of the English language such as the leaders of the Liberal and Conservative parties. I repeat what I said the other day, that an association of thirty-four years with the members of this House of Commons has convinced me that there is no body of men more patriotic or more fully prepared to serve their country in the best way they can.
I thank my colleagues in the house for the kind words they have said of me. I hope I shall be in this house for a few more years, and I shall try to render the best service possible to my fellow citizens and do my utmost to maintain the faith of the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Miss Macphail) in human nature.



THE PARLIAMENTARY GUIDE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to direct an inquiry to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or some other member of the government in regard to the distribution of the Parliamentary Guide. I noticed this morning that copies of this annual publication had been distributed among the members of the house. It was understood last year that we were to have a

statement from some member of the government with respect to the free distribution of the Parliamentary Guide. Personally I have strong objection to its free distribution among members of the house, and I should like to know who it was that gave instructions this year, after what was said to the house last year, to have the Parliamentary Guide distributed free to members of the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend had mentioned in advance that he was bringing up this question, I would have had it looked into. Perhaps he will allow his question to stand until to-morrow when I shall endeavour to let him have a reply.



RADIO INTERFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: I shold like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Howe) a question. I have received a number of complaints in regard to electrical interference with radio reception. Is the minister prepared to make a statement as to whether regulations will be made, or present regulations enforced, regarding the use of machinery or apparatus likely to cause interference with radio reception, as provided by section 23 of the Canadian Broadcasting Act of 1936?


Hon. C. D. HOWE (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his question. The section to which he has referred gives ample power to enforce penalties for violations of the act, and the regulations under the Radiotelegraph Act set up the procedure. I think our inspectors are applying both sections wherever there seems to be occasion for doing so. I know that we are issuing orders almost every week in regard to radio interference.



CATTLE SHIPMENTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) or some other member of the government, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), if the government is taking steps to provide additional space on boats for the shipment to Great Britain of cattle that were shipped from western Canada to Ontario and are now finished and ready for the British market. There is quite a demand by Ontario farmers for cargo space to ship these finished

Small Loans
cattle to Great Britain, and it is not available. What steps is the government taking to provide it?
William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon. friend will
allow the question to stand until to-morrow I shall seek to give an answer then.



SMALL LOANS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East-for Mr. Vien) moved the second reading of Bill No. 7, respecting Industrial Loan and Finance Corporation.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think I might anticipate the usual discussion on this type of bill by making a short statement. I can sea from smiles in certain quarters that it is expected.
It will be remembered that last session we had two private bills of the character of the one now under discussion and the one immediately following on the order paper. They came before the house last year after having been passed by the senate, and were for the purpose of amending the special acts of two small loan companies. The principal amendments last year provided for the substitution of a maximum flat monthly rate of interest and charges on loans made by these companies for separate charges for interest and expenses deducted in advance as permitted by the special acts. In one of the bills last year the maximum monthly rate provided for was two per cent, and in the other two and a quarter per cent.
The first bill was referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce. After some discussion, and after an undertaking had been given by the promoters of the second bill that the rate of interest provided for therein would be reduced to two per cent per month, that bill also was referred to the banking and commerce committee. After prolonged consideration of the bills in the committee, both were reported back to the house with a provision for a maximum rate of two per cent. The bills, however, were not further dealt with by the house.
We have now before us on the order paper private bills amending the special acts of the same two companies. These bills, so far as I can gather, differ in form and substance from those of last year, the most important change being a maximum monthly rate of two and a quarter per cent instead of two per cent as approved by the committee last year. I am unaware personally of anything
51952-25J
which has taken place in the interval to make necessary an increase in the maximum monthly rate to be authorized for small loans.
In the banking and commerce committee, and in the house last session, I stated that it was the intention of the government at the present session to propose a special committee of the house to investigate generally the question of small loans and the maximum rates of interest and charges that should be permitted. One reason for suggesting a special committee was the difficulty experienced last year in securing a quorum of the banking and commerce committee and the frequent delays in proceedings caused thereby. The government has given further consideration to the matter, and in view of the number of special committees that are contemplated this session, and the further fact that the banking and commerce committee does not appear to have in prospect a very great volume of work, the government believes it would be better to refer this matter again to the banking and commerce committee. The number of special committees will make it rather difficult during the session for members to give adequate attention to all committees, and if it should be found from time to time that there is great difficulty in getting a quorum of the banking and commerce committee it is always within its competence to suggest to the house a reduction in its quorum. That would be a means of overcoming that difficulty. I intend to propose, therefore, on behalf of the government a motion which should come, I think, after the reference of the two bills now on the order paper. The proper course I suggest would be to refer these two bills to the committee once more, without, of course, the house endorsing them in any greater degree than it always does in referring private bills.
Richard Bedford Bennett: They have to have second reading first.


Mr. DUNNING:: They have to have second reading first, of course, as a matter of form, and then I shall ask the house to adopt this resolution:
That the standing committee on banking and commerce be instructed to inquire into the practices of individuals, partnerships and companies in making small loans on personal security, and to consider the maximum rate of interest and charges which should be permitted for such loans.
I believe that by referring these two bills and then adopting such a motion as I have just read, the house will set in train a thorough and complete investigation into this whole small loan business, and we shall not be crowded for time as we were last year because of the shortness of the session. I have
Small Loans

some hope that out of the work of such a committee might come something constructive which would appeal to parliament in dealing with this vexed and very difficult question. That is the suggestion I make to the house.


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I think that possibly the delays in committee last year were largely due to the fact that quite a large group in that committee felt that rates of interest of two or two and a quarter per cent on these small loans were far too high, and we hoped that the government might bring down some general legislation this year dealing completely with this small loan business. If that is the idea I see no reason why the procedure suggested should not be followed, although I dislike the thought of the house accepting the principle of these two bills, because on the second reading we really adopt the principle. But if the understanding clearly is that they will be considered by the committee with a view to general recommendations looking toward general legislation, then, although I was inclined to oppose these bills to-day, I would be prepared to allow them to go to the committee and look forward to the general legislation dealing with these small loan companies.


Charles Avery Dunning: If the house will permit me, I omitted to mention one matter of some importance, and that is that a resume of the proceedings of the committee last session has been printed in order that it might be available in the investigation which we hope will take place at this session. I should also say to the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) that the intention of the government in submitting this resolution is to have the kind of examination upon which it is hoped a general policy may be founded.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Will the minister state exactly what status the bill will have when it comes through for second reading?


Charles Avery Dunning: The same as any other private bill which is referred to committee. It may come back from that committee amended; it may come back without amendment, or it may not come back at all.
Motion agreed to; bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.



CENTRAL FINANCE CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East-for Mr. Macdonald, Brantford City) moved the second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting Central Fin-
[Mr. Dunning.)
ance Corporation and to change its name to Household Finance Corporation of Canada.
Motion agreed to; bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on banking and commerce.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): Subject to the condition mentioned in the discussion of the bills just dealt with, and with the permission of the house, I now move:
That the standing committee on banking and commerce be instructed to inquire into the practices of individuals, partnerships and companies in making small loans on personal security, and to consider the maximum rate of interest and charges which should be permitted for such loans.
Mr. R. L. BAKER (Eglinton):: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether, if it be necessary, the committee should introduce some changes in the criminal code, or is there now adequate provision in the code for purposes of enforcement?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot answer as to the criminal code. I am quite sure that if, as a result of the investigation, anything of that nature is discovered to be practicable from the standpoint of the committee it can be suggested and may be dealt with when the report of the committee comes back to the house.


Richard Langton Baker: Suggested by the committee?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, undoubtedly.


Mr. PAUL MARTIN (Essex East):: May I ask the minister, in view of the attitude taken by the committee last year in respect to the desirability of going into this whole matter, whether there is provision now for the calling of witnesses, from afar if need be, to go into the matter thoroughly, or is that a question we shall have to determine in committee when it meets?


Charles Avery Dunning: The committee itself, like all standing committees, has power to summon witnesses. As Minister of Finance I have always requested chairmen of committees to report to the house what they are proposing to do along that line in order that there may be some reasonable check on the degree of expense. In the case of this committee, as I am a member I suppose I cannot complain.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Questions

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

Mr. BOULANGER:: What amounts have been paid by the federal government, since April 1, 1936,"to date, to each province, in connection with old age pensions?


Charles Avery Dunning: In the period April 1, 1936, to September 30, 1937(*), payments were made as follows:
Alberta	$ 2,172,086 41
British Columbia	
2,785,914	73Manitoba	
2,921,703	62New Brunswick	
1,517,442	26Nova Scotia	
2,675,053	8SOntario	
13,948,004	72Prince Edward Island.. ..	243.824	28Quebec	
6,971,915	95Saskatchewan	
2,589,355	90
(*)Payments for the quarter ended December 31, 1937, have not been completed in the case of all provinces.


FEDERAL GRANTS TO PROVINCES
Mr. BLANCHETTE:: 1.	What is the total amount of federal grants to the several provinces, respectively, for the fiscal years 1935-36, and 1936-37?
2.	What amounts collected by the several provinces, respectively, on federal accounts, have been paid to the credit of the Receiver General during the same fiscal years?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Should be passed as an order for return.
2.	This question was asked last session and the following answer was given:
"Mr. Dunning:	With reference to this
question I find that a similar question was asked in the 1932 session. The then prime minister answered in a manner of which I wholly approve, and I quote his answer:
The question which the hon. gentleman asks I submit should be dropped. It is impossible to tell what sums have been derived from each province for the last five years, and by what department of the dominion government. It is possible to ascertain, as is known to every hon. member in this house, sums collected at the customs houses and income tax offices in each of the provinces. Obviously however, imports at cities like Montreal, Quebec, Saint John, Halifax, or other cities at the seaboard do not always show their destinations, and questions which have been asked in times past in this connection have not produced results. The bureau of statistics have not been able to get
the information. It is not a question which the government could accurately answer, and an inaccurate answer would be worse than none at all.
For the same reasons I suggest that the question be dropped."
It is not often I agree so fully with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) as I do with respect to that answer. I think it accurate in every particular.


HAMILTON, ONT., CENTRAL POST OFFICE
Mr. LENNARD:: What revenue was derived by the government at Hamilton central post office on Christmas day, December 25, 1937?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex West):: Incidental to other necessary work, employees on duty gave restricted service at the general delivery wicket between 7 a.m. and 12 noon. Fifty-five cents postage was sold during that time.
The two employees on duty were also engaged on box sortation, etc.
Complete deliveries were given in all sections of the city. Had this service not been given mails which were sorted Friday evening would have been delayed until Monday morning.


ANTICOSTI ISLAND
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What action, if any, has been taken by the government with respect to Anticosti island?
2.	Can the government assure the house that Canada's sovereignty with respect to this territory and its boundary waters is not being exploited by a foreign government or by any private citizens thereof?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The government has taken cognizance of representations appearing in the press and has made such inquiries as were deemed necessary and advisable.
2.	Yes.


WASHINGTON CONFERENCE, 1922, AND ANGLO-JAPANESE ALLIANCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who represented Canada at the Washington conference in 1922, and what other countries were represented?
2.	Did Canada have representation there apart from Great Britain, and, if so, who were
its delegates?
3.	What stand did Canada take there, or elsewhere, as to the necessity of maintaining the Singapore base for naval security in the Pacific for Canada and the empire?
4.	Did Canada at that conference support the policy of dissolving our former alliance with Japan?
5.	What was decided at the said conference?
Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The late Sir Robert Borden.
The United States of America, Belgium, the British Empire, Australia, New Zealand, India, China, France, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Portugal.
2.	Yes. Answered by No. 1.
3.	The Washington Conference arrangements placed no limitation upon the right of the authorities responsible for the government of Singapore to fortify or maintain a naval base there. So far as the present administration are aware, the necessity of such action has been viewed as a matter to be determined by the government of the United Kingdom.
4.	The treaty, commonly known as the Quadruple Pacific Treaty, between the United State of America, the British Empire, France, and Japan, for the preservation of the general peace and the maintenance of their rights in the region of the Pacific ocean, which was concluded at Washington on December 13, 1921, and which terminated and superseded the agreement between Great Britain and Japan, concluded at London on July 13, 1911, commonly known as the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, was signed and ratified on behalf of Canada.
5.	See sessional paper No. 47, Session of 1922: Conference on the Limitation of Armament, held at Washington, November 12, 1921, to February 6. 1922-report of the Canadian delegate including treaties and resolutions.


MISSION OF LORD HALIFAX TO HERR HITLER
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was His Majesty's government in Canada advised or consulted about the mission of Lord Halifax to Herr Hitler to find out what Herr Hitler wanted, and did Canada approve of the same, or was Canada asked to approve?
2.	What were the results of the said visit?
3.	Will any communications, if any, from the government of Great Britain, be laid on the table of the house, or have any been received?
4.	Did Lord Halifax at these interviews have power to represent Canada?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	The government were informed of Lord Halifax's departure for a visit to Germany on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom and of the purpose of the visit, but were not asked to express an opinion in the matter and did not express an opinion.
2.	The government are unable to add anything to the public statements made on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom following the visit.	,
3.	Communications have been received from i he government of the United Kingdom sub-

sequent to the visit. It would not be in accord with established practice to lay them on the table.
4.	No.


MARKING OF IMPORTED FRUITS AND VEGETABLES
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Are the shippers of American fruits and vegetables required to mark each package with the name of the grower?
2.	If not, will the government put this regulation into effect?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No. The country of origin is required but not the name of grower.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


HAMILTON POST OFFICE-TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	How many extra men were temporarily employed at the Hamilton post office during the Christmas rush of 1937?
2.	How many of these men were returned men?
3.	How many of the returned men employed were recommended by officers of veterans' organizations ?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex West):: 1.	228.
2.	93.
3.	50.


WILLOW COVE, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What was the postal revenue derived from the post office at Willow Cove, Ontario, from its inception to December 31, 1937?
2.	What remuneration did the postmaster receive for the same period?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex West):: 1.	$334.71.
2.	$229.58.


TOKYO LEGATION-THE SINO-JAPANESE CONFLICT
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Who is Canada's minister to Japan?
2.	What is the cost of the Canadian legation in Japan for the last fiscal year of record?
3.	Has this legation been functioning during the Sino-Japanese war, and, if so, where?
4.	Who is looking after the interests of Canadian nationls, and who is protecting the interests of Canadian nationals in the Sino-Japanese war zone?
5.	What is Canada's foreign policy in relation to the Sino-Japanese conflict?
6.	Will any correspondence or communications with the Chinese or Japanese governments be

Questions
laid on the table in reference to the said conflict or its probable settlement as it effects Canada and Canadian business in the far east?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Honourable Robert Randolph Bruce.
2.	862,253.96.
3.	The Canadian legation in Japan has been functioning without interruption since its establishment in May, 1929. The address of the legation is 16 Omote-eho, 3-chome, Akasaka-ku, Tokyo.
4.	The interests of Canadian nationals requiring representations to the government of Japan are in the charge of the Canadian minister at Tokyo. There is no Canadian minister in China. Inquiries concerning and assistance to Canadian nationals in Chinese territory, including the regions of the conflict, have been carried out through members of the British consular and diplomatic service and members of the Canadian government trade commissioner service stationed in China. The procedure followed in the case of the Canadian national who was killed on the SS. " President Hoover," whereby the negotiations regarding the payment of indemnity are being handled by the United States Government, is similar to that followed in the " I'm Alone " case, in which the Canadian government presented the claim in respect of a French sailor who was killed.
5.	To maintain a strict neutrality and to contribute in collaboration with other Governments, as opportunity affords, to movements designed to restore peace in the orient through methods of conciliation.
6.	No.


CANADA AND THE NINE POWER CONFERENCE AT BRUSSELS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Did Canada take part in the nine power conference of the Sino-Japanese war at Brussels ?
2.	What other countries were represented and who represented Canada?
3.	What were the results of said conference?
4.	Did the conference propose to stop the victorious Japanese advance? Did it propose to end the war, and, if so, how?
5.	Who was responsible for the utter failure of this important conference?
6.	Will a report of the conference be tabled?
7.	What technique of diplomacy does Canada employ at these conferences?
8.	Did Canada separately or with Great Britain ask the United States to join them in a note of protest to Japan?
9.	Did the United States reply that they would act separately and not jointly?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Canada, as a participant in the Nine Power Far Eastern treaty concluded at Washington, February 6, 1922, took part in the
conference convened at Brussels for the purpose of examining, in accordance with article 7 of that treaty, the situation in the Far East and study friendly methods of hastening the end of the conflict now taking place there.
2.	United States of America, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, China, Denmark, France, India, Italy, Mexico, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, The Union of South Africa, Sweden, Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, United Kingdom.
The Hon. Raoul Dandurand, Senator, minister without portfolio.
3 and 4. The report of the Brussels conference, dated November 24th, 1937, as issued by the conference, which has been laid on the table, sets forth the proceedings.
5.	Under the rules this question does not appear to be of a suitable character for disposition by question and answer.
6.	Answered by nos. 3 and 4.
7.	Canadian delegations at international conferences observe the methods of procedure customarily followed on such occasions.
8.	No.
9.	Answered by No. 8.


VISIT OF THE PRIME MINISTER TO BERLIN
*Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	On whose invitation did the Prime Minister visit Berlin and the German government of Herr Hitler in 1937, and on what days was the visit made?
2.	What was the subject matters discussed and was the government of Great Britain advised or consulted about this visit?
3.	Will a summary of the matters discussed be laid on the table of the house?
4.	Was the subject of establishing a Canadian embassy to Germany under discussion?
5.	Did the Prime Minister of Canada make any proposals during said discussions, and, if so. what were they?
6.	Was the subject of the ceding of German colonies by Great Britain discussed?
7.	Were any economic or international questions in their relation to Canada discussed, and, if so, what questions?
8.	What is Canada's foreign policy with respect to Germany?
9.	Is such foreign policy a Canadian policy, or is it in harmony with the foreign policy of Great Britain?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As this question refers more particularly to myself I am answering it orally.
It had been my intention to pay a visit to Germany at the conclusion of the Assembly of the League of Nations, at which I represented Canada, in the autumn of 1936. This, however, did not prove possible at that time. Following the imperial conference of 1937, I was able to carry out the deferred visit. As I have already indicated in public statements, the purpose of the visit was to obtain at first hand, as inti-
Questions

mate a knowledge of conditions in Europe as the time at my disposal permitted. After leaving Great Britain I paid brief visits to France and Belgium, as well as to Germany. The British Government were fully aware of the intention to pay the visit to Berlin, which occurred on June 27th to 30th, inclusive. The interchange of views and information which took place was of a nature which it is not the practice to disclose.


NYON CONFERENCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Was Canada represented at the conference at Nyon to prevent piracy in the Meditex

ranean?
2.	If so, by whom?
3.	What action was taken?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The states represented, namely, the United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Egypt, France, Greece, Roumania, Turkey, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugoslavia, concluded on September 14, 1937, an agreement for collective measures against piratical attacks in the Mediterranean by submarines, and, on September 17, 1937, a supplementary agreement for collective measures against piratical acts in the Mediterranean by surface vessels and aircraft; and by subsequent arrangement, Italy agreed to participate in these measures.


OPENING OF SINGAPORE DRY DOCK
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has Canada been yet invited by the British admiralty to the ceremonial opening of the new giant dry dock at Singapore on February 11?
2.	Is the government aware that the United States, New Zealand and Australian war ships have been invited and have accepted the invitation according to dispatches from London, England?
3.	Does Canada contribute anything to maintain maritime freedom in the Pacific or to the cost of this Singapore base-past or present -and what agreement was ever in existence about it, if any?
4.	Who will represent Canada's navy if an invitation is extended to Canada?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	No.
2.	No official information; press reports have been noted.
3.	Canada has made no contribution to the cost of the Singapore naval base. The government know of no agreement in this respect. The expenditures upon measures for the naval defence of Canada, as approved by parliament from time to time, are shown in the records of the house.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


CANADIAN NAVY
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What does Canada's navy consist of, and where is it now located?
2.	Did the Department of National Defence, on January 5 or 6, 1938, release the schedule of good-will cruises, 1938, for this fleet, in navy orders ?
3.	Has part of the fleet already set out to sea, and to what destination?
4.	Have any of the fleet gone to Sino-Japanese waters?
5.	Did part of His Majesty's Canadian Navy go to sea, on January 1, on a three months' cruise to Bermuda, St. Kitts, Barbados, St. Lucia and Granada on the Atlantic?
6.	Who is the present admiral of the Canadian fleet, and where are his headquarters?
7.	What is the total per annum cost to maintain this fleet, and how many officers and men have they?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Administrative headquarters at Ottawa. Two destroyers and one training schooner based on Halifax, N.S.
Two destroyers and one minesweeper based on Esquimalt, B.C.
A naval depot and naval dockyard at Halifax, NB.
A naval depot and naval dockyard at Esquimalt, B.C.
Port divisions of the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve at Halifax, N.S.; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Quebec, P.Q.; Montreal, P.Q.; and Vancouver, B.C.
Divisions of the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve at Halifax, N.S.; Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Saint John, N.B.; Quebec, P.Q.; Montreal, P.Q.; Ottawa, Ont.; Toronto, Ont.; Port Arthur, Ont.; Hamilton, Ont.; Winnipeg, Man.; Saskatoon, Sask.; Regina, Sask.; Calgary, Alta.; Edmonton, Alta.; Vancouver, B.C.; and Prince Rupert, B.C.
2.	No. Programs of H.M.C. Ships are not promulgated through Naval Monthly Orders but in the form of programs issued separately. Destroyer winter cruising programs were promulgated to the Canadian Naval Service and dominion government departments concerned on 17th November, 1937, and that of the training schooner Venture on 7th December, 1937. Programs were released to the press on 4th and 5th January, 1938.
3.	The destroyers left their bases for their winter cruise on 4th January, 1938, and the schooner Venture on 1st January, 1938. The schooner will cruise in West Indies waters until the end of March. The destroyers will meet at Panama Canal on 28th January, and cruise on the west coast of South and Central America until the end of March, then to the west coast of Canada. The east coast destroyers will leave Esquimalt on 25th April, and return to Halifax on 29th May.
4.	No.

Questions
5.	Answered by No. 3.
6.	There is no officer of Admiral's rank in the Royal Canadian Navy. The Senior Canadian Naval Officer is Commodore P. W. Nelles, Director of the Naval Service and Chief of the Naval Staff, with Headquarters at Ottawa.
7.	The total appropriation of the Canadian naval service for the present fiscal year is $4,548,046.
The following personnel were serving on 1st
January, 1938:-
Royal Canadian Navy-
Officers	 114
Ratings	 1,190
Royal Canadian Naval Reserve-
Officers	 53
Ratings	 165
Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve-
Officers	 100
Ratings	 1,040


SOLDIER SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1. Are the arrears in soldiers' settlement payments relatively greater in the drought areas of the prairie provinces than elsewhere?
_ 2. Are there any special areas in other provinces-British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec or the maritimes-where crop failures have comparably restricted the ability of the soldier settlers to meet their payments?
3 What areas in the three prairie provinces have been most seriously affected by drought in the past seven years?
4.	In view of the inability through crop failures of many soldier settlers in the drought areas to avail themselves of the dollar for dollar bonus scheme, does the government propose any measures to assist settlers to overcome their burden of arrears: (a) by continuation of the bonus after March 31, 1938; (b) by other remedial legislation?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No. Crop failures have occurred intermittently in scattered localities from various causes, such as hail and grasshoppers.
3.	The boundaries of the drought area in Canada are approximately as follows:-
In Alberta, beginning on the International boundary at approximately range 22, west of the fourth meridian, south of Lethbridge, extending northwest to Irricana then following an irregular arc northeast to Stettler, Wainwright, and along the Battle river to the Saskatchewan boundary.
In Saskatchewan, following the Battle and North Saskatchewan rivers to township 39, range 7, west of the third meridian, approximately 40 miles northeast of Saskatoon, then south and east to the Qu'Appelle river about north of Regina, and along this river to the Manitoba boundary.
In Manitoba (with the exception of 1937), following the Qu'Appelle and Assiniboine rivers to Brandon and then southeast to the vicinity of JVlorden.
4.	(a) Under consideration.
(b) No. The department is facilitating applications from eligible settlers under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
government elevator leases : imports of corn


Paul Joseph James Martin: .
1.	What portion of the expenditure made by the dominion government during the years 1929 to 1936 inclusive at the port of Three Rivers, Quebec, were spent in the development of the site leased to the Three Rivers Grain and Elevator Company Limited?
2.	What rental does the government receive from the Three Rivers Grain and Elevator Company Limited?
3.	What expenditure was made by the dominion government in developing the site at Sorel, Quebec, leased by the government to North America Elevators Limited?
4.	What rental does the government receive from North American Elevators Limited for such site?
5.	What quantity of Argentine corn arrived at the elevator of the Quebec Harbour Commission at Quebec city between September 25, 1930, and December 31, 1936?
6.	What grain firms were the importers of such corn and at what rate or rates was storage charged and collected for the period such corn remained in store in the said elevator?
7.	What has been the expenditure at the ports of Windsor, Sarnia, Goderich, Owen Sound, Collingwood, Midland, Ontario, and Three Rivers, Quebec, for the years 1922 to 1936 inclusive?
8.	What are the quantities of corn imported into Canada in each of the years 1930 to 1937 inclusive for each of the following purposes: (a) starch manufacturing; (b) cereal manufacturing; (c) distilling; (cl) other purposes, and what in each case was the country of origin?
9.	(a) What were the quantities of Argentine corn imported into Canada between September 25, 1936, and December 31, 1936; (b) what were the quantities of corn arriving at each of the various ports in Canada where such corn was unloaded from ocean boats; (c) what was the highest, lowest, and average c.i.f. price of such corn?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government have no
information with regard to a number of these items. I suggest that question be dropped.
Question dropped.


MIDDLE ROAD, BURLINGTON RAILWAY CROSSING
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	When was the protective equipment at the railway crossing on the middle road at Burlington, Ontario, installed?
2.	How long was this after the four-lane highway was opened to traffic?
3.	Was there any form of temporary protection at this crossing before the regular equipment was installed?
Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The Board of Railway Commissioners was advised by the Canadian National Railways on January 18th, 1938, that this installation had been completed.
2.	No information.
3.	Crossing was protected by regulation crossing signs, whistle posts and fences. In addition to these, there were advance warning signs located 500 feet along the highway on both sides of the crossing.


COST OP HOLIDAY POSTAL SERVICE
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What was the additional cost to the Post Office Department through the operation of the holiday postal delivery in Canada for the year 1937?
2.	What was the additional cost of the operation of the holiday postal delivery in Hamilton for the same period?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	$78,769.77.
2.	$2,904.29.


WEST TORONTO CUSTOMS OUTPORT
Mr. MULOCK:: 1.	Under whose control are the employees of the West Toronto customs and excise outport ?
2.	Through what office are these employees paid?
3.	Are excise taxes collected through the West Toronto customs and Excise outport?
4.	If not, through what office?
5.	Are customs collected through West Toronto customs and excise outport?
6.	What reduction in staff has been made at the West Toronto customs and excise outport, giving particulars of position and salary in each case?
7.	What addition in staff has been made at the West Toronto customs and excise outport, giving particulars of position and salary in each case ?
8.	What reduction in staff, if any, has been made in the Toronto office as a result of the establishing of West Toronto customs and excise outport as an independent port?
9.	On what grounds was the West Toronto customs and excise outport established as an independent port?
10.	On whose recommendation?
11.	Was the collector at Toronto aslced for a recommendation, and, if so, did he recommend the change?
12.	Was the West Toronto customs and excise outport established as an independent outport oiving to the fact that it was not run satisfactorily ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	All officers in the customs and excise services are under the control of the Minister of National Revenue. On the 1st of January, 1938, West Toronto was established as a port and warehousing port.

2.	Through the office of the Comptroller
of the Treasury.	[DOT]
3.	Excise taxes on importations were collected through the outport of West Toronto prior to the 1st of January, 1938, since which date they have been collected through the port of West Toronto.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Customs duties were collected through the outport of West Toronto prior to the 1st of January, 1938, since which date they have been collected through the port of West Toronto.
6.	7, 8. None.
9.	On purely administrative grounds to promote increased efficiency by eliminating duplication of work and in the interests of economy in effort, time and expense.
10.	West Toronto was established as a port and warehousing port by order in council on the recommendation of the hon. the Minister of National Revenue.
11 and 12. No.


INTERNATIONAL PACIFIC SALMON FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. REID:: 1.	Who are the members of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries commission?
2.	What was the date or dates of their appointment, both Canadian and American?
3.	Do the commissioners receive any remuneration, salary or emolument of any kind for their services?
4.	What expenses or expenditure have been incurred by the commission or by individual members of the commission since its inception and up to the present time?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Canadian members: W. A. Found, Deputy
Minister of Fisheries; Thos. Reid, M.P., Newton, B.C.; A. L. Hager, Pres, and Gen. Mgr., Canadian Fishing Co., Vancouver, B.C. United States members: Chas. E. Jackson, United States Deputy Commissioner of Fisheries, Washington, D.C.; Edward W. Allen, attorney, Seattle; B. M. Brennan, Director, State Department of Fisheries, Seattle.	[DOT]
2.	Canadian members:	April 15,	1937.
United States members: Aug. 27, 1937.
3.	Re Canadian members: No. Re United States members: No information.
4.	Canadian share of
divisible expenses..	$203 21
Travelling expenses of Commission:
W. A. Found	$339 60
Thos. Reid, M.P.. .. nil
A. L. Hager	 nil

	339 60
Total Canadian expenditure. .$542 81

Questions
farmers' creditors arrangement act


Mr. DOUGLAS (Weybum):: 1.	How many proposals have been submitted by farmers under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act since it was passed: (a) by provinces; (b) total?
2.	How many of these cases have ben brought to a conclusion: (a) by provinces; (b) total?
3.	What is the approximate debt of the farmers whose cases have been disposed of: (a) by provinces; (b) total?
4.	What reduction in (1) principal, (2) interest, were effected in these debts; (a) by provinces; (b) total?
5.	What is the approximate relation of the total debt of these farmers to, (1) the value
of their farms, (2) the value of all their assets including land, stock and equipment, (a) by provinces; (b) total?
6.	What is the average debt of the farmers who have applied under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, in the province of Saskatchewan ?
7.	How many cases are awaiting hearing by the Board of Review in the province of Saskatchewan ?
8.	What was the percentage of reduction in farmers' debts: (a) under the present Board of Review in Saskatchewan; (b) under the previous Board of Review headed by Justice MacLean ?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1. and 2.	Submitted	ConcludedP.E.I.. ..	.. 1,116	1,076N.S	.. 163	148NIB	.. 1,060	939Que	.. 5,760	5,094Ont	.. 8,823	7,372Man	.. 3,550	3,157Sask	.. 6,212	4,659Alta	.. 4,377	3,297B.C	.. 679	623Total.. ..	.. 31,740	26,365
Reduction.
3 and 4.	Approximate debt	In cases disposed of	In cases disposed of	Principal	InterestPrince Edward Island	.... S 2.9S5.036 76	$ 734.476 72	$	42,179 24Nova Scotia	.... 798.378 90	272,194 34	15,998 48New Brunswick	.... 1,576,993 86	479,434 50	35,851 26Quebec	.... 19,230.642 82	3,122,765 49	488,084 14Ontario	.... 34,960.614 72	9,268,482 76	743,540 56Manitoba	.... 22,3S0,814 03	9,463,273 59	728,824 60Saskatchewan	.... 43,243,S42 33	14,533,477 92	966,124 32Alberta	.... 29.505,360 49	11,040,504 71	1.086,964 27British Columbia	.... 3,629,682 14	1,274,901 41	106,529 40Total	.... S15S.311,366 05	$ 50,189,511 44	$	4,214,096 27Value of all Assets	5.	Value of Farms	Including Land,	Total DebtStock and Equipment	Prince Edward Island	.... $ 2,952,544	$ 3,847,776	$	2,985,036 76Nova Scotia	.... 416,028	510,008	798.378 90New Brunswick	.... 1,949,364	2,583,189	1,576,993 86Quebec	.. .. 18,328,212	22,281,156	19,230,642 82Ontario	.... 30,040.900	36,904,232	34,960.614 72Manitoba	.... 10.257,093	13,837,131	22,380.814 03Saskatchewan	.... 25,866.768	32,668,908	43,243,842 33Alberta	26,606,790	29.505.360 49British Columbia	.... 2,523,773	3,174,808	3,629,682 14Total	.... S 112,977,199	S 142,413,998	$158,311,366 05	6.	$9,281.79.7.	1,116.8.	(a) 44-38%; (b) 27-77%.


DOMINION HOUSING ACT-TOTAL EXPENDITURES
Mr. REID:: What total amounts of money have been expended in the various provinces under the
Dominion Housing Act, up to the end of December, 1937, and, (a) how much of this amount has the government contributed? (b) how many applications for loans under the act have been received from each province up to the end of the last calendar year? (c) how many individual loans have been made in each province ?
Questions


Charles Avery Dunning: Prince Edward Island. Nnva Sent ia
Amount of Loans Approved $	54,034
1 260 054
Number of Applications
Manitoba	 50
Saskatchewan	 5
Alberta	 -
British Columbia	 255
New Brunswick	 264,367
Quebec	 4,586,708
Ontario	 5,534,658
Manitoba	 308,314
Saskatchewan	 8,200
Alberta	 -
British Columbia	 1,019,523


S 13,034,858
[Stage Direction]
(a)	Government's share $3,405,574, of which $2,494,398 has been paid out.
(b)	The Dominion Housing Act requires that all applications for loans be made, in the first instance, to approved lending institutions. The government has no information as to the total number of applications received by such approved lending institutions. The following table gives the number of applications, by provinces, received in the department of Finance up to December 31, 1937:
Number of Applications
Prince Edward Island	 10
Nova Scotia	 283
New Brunswick	 60
Quebec	 550
Ontario	 995
Total			2,208
		No. of
		Family
	No. of	Units
(c)	Loans	ProvidedPrince Edward Island..	.. 10	10Nova Scotia	.. 280	282New Brunswick	.. 60	63Quebec	.. 535	992Ontario	.. 962	1,292Manitoba	.. 48	48Saskatchewan	.. 2	2Alberta	-British Columbia	.. 253	329Total	.. 2,150	3,018

Mr. MALLETTE:: What loans have been made to date, listed separately, under the Dominion Housing Act to the different municipalities on the island of Montreal ?


Charles Avery Dunning: Loans under the Dominion Housing Act are made to individual borrowers and not to municipalities. The details of loans to individuals residing on the island of Montreal are as follows:-
Cote St. Luc	No. of Loans 	
14	Number of Family Units Provided 31	Amount $ 134,050Dorval	
3	3	14,100Hampstead	
39	83	425,986Lachine	
12	17	55,950Longueuil	
1	1	2,600Montreal	
182	450	1,890,862Montreal West	1	5,000Mount Royal	
98	132	764,328Outremont	
44	111	561,500Pointe Claire	21	74,756St. Laurent	
6	6	31.000Senneville	
2	2	14,250Verdun	4	17,700Ville St. Pierre	
1	1	3.850Westmount	
8	8	92,225Total	
434	871	$ 4,088,157

Questions


PRINCE ALBERT-STEEP CREEK, SASK., MAIL ROUTE
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	What persons tendered for contract of carrying mail between Prince Albert and Steep Creek, on or about April 2, 1937?
2.	What was the amount of each tender?
3.	Who obtained the contract?
4.	When did he begin his duties?


John Campbell Elliott: 
LANGLEY PRAIRIE, B.C., EMERGENCY LANDING FIELD
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	What is the acreage of the airport or emergency landing field at Langley, British Columbia?
2.	How much was paid for the land?
3.	What amount has been expended to date on this field?
4.	What is the estimated amount required to complete the work ?
5.	Is this field subject to fog or flood conditions; if so, how many days did such condition or conditions prevail during the year 1937?


Mr. HOWE:: 
Mr. REID:: 1.	Was the site for the airport or emergency landing field at Langley Prairie surveyed by officials of the dominion government before purchase of the site was made?
2.	If so, *when was this survey made, and in what year was a report, if any, made to the government ?
3.	In any report made to the government regarding the Langley Prairie airport or emergency landing field, was any reference made as to the possible flood and/or fog conditions?
4.	Were any steps taken by the government to acquire the land for this site previous to the general election of 1935?
5.	Who was the owner or owners of the land negotiated with in acquiring or the possibility of acquiring this emergency field?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yea.
2.	Following preliminary surveys along the route of the Trans-Canada Airway, a detailed survey by officers of the Department of National Defence was made between January 6th and 16th, 1935. The report of this survey is dated January 16th, 1935.
3.	Yes. The report stated that on January 6th this property was the only one in the district not covered by water, and that a thorough search had established the fact it was the only suitable aerodrome in the district. Fog was known to be prevalent in the district during the winter months.
4 and 5. Options were taken on the property from the former owners, Dr. Edward H. Saunders and John W. Berry, on January 10th and 11th, 1935, respectively.


HAY EXPORTS TO THE UNITED STATES
Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What was the quantity of hay exported to the United States in each of the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937?
2.	What was the value of hay so exported to the United States in each of the years 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937?
3.	In the province of Quebec, what is the rate per mile for the transportation of hay in carload lots to the United States?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1. Calendar Years	Tons
1933		 7.068
1934		 23,076
1935		 68,870
1936		 70,594
1937		 140,894
2. Calendar Years	$
1933		 36,071
1934		 211,257
1935		 683,360
1936		 479,505
1937		 955,109
3.	Rates on hay in carload lots from points in the province of Quebec to points in the states of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and New York vary, depending upon point of origin and point of destination, and range from 34Jc to 62c per 100 lbs.


ROYAL COMMISSION ON MARITIME LOBSTER FISHING
Mr. BROOKS:: 1. Has the royal commission appointed in 1937 to investigate illegal lobster fishing in the maritime provinces filed a report with the Department of Fisheries?
Questions

2.	If so, what action, if any, has been taken by the Department on the recommendation of the commission?
3.	(a) What was the cost of the commission; (b) how many sittings were held, and at what places?
4.	What are the names of the individuals who
took part - except witnesses - showing:	(a)
amount paid in fees for services; (b) amount paid for expenses in each case?


Mr. MICHAUD:: 
HORNBY, ONT., BROADCASTING STATION
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What was the total cost of the new radio broadcasting station at Hornby, Ontario?
2.	How many wave-traps have been supplied to date to owners of radio receiving sets in the vicinity of said station?
3.	How many licences have been issued for radio receiving sets in the county of Peel for the current fiscal year?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	P.C. 691, dated April 1, 1937, authorized an expenditure of $282,123.00 for the establishment near Hornby, Ontario, of a 50 K. W. transmitter, complete with land and accessories. The total expenditure to this date is $270,012.00.
2.	Five hundred.
3.	2,498.


COST TO CANADA OF UNITED STATES RADIO PROGRAMS
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the cost to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation of United States radio programs presently heard over the Canadian network?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The following information has been supplied by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation:
1. Nil.


DOMINION GOVERNMENT RECORDS OFFICE
Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	Has the government completed a building at Ottawa for the storing of records?
2.	Have the records in the Auditor General's office increased in the past thirty-five years, and, if so, to what extent?
3.	Was there a clerk of records employed in the Auditor General's office in the year 1917, and, if so, what is the name of such clerk?
4.	How many years of service had this clerk in the Auditor General's office before he was appointed as clerk of records?
5.	Was the position of clerk of records in the Auditor General's office abolished, and, if so, why?
6.	Is there a clerk of records or record clerk employed in the government service at Ottawa according to civil service classification?
7.	If so, will such clerk in the Auditor General's office receive a classification from the civil service commission covering the duties of his employment?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Record storage building at central experimental farm now under construction.
2.	No means of determining extent of increase.
3.	H. Cottee was appointed temporarily clerk of records in 1917 under War Measures Act not Civil Service Act.
4.	19 years, as messenger.
5.	On restoration to permanent staff, position was classified as senior file clerk.
6.	There is no position in the civil service classification.
7.	No change in classification considered necessary.


WEST TORONTO CUSTOMS PORT-APPOINTMENTS
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Will the collector of customs for the new port of West Toronto be appointed from the civil service?
2.	Will all appointments to the staff of the port of West Toronto be made from the civil service ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION-RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Did the Purvis employment commission make recommendations to the government with respect to low-cost housing?
2.	If so, were these recommendations made before parliament last rose?
3.	If so, why wrere these recommendations not tabled?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The national employment commission made the following recommendations to the minister:
Sept. 2, 1936-For a dominion government housing policy, including a detailed home improvement plan, and basic principles to govern a low rental housing plan.
Feb. 10, 1937-For a detailed low rental housing plan.
March 25, 1937-For draft legislation to embody the low rental housing plan.
2.	Yes.
3.	These recommendations are embodied in the final report of the national employment commission, which will be tabled as soon as it is available for distribution.


ELIMINATION OF PATRONAGE FROM RELIEF WORK APPOINTMENTS
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	Has the government taken all steps in its power to see that patronage is eliminated from all appointments to relief works?
2.	Has the government so instructed the heads of the various government employment agencies?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Agreements entered into with the provinces respecting relief projects provide inter alia that "No resident of Canada shall, with relation to his employment or eligibility for employment be discriminated against nor favoured by reason of his race, religious views or political affiliations."
2.	Employment agencies and the engagement of workers and supervisory staff under agreements referred to are within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments. Any complaints as to discrimination are promptly brought to the attention of the provincial government for investigation.


* RECIPROCAL TAX CONVENTION
Mr. PINARD:: 1.	Upon what date was the reciprocal tax convention between Canada and the United States, effective as from January 1, 1936, and
passed by the parliament of Canada at its last session, ratified by the United States Senate?
2.	Is the government aware that although this convention reduces the rate of deduction, at source, on all income received from the United States, by residents in Canada, from 10 per cent to 5 per cent, no refunds of the two over-deductions in 1936, so far as is known, have been made to Canadians interested?
3.	Has the government knowledge of the fact that the United States government requires that Canadians claiming a refund of the two 1936 over-deduetions must make application therefor to the collector of internal revenue at Baltimore, Maryland?
4.	Has the government any knowledge of the number of claims so filed at Baltimore by Canadians?
5.	Is the government aware that many requests have been made by Canadians to the treasury department, interna] revenue service, at Baltimore, for the refund cheques, and that the invariable reply is that the claims have been forwarded to Washington for review?
6.	Will the government take steps through the Canadian minister at Washington, to move the United States government to expedite the settlement of this matter by forwarding the refund cheques due on account of the 1936 over-deductions ?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	August 13, 1937.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	Compliance with United States regulations involves certain mechanical procedure and statements which would take time before refunds can be made. The procedure having been determined, the delay occasioned thereby would not appear to call for steps to be taken through the Canadian minister at Washington.


TUBERCULAR WAR VETERANS' TREATMENTS
Frank Exton Lennard: Is it the intention of the government to have tubercular war veterans receive home treatment instead of treatment in sanitariums as at present?


Mr. POWER:: No change is contemplated in present procedure of treatment of tuberculous pensioners under Department of Pensions and National Health.


MASTERS' CERTIFICATES ISSUED IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. REID:: 1.	How many certificates of service for captain or master of a steamship have been issued hy the minister of transport in the Province of British Columbia since the change in the shipping act and up to the end of 1937?
2.	How many of these have been issued to those other than white Canadian seamen?
Questions


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	191.
2.	Sixty-one; all but one being restricted to the fishing industry.
naming NEW CANADIAN DESTROYERS


Mr. PURDY:: Will the government consider the selection of maritime provinces names for the two destroyers which, according to press reports, are to be purchased?


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
matter is now receiving consideration.


PARLIAMENT HILL-ICY CONDITION OF GROUNDS AND SIDEWALKS
Mr. CHURCH:: Will the government take steps to remedy the dangerous condition of the roads and sidewalks on parliament hill, due to ice thereon?


Charles Avery Dunning: The federal district commission furnished the following facts:
The maintenanace of the sidewalks and roads on parliament hill is the responsibility of the federal district commission. One foreman and twelve men are on duty each day from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. and one man daily from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. It is their duty in the winter time to see that all walks, steps, and roads are kept clear of snow and maintained in a safe condition for the use of the public. A truck is in constant use to make available sand, cinders, and salt. During the last ten days eighty tons of sand and cinders and more than a ton of salt have been applied in this maintenance work.
The unseasonable climatic conditions of the past three weeks-rain, sleet, thawing and freezing-have added considerably to the usual difficulties of winter maintenance work, but the commission has done everything possible and has spared no exipense in its efforts to make all the thoroughfares on parliament hill safe for public use.
The commission finds that there has been no negligence on the part of any of its employees engaged in this work and that all possible steps have been taken to keep the sidewalks and roads on parliament hill in a safe condition at all times. No reports were received during this recent icy period of any accidents occurring from slippery sidewalks or roads in this area.
credit EXTENSION ON INDUSTRIAL WORKERS' HOMES


Thomas Langton Church: AVill any action be taken to extend to industrial workers who are losing their homes through foreclosure or otherwise, such relief

as that afforded in the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act for the benefit of farmers and fishermen ?


Charles Avery Dunning: This question relates to a matter of policy and it is not usual for the government to make statements on matters of policy in giving replies to questions.


WHONNOCK, B.C., RURAL MAIL SERVICE
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	Were tenders called for mail service on proposed rural route No. 1, Whonnoek, British Columbia, during 1937?
2.	Who tendered, and what was the amount of each tender?
3.	Has the contract been awarded?
4.	If so, to whom; if not, for what reason?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Yes-In April, 1937, and again in August, 1937.
2.	(a) In April:
F. Parker, Whonnoek	$ 800
Arvid Pearson, Whonnoek.. ..	936
Frederick Stevenson, Whonnoek 960
A.	T. MacBryer, Whonnoek.. ..	987
H. J. Byrnes, Whonnoek	1,047
B.	A. Whiting, Whonnoek.. .. 1,050 Patrick Hertslet, Whonnoek.. .. 1,080
W. R. Young, Whonnoek	1,175
Enoch Jones, Whonnoek	1,200
C.	A. Black, Ruskin	1,200
These tenders being considered high, each tenderer was given an opportunity to modify his tender, with the following result:
F. Parker reduced to	$ 775
Arvid Pearson reduced to	 925
Frederick Stevenson reduced to 875
A.	T. MacBryer reduced to.. ..	840
H. J. Byrnes reduced to	 998
Patrick Hertslet reduced to.. .. 1,000
W. R. Young reduced to	1,100
Chas. A. Black reduced to.. .. 1,100 Enoch Jones would not reduce.
B.	A. Whiting would not reduce.
(b) These offers still being considered high, tenders were again invited in August, 1937, and the following were received:
M. R. Charlton, Whonnoek.. . .$ 650
R. S. Whiting, W'honnock.. ..	660
F. Parker, Whonnoek	 720
Frederick Stevenson, Whonnoek 780 F. W. Phillips, Whonnoek.. ..	850
A. G. Grant, Whonnoek	 899
W. R. Young, Whonnoek	 990
C. Wicks, Vancouver	1,100
Edgar Rakewind, Whonnoek,
late	 800
3.	Yes.
4.	M. R. Charlton.

Questions


PORT HAMMOND, B.C., RURAL MAIL ROUTE
Mr. BARBER:: 1.	To whom was the contract awarded for mail service on rural route No. 1, Port Hammond, British Columbia?
2.	Who tendered, and what was the amount
of each tender?


Mr. ELLIOTT (Middlesex):: 1.	Wm. Moyer.
2.	Wm. Moyer, Port Hammond.. S 750.00
Gilbert Rikley, Port Hammond 850.00 Ray Phillips, Port Hammond.. 880.00 Bryan T. Adams, Port Hammond	 900.00
Harry Cutler, Port Hammond 900.00 Cyril G. Franklin, Port Hammond	 1,075.00
Orme Stewart Dickie, Port Hammond	 1,200.00
These tenders being considered high, an opportunity was given each tenderer to modify his tender, with the following result:- Wm. Moyer refused to reduce his
tender of	 S 750.00
Gilbert Rikley reduced to	 800.00
Ray Phillips reduced to	 850.00
Bryan T. Adams reduced to.. ..	875.00
Harry Cutler reduced to	 775.00
Cyril G. Franklin reduced to.. ..	994.00
Orme Stewart Dickie reduced to ..	1,000.00


CANADIAN CUT FLOWER INDUSTRY
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What was the total value of cut flower production in Canada during 1935, 1936, and 1937?
2.	Of the said total production, what proportion was produced in the county of Peel?
3.	What were the total imports of cut-flowers from the United States during the said years?
4.	How much was collected by the dominion government by way of tax on sales of cut-flowers during the said years?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Years ending May 31st	$
1935		 1,763,013
1936		 1,105,827
1937		Not available
2.	Not available by counties.
3.	Calendar years	S
1935		 54,363
1936		 100,443
1937		 96,596
4.	Sales tax not available on any one commodity.


BROADCAST OF GOVERNOR GENERAL'S ADDRESS TO SCOTTISH CURLERS
Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	Was the address of welcome of His Excellency the Governor General to the Scottish curlers visiting Canada, and the reply of the spokesman for such Scottish curlers broadcast from station CBL at Toronto?
2.	On what date, and at what time did the broadcast start, and at what time was it terminated according to the log of station CBL?
3.	Wias it broadcast across Canada?
4.	If not, from what stations, and in what territory was it broadcast?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The following information has been supplied by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	Address picked up by station CBO, Ottawa, and relayed by station CBL, Toronto.
2.	January 18, 1938, CBL-Commenced at 9 p.m., E.S.T., and terminated at 9.29.40 p.m., E.S.T.
3.	Yes.
4.	See No. 3


NATIONAL BROADCAST BY C. W. BROCKINGTON
Mr. LAWSON:: 1.	Who paid for the national broadcast of
C.W. Brockington, chairman of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which took place on or about February 4, 1938, in reference to the raising of radio licence fees and the policy of selling air channels to United States advertisers ?
2.	If it was not paid for, was it carried as a sustaining program?
3.	What time was occupied by this broadcast?
4.	What is the standard price for the same time under the same network of stations if sold, (a) for commercial program (advertising); (b) for sponsored program (no advertising)?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The following information has been supplied by the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Corporation:
1.	Carried as sustaining program.
2.	See No. 1.
3.	Thirty minutes.
4.	(a)$12S2.
(b) No such classification.
national HARBOURS BOARD ACT AMENDMENT


Mr. GARIEPY:: Is it the intention of the government to amend, at the present session, the National Harbours Board Act, 1936, in order to give to each port an advisory committee recruited locally ?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I submit that this question is not a proper one.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.

Questions

national debt retirement policy


Mr. LANDERYOU:: Has the government any definite plan in mind which, if proceeded with, would substantially reduce and eventually pay off Canada's national debt within, (a) twenty years; (b) fifty years; (c) one hundred years?
2.	If so, in what respect does this plan differ from the policy of the past thirty years?


Charles Avery Dunning: This is not a proper question. It has reference to government policy and cannot be put in the form of a question.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.


SALE OF GOVERNMENT DREDGING FLEET
Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Has the government sold the dredging fleet of the St. Lawrence, or a part of it, including the marine facilities at Sorel, Quebec?
2.	If so, (a) to whom were they sold; (b) for what amount were tenders called; (c) was the lowest tender accepted; (d) were any other tenders received, and from whom? (e) what was the amount of each tender received?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) To General Dredging Contractors, Limited.
(b)	The properties referred to were disposed of by negotiation.
(c)	, (d) and (e) answered by 2 (b).


PORT OF SOREL ADMINISTRATION
Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	Is the port of Sorel included under the administration of the national harbours commission ?
2.	If not, will the said port be put under the administration of the said commission, and when?
3.	Why is said port not under such commission?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No.
2.	This question relates to a matter of government policy.
3.	The harbour at Sorel is administered by the Department of Transport as a public harbour under the provisions of the Harbours and Piers Act.


VETERANS' ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the royal commission on veterans' assistance?
2.	What are the rates of pay and allowances (travelling and living) made to each commissioner, and the amounts paid to date to each commissioner, by name, under these or other heads ?
~J)/lr Speaker.]
3.	What are the rates of pay and allowances of any kind to counsel and assistant counsel, of the commission, and the amounts paid to date to each such official, by name, under these or other heads?
4.	What is the total cost to date for: (a) secretarial assistance; (b) clerical assistance; (c) preparation of stenographers' report of proceedings of the said commission?
5.	How many days did the commission sit to hear evidence, and how many days were spent in travelling?
6.	How many witnesses were called by the commission, and what was the total amount paid for their appearance before the said commission ?


Mr. POWER:: 1.	No royal commission was appointed.
The veterans' assistance commission was appointed under authority of the Veterans' Assistance Commission Act, 1936. $326,640.65.
2.	Rates of pay:
J. G. Rattray, chairman
7-7-36-31-3-37 at $6,000, less 5%-$4,183.06
1-4-37- 6-1-38 at 6,000, less 5%- 4,506.77
H. L. de Martigny
7-7-36-31-3-37 at $4,800, less 5%-$3,346.45
1-4-37- 6-1-38 at 4,800, less 5%- 3,677.42
A. Ross
7-7-36- 6-10-36	Nil
R. MacNicol
7-10-36-31-3-37 at $4,S00, less 5%-$2,206.45
1- 4-37- 6-1-38 at 4,800, less 5%- 3,677.42
Actual transportation and travelling expenses :
J. G. Rattray	 $1,068.39
H. L. de Martigny	 739.95
A. Ross	 340.50
R. MacNicol	 1,093.39
3.	No counsel employed.
4.
(a) Secretarial assistance, Ottawa. .$10,117.49
Secretarial assistance, honourary committees	 30,212.97
(b)	Clerical assistance, Ottawa... 31,082.96
Clerical assistance, honorary committees	 10,238.04
(c)	Nil.
5.	The commission held sittings on thirty-seven days at various centres from Sydney to Victoria during the period September 14, 1936 to January 5, 1937, in the course of which approximately sixteen additional days were employed by each commissioner in travelling.

Questions as Orders jor Returns
Place-Date-1936	No. of days
Montreal-Sept. 14, 15, 16	 3
Quebec-Sept. 17	 1
Toronto-Sept. 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.. 5
Hamilton-Sept. 28, 29	 2
London-Sept. 30, Oct. 1	 2
Windsor-Oct. 2, 3	 2
Charlottetown-Oct. 15	 1
Sydney-Oct. 17	 1
Halifax-Oct. 19, 20	 2
Saint John-Oct. 21, 22	 2
Sherbrooke-Oct. 23	 1
Vancouver-Nov. 12, 13	 2
Victoria-Nov. 16	 1
Edmonton-Nov. 19, 20	 2
Calgary-Nov. 21	 1
Moose Jaw-Nov. 24	 1
Regina-Nov. 25	 1
Saskatoon-Nov. 27	 1
Winnipeg-Nov. 30, Dec. 1, 2, 3.. 4
Fort William-Dec. 4	 1
Ottawa-January 5, 1937	 1
6. Sittings were public. Witnesses appeared at no expense to the government.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Since April 1, 1936, to date, what works have been undertaken in the several provinces under the law to alleviate unemployment and agricultural distress?
2.	During the same period, what amounts have been contributed by the federal government for such works in the several provinces?
3.	Have all these works been executed by contract after a public call for tenders?
4.	What works, if any: (a) have been executed without tender; (b) where; (e) what was their cost; (d) who executed them?
5.	What works, if any: (a) have been done without tender by supervisors who were remunerated by commissions on the cost of materials and labour; (b) where are these works; (c) what did they cost, and (d) what are the names, occupations and addresses of the supervisors referred to?


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
Mr. BOULANGER:: 1.	Since April 1, 1936, to date, what sums have been expended by the federal government for standardizing, rebuilding or constructing the trans-Canada highway in the several provinces?
2.	During the same period how many miles of said highway were standardized, rebuilt or constructed by federal aid in the different provinces?
3.	During the same period, what standardizing, rebuilding or constructing works were carried out without tender on the trans-Canada highway hy the several provinces?
4.	During the same period, what contracts for standardization, rebuilding or construction were awarded without tender by the provincial governments to supervisors who were remunerated on a commission basis on the cost of labour and materials?
5.	What are the names, occupations and domiciles of the supervisors referred to in the preceding question?


Mr. RINFRET:: Return tabled.


INVESTIGATIONS BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. REID:: 1.	Were any investigations carried out by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at Deep bay or any other place on Vancouver island sometime during the month of January, 1938, following a fire which had menaced or destroyed property or buildings?
2.	If so, was any equipment of a military or other nature discovered?
3.	Have any investigations been carried out
by	the	Royal	Canadian	Mounted	Police	in
British Columbia to find out if any military training is being undertaken by any group or groups of individuals, other than Canadians?
4.	Have any investigations been carried out
by	the	Royal	Canadian	Mounted	Police	in
British Columbia with a view of finding out how many Chinese and Japanese have entered, or were resident in Canada illegally?
5.	If so, what are the numbers of these nationals who have been found to be in this country illegally, giving the numbers of each?
6.	What are the total numbers of persons entering Canada for the first time during the calendar year 1937 from each of the following countries: Italy, Germany, Sweden, Roumania, Russia, China, United States, Japan, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland?
7.	What were the total numbers of those leaving^ Canada during the calendar year 1937 and going to the above mentioned countries?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled.


AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION AND PRICES
Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What were the production and prices of vegetables in the province of Quebec during the years 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937?
2.	What was the total value of the agricultural production in Canada during the same years?


PORT CREDIT, ONT., HARBOUR IMPROVEMENT WORK
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What work, if any, was done by way of improving harbour facilities at Port Credit during the year 1937?
2.	Upon what dates in 1937 was said wrork carried on?
3.	What was the total cost of said work?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
4.	Was the said work intended to be the first stage in a general scheme of harbour improvement at said port?
5.	Will further harbour improvement work at Port Credit be done during the year 1938?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled.


CANADIAN EXPORTS AND IMPORTS OF FRESH FRUITS
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What was the approximate value of fresh
fruits exported to the United States from Canada during the twelve months ending December 31, 1937?	.
2.	What was the value of fresh fruits imported from the United States into Canada, exclusive of oranges, grapefruit, bananas, lemons and limes, during the same period?


NIAGARA RIVER IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What sums of money have been spent on the Niagara river (an international stream) during the past three years, either alone or in conjunction with the United States or jointly with the province of Ontario, to protect by auxiliary works, the power companies on the Canadian side from damages in winter time by ice jams and ice bridges, or on other aids to navigation there, or on safeguarding works?
2.	Has any action been taken, either alone or with the United States, to erect precautionary works in the river to safeguard the people's power supplies from said ice conditions, and have any surveys been made?
3.	Has the government secured any modern ice-breaking ships or equipment on the upper and lower Niagara river where it is navigable, to help break the ice jams on the navigable portions of the river, as a safety measure? _
4.	Under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, has the government taken any action, either jointly with the United States or alone, to immediately remove the falls river observation bridge which fell into the river on the 29tli of January? If so, what action has been or will be taken?
5.	Has any progress been made with the United States government in negotiations to improve the scenic beauty of the falls and secure more power from the river for both countries?
6.	Since the complaints made in Hansard 1933, 1936 and 1937 to the Minister of Public Works to remove a two-mile sand-shoal at the mouth of the Niagara river at lake Ontario, what action has been taken to remove this danger to navigation?
7.	Has the government taken any action in western Ontario on the Grand, Thames rivers, to protect these districts from floods, and also at Port Hope, and, if so, what has been done?
8.	Have any votes been passed for the Niagara river (Fort Erie to Chippawa) for docks ice protection works or aids to navigation?



SASKATCHEWAN PULP EXPORTS

Mr. PERLEY:: What amount of pulpwood has been exported from Saskatchewan to the United States from January 1 to December 31, 1937?



SASKATCHEWAN FEDERAL RELIEF

Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	How many rural municipalities are there in the province of Saskatchewan, in the 100 per cent federal relief area?
2.	How many rural municipalities are there
in the semi-federal relief area in the province of Saskatchewan?	_	_
3.	What was the cattle population in the 100 per cent federal relief area in Saskatchewan prior to August 1, 1937?
4.	How many head of cattle were shipped from the said 100 per cent federal relief area since August 1, 1937, to December 31, 1937?
5.	How many head of cattle were shipped from the semi-federal relief area in the province of Saskatchewan between August 1 and December 31, 1937?



TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES-MANAGEMENT

Mr. PLAXTON:: 1.	Who are the present directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines, giving names and experience, in the direction and/or management of an aviation transport company?
2.	Who are the present officers and employees of Trans-Canada Air Lines, giving names, nationality, experience, in the performance of their respective duties, and respective terms of employment?
3.	(a) What persons, if any, have been discharged by the Trans-Canada Air Lines, giving names, nationality, and experience, in the performance of the duties for which they were originally hired? (b) For what periods were they respectively in employment, and what reasons were given for their discharge? (c) What expenditures did the Trans-Canada Air Lines and/or the said discharged employees make in connection with their employment, and were the said discharged employees reimbursed on discharge?
4.	(a) What expenditures have been made by Trans-Canada Air Lines for various types of equipment? (b) What equipment, if any, has remained unused or since been discarded owing to obsolescence ?
5.	(a) What aircraft have been purchased or contracted for by Trans-Canada Air Lines,
iving year of manufacture, date of order, rom whom purchased, and prices paid or agreed upon? (b) Were any commissions or profits, other than manufacturers' profits, paid or agreed to be paid, and to whom? (c) Were machines obtained at factory prices, and how do prices compare with prices paid by American transport companies? (d) Have the type or class of any of the aircraft purchased, or agreed to be purchased, by Trans-Canada Air Lines been involved in any recent air disasters in the United States as a result of which inherent defects have been discovered resulting in the said type or class of plane having been grounded, either in Canada or the United States?
6.	Is the Yancouver-Seattle service being operated at a profit or loss, and what is the extent of such profit or loss?
7.	(a) What are the standard dimensions of the existing Trans-Canada Air Lines flying fields, or fields to be used by Trans-Canada planes? (b) Are such flying fields large enough to accommodate the new types and kinds of aircraft which will use them in the near

Questions as Orders for Returns
future? (c) Are such fields to be maintained for wheel or ski use, or both? (d) What provision, if any, has been made to equip all Trans-Canada aircraft with skis for winter flying? (e) Have skis been ordered as part of the equipment of Trans-Canada planes?
8.	As from the date of the incorporation of Trans-Canada Air Lines, what expansion has been made in the meteorological services to meet the needs of the expanded air service?
9.	Does the Trans-Canada Air Lines propose to operate any feeder or branch lines? If so, what line or lines?
10.	Does the Trans-Canada Air Lines propose to invite the participation of private capital in its operation and/or the advice and assistance of Canadians who possess proven administrative and executive skill in the management of aviation transport companies?
11.	When will the proposed amendments to existing air regulations be made effective, and will the said regulations, in their amended form, provide for a Canadian certificate of air worthiness ?
12.	Have Trans-Canada Air Lines let any contracts for the construction of hangars or any other buildings? If so, were the said contracts let on the basis of public tender, and who, or what firms or companies, were awarded the said contracts, giving their respective chief places of business?
13.	Have any contracts of insurance been let by Trans-Canada Air Lines? If so, what coverage, to what companies, and through what agents, giving their respective chief places of business?



HUDSON BAY WATERSHED DIVERSION

Mr. MacNICOL:: 1.	Has the federal government given authority to: (a) the Ontario government, or (b) the Ontario hydro electric power commission, to divert water from the Hudson bay watershed to (1) the St. Lawrence river, or (2) the great lakes?
2.	Is it still considered that the permission of the dominion is required before waters flowing into the Hudson bay may be legally diverted to the St. Lawrence watershed?
3.	Has the government of Canada undertaken or agreed to pay the whole or any part of the cost of the construction of a dam on (a) the Kenogami river, or (b) the Ogoki river?



GERMAN COMPENSATION TO CANADIAN WAR PRISONERS

Mr. BLACKMORE:: 1.	At the close of the great war, was there
a definite sum of money paid by the German government to the Canadian government to be used as a compensation to Canadian war prisoners for the damage to health, life and property, which they had sustained through German treatment?	_
2.	If so, how large was this sum of money?
3.	When was it paid to Canada?
4.	To whom was it paid?
5.	What was done with it?	_
6.	What was done to compensate Canadians who had suffered from German imprisonment?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENITENTIARY REFORM

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the royal commission on penitentiary reform?
2.	What are the rates of pay and allowances (travelling and living) made to each commissioner and the amounts paid to date to each commissioner, by name, under these or other heads?
3.	What are the rates of pay and allowances of any kind to counsel and assistant counsel of the commission, and the amounts paid to date to each such official, by name, under these or other heads?
4.	What is the total cost to date for, (a) secretarial assistance; (b) clerical assistance; (c) preparation of stenographers' report of proceedings of the said commission?
5.	How many days did the commission sit to hear evidence, and how many days were spent in travelling?
6.	How many witnesses were called by the commission, and what was the total amount paid for their appearance before the commission?
7.	What is the total number of people employed by this commission, and total cost per month ?



ROYAL COMMISSION ON WHEAT MARKETING

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the royal commission on wheat marketing?
2.	What are the rates of pay and allowances (travelling and living) made to the commissioner, and the amount paid to date to said commissioner?
3.	What are the rates of pay and allowances of any kind to counsel and assistant counsel of the commission, and the amounts paid to date to each such official, by name, under these or other heads?
4.	What is the total cost to date for, (a) secretarial assistance; (b) clerical assistance; (c) preparation of stenographers' report of proceedings of the said commission?
5.	How many days did the commission sit to hear evidence, and how many days were spent in travelling?
6.	How many witnesses were called by the commission, and what was the total amount paid for their appearance before the commission ?



ROYAL COMMISSION ON TEXTILE INDUSTRY

Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	What is the total cost to date of the royal commission on the textile industry?
2.	What are the rates of pay and allowances (travelling and living) made to each commissioner, and the amounts paid to date to each commissioner, by name, under these or other heads?
3.	What are the rates of pay and allowances of any kind to counsel and assistant counsel of the commission, and the amounts paid to date to each such official, by name, under these or other heads?
4.	What is the total cost to date for, (a) secretarial assistance; (b) clerical assistance; (c) preparation of stenographers' report of proceedings of the said commission?

Questions as Orders for Returns
5.	How many days did the commission sit to hear evidence and how many days were spent in travelling?
6.	How many witnesses were called by the commission, and what was the total amount paid for their appearance before the commission?


Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Who are the members of the royal commission on the textile industry? What are their vocations, and what experience, if any, has each member had in business within the textile trade?
2.	What counsel were employed by the commission? What fees and expenses were paid to each of them?



CANADIAN DAIRY PRODUCTS

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	What was the total value of dairy products produced in Canada during each of the years 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934, 1935, 1936, and 1937?
2.	What was the total value of cheese exported from Canada during each of the same years ?



TORY COAL COMMISSION

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	What was the total cost of the Tory coal commission, and what amount was paid to the commissioner, and other chief officials and counsel ?
2.	What did they find or report?
3.	Have any of their recommendations been carried out or acted on?
4.	Have any prosecutions been started as a result of this report?
5.	Did the said commission investigate the spread in prices peT ton from $5.50 in 1906 to $14.50 and $13.50 in 1937-38?
6.	Did the commission investigate the idea of a national fuel policy for Canada so that all fuel used in Canada should be mined and coked under the British flag, whether from Wales, the maritimes or Alberta?
7.	What recommendations in the report, if any, were made 'to protect the consumer?
8.	How many tons of maritime coal of various kinds were transported by rail, or rail and water, to the head of the lakes, (a) in 1936; (b) in 1937?
9.	(a)How many tons of American anthracite, and (b) how many tons of soft coal were imported into Canada during the last year of record?
10.	How many tons were imported, (a) from Wales; (b) from Russia; (e) from Germany, during the same period?



VEGETABLE SHIPMENTS FROM ONTARIO TO THE DROUGHT STRICKEN AREAS

Mr. GRAYDON:: 1. How many carloads of fresh vegetables were purchased from growers in Ontario by

the dominion government for shipment to the drought stricken areas of western Canada during the year 1937?
2.	What was the total paid by the government for the said shipments?
3.	From what local districts in the said province were vegetables so purchased?
4.	How many carloads of vegetables were purchased from each of such local districts?
5.	How many carloads were purchased from vegetable growers in the county of Peel?



QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT JUDGESHIPS

Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	Since the year 1921, how many persons were appointed judges of the superior court of the province of Quebec, and upon what dates were such appointments made?
2.	What were the names, surnames, ages, and domiciles of the said appointees?



DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-NAVAL EXPENDITURES

Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	Of the vote of $35,000,000 for the last financial year, for the Department of National Defence, how much has been expended, and if there be a balance left over, in what way will it be employed?
2.	During the last financial year, has the Department of National Defence purchased vessels of any kind, and, if so, from whom, how many, and what was their cost?
3.	Since these vessels were purchased, where were they operated, under whose direction, and under whose command?
4.	Since the acquisition of these vessels, have they been grouped with others as part of a squadron, and, if so, what was the nature of the group, in what waters, and for how long?
_ 5. Where are these vessels at present, what is their number and their names, and under whose orders do they conduct their operations.



SPECIAL COMMISSIONS APPOINTED SINCE OCTOBER,

Mr. WALSH:: 1.	How many special commissions have been appointed by the present government since October, 1936?
2.	By what special names are each of these commissions regularly known?
3.	What is the date, or dates, of the appointment of each?
4.	What are the names of each member of each such commission ?
5.	What salary, remuneration or emolument did each receive?
6.	What other allowance or travelling expense did each receive?
7.	What are the names of the counsel appointed to or engaged by each commission?
8.	What salary, remuneration or emolument did each receive?
9.	What other allowance or travelling expense did each receive?
10.	What additional expense did each commission incur, ot if final report not yet presented has commission incurred to date?

Questions as Orders for Returns



ST. LAWRENCE DREDGING CONTRACTS

Mr. GARIEPY:: 1.	What contracts were given since January 1, 1937, for dredging the St. Lawrence river between the cities of Montreal and Quebec?
2.	To whom were such contracts awarded, at what prices and for what operations?
3.	Were tenders called for in each case?
4.	If so, what were the names of the various tenderers and the amount of their respective tenders ?



COST AND USE IN CANADA OF CANADIAN AND IMPORTED COAL, 1935-37

Mr. POOLE:: 1.	How much coal was imported into Canada in (a) 1935, (b) 1936, (c) 1937; from what countries was it imported, what were the grade or type of coal, and the prices laid down in Canada?
2.	What were the wholesale and retail prices of imported coal in eastern Canada?
3.	What were the wholesale and retail prices of Alberta coal in eastern Canada?
4.	How much money was paid in coal subsidies?
5.	How much coal was used in these years by the Canadian Pacific Railroad, the Canadian Rational Railroads, and other Canadian railroads, respectively?
6.	How much imported coal was used by the Canadian Pacific Railroad, the Canadian Rational Railroads and other Canadian railroads, respectively ?
SCRAP METAL AND NICKEL PRODUCTION, 1935-37 Mr. POOLE:
1.	How much scrap metal was exported from Canada in 1935, in 1936, and in 1937?
2.	How much scrap metal did Canadian railroads sell during the said years, and to whom in Canada, and if exported, to what countries?
3.	What was the total amount of nickel and necessities for armaments produced in Canada during the same years?
4.	How much nickel was exported, and to what countries?
5.	What was the total profit from the production of nickel?
6.	What taxes are paid by the International Nickel Company in Sudbury?



SALE OF GOVERNMENT VESSELS

Mr. PARENT (Quebec West and South):: 1.	Has the government sold any vessels during 1937?
2.	If so, (a) how many vessels, dredges, etc., were sold; (b) what were the names of each; (c) the dates of their construction; (d) the cost of construction or purchase price; (e) the length of time each was in operation since the date of construction; (f) the amount expended on each for repairs while in government service; (g) the number of employees on each of the vessels sold?
3.	To whom were they sold; stating (a) the name of the purchaser or purchasers, and if a company, its name and the names of its directors; (b) the amount paid by the purchasers?



NATIONAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PARENT (Quebec West and South);
1.	How many civil engineers are employed by the Rational harbour commision?
2.	What are their names, salaries and their respective duties?
3.	How many persons were in the employ of the harbour commission of Quebec on the 1st December, 1935?
4.	How many were there employed on the 1st December, 1937?
5.	How many vessels carrying grain were loaded during the years 1935, 1936 and 1937 at the elevators at (a) Halifax, (b) Saint John, (c) Quebec, (d) Three Rivers, (e) Sorel, (f) Montreal?

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: According to the latest statistics, what is: (a) the present population of each province of Canada; (b) the railway mileage in each province; (c) the number of inhabitants per railway mile in each province; (d) the percentage of population of each province with respect to the total population of Canada; (e) the percentage of railway mileage in each province in proportion to the total railway mileage in the dominion?



FEDERAL GRANTS TO PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BLANCHETTE;
What is the total amount of federal grants to the several provinces, respectively, for the fiscal years 1935-36, and 1936-37?

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: According to the latest statistics, (a) what amount of hydro-electrical energy has been developed in each of the provinces of Canada; (b) what quantities of such energy are now being utilized; (c) what is the maximum quantity of power that can be developed in plants completely or partially harnessed; (d) what quantity of power can be developed from sources not yet harnessed; (e) what quantities of power can be produced and utilized in Canada on a paying basis and under present conditions from sources not already harnessed; (f) what quantities of power, is it estimated, could be produced and utilized fifty years hence from the different sources in Canada not yet harnessed?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled.



FEDERAL PAYMENTS FOR DIRECT RELIEF

Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: What amounts have been paid by the Federal government to each province from April 1, 1936, for what is called "direct relief'' to unemployed, to farmers and to indigent fishermen?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled.

Questions as Orders jor Returns



ITALO-ETHIOPIAN WAR-SANCTIONS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	On what date were sanctions agreed to and put into effect by Canada against Italy because of Italy's invasion of Ethiopia?
2.	When were sanctions withdrawn by Canada?
3.	Will the text of (1) and (2) be laid on the table of the house?
4.	Has Canada approved or been asked to approve of the conquest of Ethiopia by Italy?
5.	Has Italy or the government of Great Britain asked Canada's approval?
6.	Will all communications relating to questions four and five be laid on the table of the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This stands as an order for return, tabled herewith. I am asking that the question should be made an order for a return because there is an order in council attached to the answer which I am anxious to table.



MARKET GARDEN PRODUCTS-EXPORTS AND IMPORTS

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What was the approximate value of the market garden products exported to the United States during the twelve months ending December 31, 1937?
2.	What was the value of market garden products imported into Canada from the United States during the same period?
3.	What proportion of this amount was imported into Ontario?
4.	What was the approximate value of the same production of this produce in Canada during the same period?
5.	What proportion of this amount was produced in Ontario?



EXPENDITURES ON LEVEL CROSSINGS

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	On what level crossings in Canada was: (a) the grade crossing fund expended; (b) the special million dollar 1937 vote for that purpose expended?
2.	Will the minister give the house details of expenditures in each case?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: For a copy of all correspondence between the Prime Minister of Canada and the several provincial ministers bearing on the proposal to amend the British North America Act to create a federal system of insurance against unemployment.



BURLINGTON CHANNEL-SOUTH PIER

Frank Exton Lennard: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, specifications and other documents in the possession of the government with respect to reconstruction of south pier, Burlington channel, during the years 1936 and 1937.



SALE OP ANTICOSTI ISLAND

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of all correspondence, orders in council, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any official thereof and any other persons relating to the sale of Anticosti island, or any part thereof, or of its natural resources.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in the correspondence referred to in this motion there are some documents which are of a confidential nature and which I do not think it would be proper to have placed on the table. Subject, however, to communications of that nature not being tabled, the government has no objection to the motion being carried.



WEST TORONTO CUSTOMS OUTPORT

Mr. AHEARN (for Mr. Mulock):: For a copy of all correspondence, instructions and recommendations in connection with the establishing of the West Toronto customs and excise outport as an independent port.



CHILLIWACK, B.C., AIRPORT

Mr. BARBER:: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada or any minister or officer thereof, and any other persons, relating to the establishment of an airport or emergency landing field at or near Chilliwack, British Columbia.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD

George Halsey Perley: For a copy of all orders in council passed under the provisions of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, 1935, since August 1, 1936.


George Halsey Perley: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the wheat committee of the cabinet or any member thereof and
J.	R. Murray, between November 1, 1935, and December 31, 1935, with respect to Mr. Murray's appointment as chairman of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Motions for Papers



GRAIN INQUIRY-CORRESPONDENCE

George Halsey Perley: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or his deputy and commissioner Mr. Justice Turgeon, between April 1, 1937, and July 31, 1937, with respect to the grain Inquiry.
And also copy of all letters, telegrams and other documents passing between the Minister of Trade and Commerce or his deputy and Colonel J. L. Ralston, counsel for the grain inquiry, between April 1, 1937, and July 31, 1937, with respect to the said grain inquiry.



WHEAT STATISTICS

George Halsey Perley: For a return showing: (a) complete details of that portion of the 1935-1936 wheat crop disposed of by the Canadian Wheat Board between July 31, 1936, and December 31, 1937; (b) complete details of the disposal by the Canadian Wheat Board of wheat acquired from the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers Limited, from July 31, 1936, to December 31, 1937.


George Halsey Perley: For a return showing: (a) a detailed statement of all copies of cash broker's notes of sales made to the Canadian Wheat Board since January 1, 1937, to date; (b) a copy of all cash broker's notes of all sales made by the Board from January 1, 1937, to date; (c) the names of brokers and clearing sheets of options, bought or sold, since January 1, 1937, to January 1, 1938.


George Halsey Perley: For a detailed statement showing the number of bushels of open trades or interest of the Wheat Board during September 28, 29, 30 and October 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, 1937.


George Halsey Perley: For (a) statement or report showing amount of Durum wheat bought and sold since July 31, 1937, to date, and the price bought and sold at; (b) statement showing amount of sales of Durum wheat to Italy, and amount of sales of Durum wheat to United States, since January 31, 1936, to date.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
with regard to these four motions, possibly the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Perley) would allow them to stand until the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Euler) is in the house.


George Halsey Perley: That is quite all right.
Motions stand.



PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT

John Horne Blackmore: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Agriculture of Canada and the Alberta Department of Agriculture,
from March 3, 1937, to date, bearing upon the negotiations between the dominion and Alberta governments concerning the application in Alberta and Saskatchewan of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act.



CANADIAN CORONATION CONTINGENT

Mr. BROOKS:: For a return showing the name, rank, militia unit and post office address of each member of the Canadian coronation contingent.



WEST TORONTO OUTPORT

Mr. GREEN (for Mr. Ross, St. Paul's):: For a copy of all orders in council and all communications between the government or any department thereof, and any other person or persons, containing information or request or recommendations with reference to the change of the out-port of West Toronto to the Port of West Toronto.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS

George Halsey Perley: For a return showing,-1. The total cost to date of the royal commission on dominion-provincial relations.
2.	The rates of pay and allowances (travelling and living) made to each commissioner and the amounts paid to date to each commissioner, by name, under these or other heads.
3.	The rates of pay and allowances of any kind to counsel and assistant counsel of the commission, and the amounts paid to date to each such official, by name, under these or other heads?
4.	The number of (a) secretaries; (b) economic or other advisers; (c) clerical, stenographic and other assistants who are or have been in the employ of the said commission, and the total cost to date for their services, and total number of employees.
5.	The number of days the commission sat and heard evidence and the number of days spent in travelling.
6.	The number of witnesses called by the commission and the total .amount paid for their appearance.



BROADVIEW, SASK., AIRPORT

George Halsey Perley: For a return showing all details with respect to the purchase of the airport south of Broadview in the province of Saskatchewan, such return to include the price paid, the names of the vendors and the amount of money spent in making the field ready for operation.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONTRACTS

Richard Bedford Bennett: For a copy of all contracts made by or for the Department of National Defence from the beginning of the present fiscal year (April 1, 1937) to date, as well as a copy of all tenders with respect to each such contracts.
Motions for Papers


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With
reference to this resolution of the right hon. leader of the opposition there is no objection whatever on the part of the government to this order passing. But I should like to point out that according to the information I have received from the department, 5,842 contracts were awarded during the first nine months of the fiscal year, and the estimate is that it will take a staff of twenty a period of six months to prepare the return that is asked for.
Might I suggest to my right hon. friend that I would be very willing indeed, if he would be good enough to specify any particular contracts, to get the information as soon as possible. I would suggest also to members of the house that in order that information may be made readily available to all members, all these contracts, or as many of them as may be considered necessary, should be referred to the public accounts committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They cannot be referred to the committee on public accounts until the public accounts have been published in the auditor general's report for the next year. The present public accounts are brought up only to the end of March, and that is the reason for the motion now before the house. Perhaps if the contracts exceeding $5,000 were to be brought down, that would include those in connection with which I desire the information.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
informed that for the same period the number of contracts exceeding $5,000 is 278. I was quite aware of the situation with regard to the public accounts committee, but I thought that might be done by motion with the consent of the house.



TWEED, ONT., POST OFFICE SITE

Mr. GRAYDON:: For a copy of all orders in council, telegrams, letters, correspondence and documents of any kind in the possession of the government, relating to the acquisition of a site for a post office at Tweed, Ontario.



DREDGING FLEET-SALES

Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government and the purchaser, relative to the sale of a portion of the dredging fleet belonging to the government, including barges, dredges, etc., and also copy of contracts entered into by the government and the purchaser.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION CONTRACTS

Mr. CAHAN (for Mr. Lawson) moved:: For a copy of all contracts made since November 1, 1937, to date, by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation or any of its agents on its behalf, with any persons or corporations or the agents of any such persons or corporations for the use of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation stations or chains for broadcasting commercial programs containing advertising originating in the United States, and copies of [DOT]all papers, letters, telegrams or other documents relating thereto.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The government must decline to produce these papers, for the reason, that to do so would be contrary to the public interest. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is an autonomous body, independent of the ministry of the day as to its internal affairs, and in that regard it is on an exact parallel with the Canadian National Railways. Hon. members are aware that the government does not answer questions in the house relating to the internal management of the Canadian National Railways. A committee of the house brings before it the management of the railway with all documents of interest to hon. members, and the management gives such explanations as are required.
The government is willing to set up a similar committee for radio, but it does not believe it to be in the public interest to produce in the house documents relating to the internal management of the broadcasting corporation.


Walter Edward Foster: Dropped.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; far from it. If the Minister of Transport would be good enough to read the statute creating the corporation he will observe that it lives on money provided by the people of Canada, either through licence fees or by direct subventions from the government. Surely we have a right to know what those who receive such money are doing with it, it being the sole purpose of the organization to expend the moneys voted by parliament for the purposes indicated in the statute.
The hon. member under whose name the notice of motion stands is not in his seat, and if the motion were allowed to stand until he is in his place I think it would serve a useful purpose. This is a question of prime importance to the people of Canada. If what is suggested can be done, then the people's money can be spent by an irresponsible body, without parliament having any control. We might as well look the matter squarely in the eye.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is my right
hon. friend aware that the motion is not debatable?

A Canadian Flag


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is marked with an
asterisk.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If there is to be a debate on the subject it should be transferred to notices of motion, where it may be taken up in regular order. The asterisk opposite a notice of motion for the production of papers signifies simply that the matter is not one for debate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the other way about in some matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Walter Edward Foster: Will it be transferred?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: No; just permit it to stand until the hon. member is in the house.
Motion stands.



CIVIL SERVICE-EMPLOYMENT OF MORE THAN ONE MEMBER OF SAME FAMILY

Mr. BETTS:: For a return showing-The number of cases and particulars in connection with each case, in which (a) more than one member; (b) more than two members; (c) more than three members; (d) more than four members; and (e) more than five members of the same family, including in the term family, husband, wife, son and daughter, are employed in the civil service of Canada.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If this order should be
passed in the form proposed by the hon. member it would involve having a questionnaire submitted to every civil servant in Canada. The personnel records of each department are kept separately, and information such as that sought by the hon. member is not available in the records kept by any department. In a case where two members of a family were employed in the same department, the information might be obtained with a certain degree of speed and accuracy, but if a father should be employed in one department and three sons in three other departments, the only way by which the information could be obtained would be by having each civil servant fill out a form.
There are between fifty and sixty thousand persons in Canada employed in one capacity or another by the dominion government. The expense of printing a questionnaire, sending a copy of it to each of these employees, and then tabulating the information received, would be very great. I may add, however, that the government has some sympathy for the object obviously sought by the hon. member, and although we cannot permit the motion
to pass, due to the great difficulties and costs involved, I suggest it is a matter which might well be discussed when civil service matters are before either the house or a committee of the house.
Motion dropped.



NATIONAL HARBOURS COMMISSION

Arthur-Joseph Lapointe: For a copy of all correspondence and other documents exchanged between the National Harbours Commission and any person or persons, during the years 1935, 1936 and 1937, with respect to obtaining grain for the elevators at Halifax, Saint John, Quebec, Three Rivers, Sorel and Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member means "for shipment through elevators at Halifax," does he not?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion senior partner in the British commonwealth of nations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the resolution appearing on the order paper in my name is one sponsoring a recognized distinctive flag for our dominion-Canada our homeland, a senior partner in the British Commonwealth of Nations.
To all intents and purposes, at the present time Canada is a sovereign state, or a sovereign nation within a sovereign empire, and because Canada occupies such a proud position, I think it only right that this resolution be brought before the house. Of course limitations still exist to a certain extent in connection with the constitutional development of our dominion, but they are largely fragmentary, or exist only in the imagination. They will disappear, as other limitations have disappeared down through the years, through the advancement of constructive Canadian democracy.
Therefore, the resolution for a distinctive flag for Canada is one which rightly asks that a distinctive emblem be established for our
A Canadian Flag
[Stage Direction]
new nation of "The North." The resolution may be considered from two angles of reality, first the thought back of it and, second, the clothing of that thought in suitable form. Structurally, the resolution is but a single sentence, a sentence so concise, simple and plain that he who runs may read and understand. Creators in every realm of artistic thought will readily understand what these words mean, since throughout the ages the problem relative to the production of high class art, whether in the sphere of prose, poetry, sculpture, philosophy or economics, has always been one of a twofold nature: first, the marshalling into the realm of time and space, a noble, splendid and enduring thought, and, second, the clothing of that thought in suitable form. The problem before the house in regard to a distinctive national flag is somewhat similar.
First, we must come to a conclusion with regard to the subject matter back of this undertaking or problem. Then we shall have to take the subject matter and give it external form or symbolize it in such a way that the flag created will appeal to Canadians from ocean to ocean. Naturally the subject matter must not apply to merely any one province; it will have to be broadly national, that is, comprehensive enough to include within its fold the many geographic belts of territory which make up the dominion.
After the subjective part of the problem is solved, the next thing to be done-as we have explained-is to give to the subject matter a suitable form, thus symbolizing Canadian justice, Canadian civil liberty, Canadian ordered freedom and Canadian soul and honour, not only at home and on the continent but throughout the world. First, then, there must be settlement by hon. members of this chamber of the subjective side of the problem of a distinctive national flag. After that is done, the subject matter will have to be so symbolized that a national emblem will come into being that will preeminently stand for Canada at home and abroad.
The resolution is made up of or determined by four essentials. It will be observed that the first essential is that the opinion of parliament shall be obtained, by debate or discussion, so that the matter of the adoption of a national symbol may be fully reviewed. The second essential is that a special committee, made up of members of all parties and groups, a committee representing the combined opinion of the house, shall be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag. The third essential of the reso-

lution is that the flag adopted shall be representative of Canada as a whole. The fourth essential is that the national emblem shall symbolize the equality of status of this dominion among the self-governing dominions of the empire.
It will be observed that we have said nothing in the resolution with regard to a particular design. We believe that the question of design may very well be left to a committee of the house. During the last ten years in which this resolution has been before parliament and the country we have received hundreds of designs. However, we believe the house as a whole is not the place to settle any particular design. That can better be done in committee. However, there is no reason why this flag question should not be discussed in a general way in the debate that will take place on this resolution. We should fully discuss the general principle behind the adoption of a distinctive flag for our country. The details can come later.
It will be observed also that the resolution is singular and not plural in meaning. That has been decided upon deliberately. My opinion is that when we settle the question of a national flag for the dominion, a national flag should provide a key to all other departmental flags, the national honour flag, the national memorial flag and other flags that a young nation like Canada should adopt as soon as possible.
Perhaps it might be well in discussing this flag problem to outline the history of the resolutions which have been placed before the house during the last ten years. In 1929 a resolution calling for a distinctive flag for this dominion was placed on the order paper by myself. That resolution was not reached during the session and consequently there was no debate. If we remember correctly, that session ended in June and at the end of the session the flag resolution was in consequence found in the file of unfinished business.
In 1930, a resolution of practically the same meaning and intent was placed on the order paper. However, that being an election year, the resolution was not reached. There was no debate and the matter was not discussed or analyzed or reviewed in any way. At the end of the session, like its predecessor, it too was found in the file of unfinished business.
In 1931, another resolution was placed on the order paper, and a brief debate thereon took place on May 25, which was empire day, a very good day upon which to bring up and debate such a resolution. The present official opposition were then in power, and at six o'clock the then Prime Minister, the present

A Canadian Flag
leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), moved that the house adjourn. No further debate took place on the resolution that day and next day, on account of the adjournment, it was to be found far down on the order paper. No further debate on this resolution took place during the session.
In 1932, no action by way of resolution was taken. In 1933, another resolution was placed on the order paper. This was debated briefly and was then withdrawn by myself with the leave of the house. Hon. members will remember the conditions of financial and economic distress which existed in that year; they will recall the need for unemployment and farm relief, and because of these hampering conditions further discussion on this matter was, in our humble opinion, not in order at that time.
In 1934 the present official opposition were still in power and they took it upon themselves to do their best to get a national flag, we agreed with them in that undertaking. The result was that a resolution asking for the adoption of a national flag was moved by the then member for Nanaimo. Some debate took place on this resolution, but apparently some opposition had developed in the ranks of the government supporters. The then hon. member for Parry Sound, Mr. Arthurs, seconded by the then hon. member for Essex West, Mr. S. C. Robinson, moved the adjournment of the debate. The result was that no further discussion on this resolution took place during that year.
In 1935, the then hon. member for Nanaimo again presented a similar resolution to the house. After a brief debate, an amendment was moved to the resolution by the then hon. member for Parry Sound, seconded by the then hon. member for Carleton. A short debate took place on the main motion and on the amendment, but special controversy arose in the ranks of the government supporters with the result that, upon an intimation from the Secretary of State of that day, the mover of the amendment withdrew his motion first, and subsequently the mover of the main motion withdrew his resolution. So that settled the discussion of the flag problem in 1935. It will be noticed, Mr. Speaker, that during all these years practically no progress was made towards a solution of this problem.
In 1936, the present government had just come into power and no action was taken that year on a Canadian flag. Personally we thought the government should be given a chance to get down to its program and deal first with the outstanding economic and industrial problems confronting it. That was the stand we also took in 1937; but to-day,
in 1938, this resolution is down on the order paper because two years of the life of this parliament have gone by, and we thought that perhaps this year would be an opportune time to bring the matter up, because undoubtedly the sooner it is settled the better it will be for Canada. It will mean dollars and business to this dominion. It will mean national respect at home and abroad, and the sooner Canada is recognized both at home and away from home by a suitable symbol, the better it will be for Canadian publicity, prosperity and nationhood, here and elsewhere. That is in brief the story of what took place in parliament. That is keeping the record straight during the last ten years, and it ought to be kept straight for future historians.
Again, let me ask what has taken place in this dominion since 1867 with respect to a national flag? Confederation is now about seventy-one years of age, and what is the story in this dominion of the fight, as we might call it, for an outstanding national symbol? We might claim that the movement for a national flag began away back in 1870, for it was on July 16, 1870, that the use of the blue ensign was authorized by the Secretary of State. That may be said to have started the fight in this country for a recognized national symbol. The blue ensign, as I said, was sanctioned on July 16, 1870, and it was to be flown by government ships other than warships. After the blue ensign was adopted in 1S70, and its use did not seem to hurt or damage us nationally very much, Mr. Speaker, naturally the people of Canada would come to the conclusion that the time had come for a national emblem on land, and so what did they do? They did the best they could. Canadians are a very practical people, and they did what we would only expect them to do. They hoisted the red ensign on high, and they used the red ensign for years on the public buildings of this country, in Canada as it vras Canada in those days, until 1904. So, from 1870 to 1904, we flew the red ensign defaced with the old coat of arms in the red part of the flag, in the fly. We used that red ensign for about thirty-five years on the public buildings of this country as our distinctive national emblem.
Then what happened in 1904? The pressure of imperialism and subordination took place, and the result was that when the red ensign was not on hand in this building-when the supply had run out-a civil servant told the Minister of Public Works of that day, the Hon. Mr. Sutherland, I think, that the right flag to fly was the union jack. The minister was thus taken into camp. And so the red ensign was hauled down and the union jack hoisted, and from 1904 the union jack has been
A Canadian Flag
[Stage Direction]
flying on all our government buildings from ocean to ocean. That is the story, nationally speaking, of the red ensign as a flag ashore from 1871< or thereabouts to 1938.
What is the situation in regard to a national flag in Canada at the present moment? The red ensign, which had been flown until 1904, and is flying still, is not officially recognized as a distinctive flag for Canada inside Canada, but lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, it is recognized as our official flag outside Canada. It is recognized as the Canadian flag on our legation buildings at Washington. It is recognized as our distinctive Canadian flag on our legation buildings in Paris, Tokyo and London. It is recognized abroad, but there is no recognition for it at home. The result is that from this combination of circumstances we have a confusion existing over our national emblem that, to say the least, does not merit the applause of any Canadian. The quicker that situation is remedied the better it will be for all concerned because a national emblem will be a powerful factor in building up a new nationality from coast to coast, and in uniting our people behind an emblem that signifies Canadian development through the past and aspirations of Canadians for the future.
That being the story of the red ensign on land, what is the story of the red ensign on sea? The red ensign is naturally a water flag, and yet thousands of Canadians use it to-day on land as a distinctive Canadian flag because they have no other. They are using it, mind you, in conjunction with the union jack, and that is quite right and proper. From confederation until 1892 we had no water flag, but in 1892 the Admiralty in London issued an order that from 1892 the red ensign, flying the old coat of arms of Canada in the fly, should be the commercial flag or the flag for our merchant marine vessels on the high seas. That flag is our flag to-day for every ship registered in Canada. This means that the red ensign on the water is in reality our commercial flag. It cannot rightly be used on both land and sea. We are using the same ensign on land simply because we have no distinctive national flag, and I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is a peculiar condition of affairs to exist in a self-governing country like this dominion. I submit further that the sooner that situation is remedied the better for every real Canadian.
Now, what are we told by those who are opposed to a distinctive national flag for Canada? What arguments are advanced against a distinctive national emblem? One argument used against it, and a familiar one,
(Mr. McIntosh.]
is that it will dismember the empire; that it will sever our empire relations; that if we adopt a distinctive Canadian flag the Canadian confederation will- dissolve. Well, it might dissolve in tears of laughter before an argument of that kind, but we do not think it would dissolve in fact. Then they tell us that if we adopt a distinctive national emblem we shall be discarding the union jack, and the union jack stands for justice, liberty and righteousness in national and international relations. Therefore we should not tolerate any movement against the use of the union jack. Let me say right here, Mr. Speaker, that no one is talking against the union jack; no one is opposing its use; no one wants to destroy it; no one wants to substitute another flag for the union jack. We all want the union jack as our flag of empire. But just the same we certainly want a distinctive emblem, a national flag for the dominion. We want to give Canada the flag representation she ought to have, not only in the empire, but throughout the world. So that argument, I think, disappears. It is based upon the idea that we are going to interfere with the union jack. Our opponents have built up their whole case on that foundation, and since the foundation does not exist the argument has no meaning and therefore should be dropped from this time onward.
Another argument against the adoption of a distinctive national flag is, we are told, because of the traditions surrounding the union jack. The union jack has great traditions. It belonged to my forefathers as much as it belonged to the forefathers of any other hon. member. We love it and prize it, and we call it our own. I am not as a Canadian so narrowminded, however, as to intend, by adopting a national flag for my own country, to supplement the empire flag, any harm to the union jack. Down through the centuries great traditions have gathered around that flag. Those traditions, we are told, should be preserved. Well, they will be preserved as far as we are concerned, because the demand for a distinctive national flag has absolutely not anything to do with the supplanting of or doing away with the union jack.
We are also told that the union jack will unify the different nationalities making up our Canadian nationhood. That is true. We admit the argument; but if it is sound, a national emblem will do this much better, because it will be emblematic of our own country and will promote nation building within our boundaries and signify our position as a nation within the ambit of the British Empire and in the greater world without.

A Canadian Flag
Further we are told that the union jack has a religious significance; that it stands for righteousness; that the holy crosses hold the most prominent place and stand for the redemption of mankind; that that is why they have been incorporated in the union jack; that the colours red, white and blue symbolize courage, sacrifice and purity, and that therefore there is a deep significance about the union jack, in that it reminds us of the blood of Emmanuel shed for our atonement, of His resurrection and ascension, assuring all who believe in Him of eternal life hereafter. These arguments used to uphold the union jack are wonderful arguments, and sound too, but they are no less applicable to the establishment for Canada of a distinctive national emblem equally as sacred as the union jack. I fail to see why such a flag would not mean the advancement and development of our country in a democratic and spiritual sense.
May I put on record some of the arguments presented for a national flag by the weekly and daily press of the nation? In my humble opinion they present the issue fully and emphatically, and the statements I shall quote are representative of the Canadian press from one coast to the other.
This is what the Winnipeg Free Press says on "Flags of the Commonwealth":
With the numerous flags, officially recognized, of the various parts of the British Commonwealth now being seen at Ottawa, the absurdity of opposition in Canada to the adoption of a flag of our own is very plain. Canada, which led the movement for constitutional freedom and whose government has been enamored of a "Canada First" policy, is the only member of the commonwealth which cannot use its official emblem on this occasion, and, for the sake of practical convenience, resorts to an irregularity.
Surely, after this conference the desire for a new Canadian flag will be unanimous.
I believe that the desire for a distinctive nationel emblem in Canada to-day is practically unanimous. There is a small though noisy opposition; I believe that we should not pay too much attention to it, but that we ought to go forward and make history in regard to this question. I quote the following from the Orillia Packet and Times, on "A Canadian Flag":
. . . But for our part we have never seen any reason why Canada should not have such a flag; and there are many reasons why, when inter-empire gatherings such as that at Ottawa are held, there should be some method of distinguishing the Canadian colours.
The inter-empire gathering referred to was that of the Empire Trade conference at Ottawa, 1932.
From the Hamilton Herald:
If prejudice could be put aside and reason were allowed to rule, it would be easy to make a compromise arrangement satisfactory to all parties.
Another statement, from the Toronto Daily Star:
The flag issue was not raised; it raised itself, and nothing could be more absurd than to suggest that under these circumstances the newspapers should say nothing about it. It is easily understood, however, that those newspapers which oppose a Canadian flag do not want it talked about on an occasion which so vividly illustrates the need of one.
The Winchester Press:
Candidly, we do not see why Canada should not have a flag that is at once British as well as Canadian. The governments of the dominions have adopted national flags. Why there should be any fuss about Canada having a flag that would be pronouncedly Canadian as well as British we cannot understand. This opposition to a "Canadian Flag" is silly sentiment and should not stand in the way of our government adopting a Canadian flag.
The Stratford Beacon Herald:
. . . If the Canadian people did decide to have a new flag it would mean doing away with the union jack as we have it now-
The old argument is used there, that we are going to destroy the union jack. There is not a word of truth in it.
-and there are many people in this country who would not care to do that-
I imagine there will be quite a number who would not want to do that.
-in fact many of them would not do it-
I am one who would not want to do it; and I am the mover of this resolution.
. . . and there would be no way to force unanimity of opinion and action.
We come to the Collingwood Bulletin-.
Opposition to a distinctive flag has been based largely on a misunderstanding of the situation. Education on this subject is working towards a practically unanimous public sentiment on this subject.
From the Recorder and Times, Brockville:
The Expositor thinks that if an agreement could be reached whereby a Canadian device would appear on the union jack, it would promote an intenser spirit of patriotism and citizenship, not only for the dominion, but for the empire. Canadians, it says, are surely not afraid of an emblem that would characterize the flag as their own.
Another statement, from the Brockville Recorder:
Why should there not be equal approval of the institution of a Canadian national flag to fly on land? Mr. Chamberlain probably wonders. So do a great many others, who are quite unable to fathom the reasoning of those who object to such a proceeding.
A Canadian Flag
[Stage Direction]
The Kingston Whig-Standard:
There is no reason why Canada should not have its own distinctive flag. It will make us no less loyal and no less a part of the British Empire.
The Perth^ Courier:
Thergs^fs no thought either in any Liberal's or yimservative's brain to do away with the time-honoured union jack in our national^ flag. We all love the old flag and its Christian three-cross design too well to abandon it for any other. No other flag has so wonderful a history or has earned so loving a tribute from its far-flung peoples as this emblem of the empire; and so we in Canada must honour this feeling and all the sentiments involved by retaining in the most prominent corner of any flag that may be adopted this old union jack with its historical and fond memories.
The London Advertiser, which has consistently upheld the proposal for a distinctive national flag, has this to say:
The present flag situation is so ridiculous that it is a wonder self-respecting Canadians can be found to defend it. Prime Minister Bennett is using the Canadian flag on his own motor car at Ottawa so that it will not be mistaken for a British delegation ear during the imperial conference. The delegates from every other dominion have brought their national flags, and they must be surprised and amused at the absence of any flag to denote the greatest dominion of all. The opposition to the official recognition of the Canadian flag on Canadian soil is just a piece of silliness of which Canadians should be ashamed. It lends itself to annual twelfth of July oratory, but even the Attorney General of Ontario has been fed up on it, and he presented the com-monsense view to his fellow Orangemen at the last celebration.
The London Advertiser further states:
Only Canada, among the dominions, has no distinctive Canadian emblem, except-and this is the ridiculous paradox-one which is flown only overseas, or on the high seas. If all Canadians knew this the opposition to the movement for a Canadian flag would be dissolved in laughter.
This is one from the Orange Sentinel which I think I should read:
They refer-*
"They" means those who advocate a distinctive national flag.
They refer to Australia, to South Africa, and the Olympic sports. Canada has the Canadian ensign which serves the purpose of her merchant marine at sea, and we have yet to see a strong argument that any Canadian is embarrassed by the Union Jack flying over the Canada house in London, Washington, Tokyo or Paris.
As a matter of fact, the union jack does not fly over our legations abroad; I made that plain this afternoon. It is Canada's so-called and unrecognizable flag that flies over

those legations, but we cannot fly it at home. Therefore the movement for a distinctive Canadian flag persists and will persist.
Next I quote from the Regina Leader:
It is pretty obvious that before many years Canada will decide to have a Canadian flag that will have its origin in two main ideas: Canada, as a nation in her own right, and Canada as a partner nation in the British commonwealth.
The London Free Press-the second London newspaper to comment upon the subject -makes this statement:
There is no reason to believe that if we had a Canadian flag embodying the union jack and signifying loyalty to the British Commonwealth of Nations there would be any suggestion of disintegration of the British Empire.
The Saskatchewan Star-Phoenix says:
It is to be hoped that Mr. McIntosh's motion will be received more intelligently, and that the discussion in the House of Commons will be marked by light rather than heat.
The Montreal Witness has this to say:
But Canada has abundantly shown that she wants a flag of her own, and there is really no room for difference of choice as to what it should be. The received emblem of Canada is the maple leaf, now bronzing in the fall. The golden maple leaf has become as sacred as any emblem may be by having been worn by thousands of our fallen soldiers and having been proudly brought home on the collars of our returned men, who sang everywhere The Maple Leaf Forever.
I have attached to these notices a note that the Kiwanis' organization went on record a few years ago with regard to a Canadian national flag, and I have before me a resolution passed by the Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association, Saskatchewan division. May I read it:
Resolved, that this convention of Saskatchewan division, Canadian Weekly Newspapers, assembled in the city of Saskatoon, go on record as endorsing the compaign of Mr. C. R. McIntosh, member of parliament for North Battle-ford, in his efforts to secure the consent of the government of Canada to the selection of a suitable flag for the dominion of Canada, to be known as the flag of Canada.
This resolution was carried unanimously. I have also attached to the notices from which I have quoted, a verse by a local poet of Vancouver, Mr. Fred A. Burgess. He puts the case very well. The first chorus reads:
For Ireland has her harp and shamrock, England floats her lion bold;
Even China has a dragon,
Germany an eagle gold;
Bonny Scotland has a thistle,
Turkey has her crescent moon,
And our friends, the Yankees, too,
Have their old red, white and blue- Every race has a flag but our own^

A Canadian Flag
This presents completely the case for a national flag. In coming to a conclusion on this all-important question many viewpoints may be considered. We might have a national flag based on the white ensign; we might be able to base it on the red ensign; we might base it on the blue ensign. Australia has founded her national flag on the blue ensign; southern Ireland has a tricolour scheme, green, white and orange thus making use of the colour white, one of the predominant British colours. This flag is a co-equal flag with that of 'Great Britain. Newfoundland's flag is based on the red ensign. We are flying a flag-the red ensign-which is not officially recognized as our land flag. There are many instances in which the three ensigns might be used as bases for a national flag. Then we might have a flag with a union jack in one corner, but that is something which will have to be decided by the committee and the House of Commons. We might have a flag in which there would be no union jack. Some people advocate that, but I do not. I suggest that had this question been settled a few years ago that argument would never have arisen; but so far as the argument is concerned I do not believe there is much public opinion in Canada in favour of it. With the spirit of cooperation and harmony prevailing, a simple and beautiful national emblem can be evolved.
I am not discussing any particular design; but in my opinion the maple leaf should find a prominent place on our flag, and I believe the union jack should also be there, prominently displayed. That, however, is a matter which can best be decided in committee. I am firmly convinced that with goodwill prevailing, with tolerance and patience, and with loyalty to this young nation and its constitution we can make progress in the house and in committee in coming to a satisfactory decision upon this extremely important problem.
I leave the question with hon. members. The very fact that we have in Canada one flag that is not officially recognized at home while the same flag is given official recognition abroad is an anomaly that should be corrected without delay. If it is, I believe that it will mean advancement democratically for this nation and it will give us that respect nationally and internationally that is due to us as a rising young dominion on the north American continent-a nation great to be in the annals of mankind.
Mr. VITAL MALLETTE (Jacques-Cartier) (Translation); Mr. Speaker, convinced of the necessity of a national flag for our beautiful country, I consider it my duty to support the resolution proposed by the honourable member for North Battleford
(Mr. McIntosh). I do not intend to go into the history of the matter, but simply to offer a few arguments in favour of the establishment of a national flag. Every country in the world, from the most humble to the most powerful, has its national flag. Each country on every continent, in every part of the world, has its emblem, of which it is proud. Whether throughout the ages it bore the name of oriflamme, guidon, banner, standard, or was called something else, the emblem represented first individuals, then clans, groups and finally an entire nation. The mediaeval knight, defender of all good causes, was always accompanied by his equerry bearing a banner decorated with his lord's coat of arms. Even then men understood the importance of having some sort of emblem to identify them. The idea seems to have spread simultaneously in all parts of the globe. Every nation has its flag. In the British Empire itself, outside the mother country, Australia, the Irish Free State, New Zealand, the South African Union have their respective flags, and these countries all belong to the same family of nations. Thus, including Great Britain, at least five British nations have their distinctive flag. I do not see that anyone can object to Canada adopting a national emblem as its sister nations have done.
We have already taken a step in that direction by adopting a national coat of arms as other countries have done. Furthermore, this coat of arms bears a device indicating the size of our country: A mare usque ad mare.
Since we have adopted, as the honourable member for North Battleford pointed out a moment ago, a device and a coat of arms which are recognized by the whole country, why should we not have a national flag? Had we done so a few years ago, we should now have a Canadian flag, playing for our beautiful country the same part as that of the other nations. It would be a rallying-point. It would fly on our navy, on our merchant marine, on our public buildings, on our schools, on our residences. It would be displayed at the head of our processions and at all great patriotic manifestations. It would form a link between Canadians from all provinces. A Canadian flag would contribute to the unity of the dominion.
From a purely practical point of view, the Canadian flag would advertise Canada in other lands. Our tourists, like all other tourists, would display it throughout the world. This would be excellent publicity for Canada. This need of having an object to represent an idea, an association, a people, a union, is not something new. It reveals itself in guilds, unions, brotherhoods. All such organizations
[Stage Direction]
A Canadian Flag
[Stage Direction]
have their banners. And these banners are not only chosen after long consideration, but the person selected to bear it must be elected by a majority of the members and he fills an honoured post in the organization. When I was a boy, the first thing we did after forming a group for purposes of play was to find a long staff to which we would fasten some kind of a rag which represented the flag of the group. It is so in industrial and commercial life. Every manufacturer who produces an article of good quality hastens to register a trade-mark indicating that the article was produced in his factory. This trade-mark is his own; it is his flag. As a man of honour he protects and defends it as the soldier defends his country's flag. He allows no unscrupulous competitor to use it. He does not permit his employees to debase it. If to meet competition he has to choose between unprofitable prices and lowering the quality of the articles bearing his name, he will rather register another symbol, in order to preserve the value of his original trade-mark, which is his flag.
May I remind honourable members of something which they know very well, perhaps too well, something that has become part and parcel of our political life? At every election, do we not ask the voters to elect us because we carry the glorious Liberal flag? And do not our opponents do the same thing, claiming that they are fighting under the good old Conservative flag? So even political parties recognize the necessity of a symbol to represent their opinions. This symbol, even though it has only an abstract existence, is called the flag, so suitable is the term.
If organizations of all kinds deem it indispensable to have some kind of a symbol to express their unity, it is all the more necessary for our great country to have one. Such a symbol should be for Canada, as for all other countries, a national flag, a Canadian flag.
Undoubtedly, there are many people who are under the impression that we already have such a flag. In fact, if you refer to the Journals of the House of Commons for 1937, page 167, in connection with the re-establishment of our trade relations with Russia, you will find the very words of a telegram from the Acting People's Commissar for Foreign Trade:
I beg to confirm the receipt of your telegraphic communication to the effect that the Canadian government have decided to cancel order in council of February 27, 1931, pursuant to which the importation into Canada of certain commodities originating in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was prohibited.
I hereby inform you that in consequence of the above I shall cancel my order of April 20, 1931, prohibiting all organizations and trade
fMr. Mallette.]
representatives of the U.S.S.R. to make any purchases of goods of Canadian origin as well as the chartering of vessels under the Canadian flag.
Of course, the choice of a flag will be a delicate matter, we must be extremely careful, and not let partisanship interfere. If it were possible to find an emblem that would recall at the same time our origins, and our association with other British nations, together with the fact that we are a Christian people, that would be the ideal thing. Shall we ever be able to discover the symbol which will meet all these requirements, so as to make it our national flag? I hope so. It is one of these cases where all men of good will shall have to take the initiative, and where the greatest measure of tolerance from all sides shall be . tested.
It seems to me that there are enough fair-minded members in this house to form a committee which could agree upon a representative design that would be satisfactory to all true Canadians.
Why should we not have our own flag? Why should we be the only remaining great British dominion without any characteristic emblem? Since all other nations each have their own flag, including the sister nations of the British Commonwealth, why not have also a national flag for Canada?
The adoption of a national flag by Canada could not be construed as a provocation against any one. Our fair country would only follow the example of all other nations, great or small. As regards those timid souls who see in the adoption of a Canadian flag an act of hostility towards the mother country, it would be sufficient, I suppose, to remind them of Australia, New Zealand, Ireland and South Africa. Have these great British nations been shaken at all in their allegiance to the sovereign, or to British institutions, through the fact that they have their own flag? To say so would be an insult to those nations.
There are those who would see in this a suggestion of secession from the mother country. What a mistake! What a foolish idea! Canada is merely in the position of a grown up boy who, coming of age, settles down and obtains all those things that are necessary for setting up an ordinary home. Such action is not considered by the young man's parents as an act of hostility, as a kind of provocation towards them. On the contrary, the young man's parents and friends encourage him and they cannot show too much admiration for his deciding to become a man. Instead of bothering him or putting obstacles in his way, they help him. Let Canada select a national flag-she also having

[Stage Direction]
A Canadian Flag
come of age-and the Canadians will be glad of that. It will be another step towards progress, towards national development.
I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution moved by the hon. member for North Battleford, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I wish on behalf of the electors of Jacques Cartier and of those back benchers who are here present, to add my congratulations and compliments to those that have been tendered this afternoon to the right honourable the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) by qualified authorities in this house.
Mr. 0. B. ELLIOTT (Ivindersley): Mr. Speaker, while I have no great demand from my constituency for a national flag, the people perhaps being more interested at the present time in difficulties of a personal nature, being situated in the drought area, I feel that the subject is interesting from an informative point of view.
When one is contemplating a national flag he is likely to be influenced by conflicting emotions. He may desire the retention of the union jack because of British alliances, and because it is symbolic of the many historical events in the process of building the British Empire. There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion about our flags in the minds of Canadian people, and while the National Anthem creates a reverence for British monarchy and institutions, the singing of "O Canada" stimulates the joy of everything purely Canadian.
I am thinking at the moment of the people of many different nationalities comprising Canadian nationhood who immigrated to Canada for a purpose. The object prompting such a move was doubtless the desire to secure an improvement in their standard of living and, believing Canada afforded that opportunity, after much deliberation they decided to take the momentous step. I can almost feel the tumult of emotions that struggled for predominance in the breasts of these many individuals before deciding the most uncertain action of their lives. They had to decide whether to hold steadfast to their old traditions and institutions, or set their eyes on a new star, trusting-and in human life how very important that quality is. They were anxious to contribute their efforts, be they large or small, to the moulding of a new nation. The young men and women
born in Canada, who are not moved by the same sentiments as previous generations with regard to old world institutions and the symbols that represent their struggle for emancipation, look for emblems depicting more particular!}' Canadian history, while still retaining possibly a symbol of our progenitors, as does the Canadian coat of arms.
The red ensign of the British merchant marine ships, with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly, after floating for thirty years over every dominion public building in Canada was displaced, and the union jack restored.
The shield on Canadian marine flags goes back to the very dawn of our official flag. In order to place a description on the record for those who may read the report of the debate, may I state that in the upper left hand canton are depicted the three golden lions of Normandy, brought from the ancient French province of Normandy by William the Conqueror, and first inscribed on our flag by Richard I of England. In the upper right hand canton we have the lion of Scotland. In the centre cantons we have the harp of Ireland, and also the fleur-de-lis first placed on the British flag by Edward III, in honour of the French princess who was his mother. Beneath these four cantons we have three maple leaves representing Canada. This is placed on the fly of each of the two marine flags of Canada. At present Canada's only flag is the red ensign. In 1892, the dominion government passed a regulation allowing the arms of Canada to be placed on the red ensign for mercantile purposes. The fact that there is no legal right, so far as I know, to fly this flag on land, may account for the change to the union jack a few years ago.
I heartily agree with the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) who advocates the adoption of a national flag for Canada, the importance of which he has brought to our attention. It is of interest, however, to know that Canada already has a flag which is 176 years older than the union jack or, as correctly described, the union flag. When I say Canada has a flag, I refer to the flag of Nova Scotia, a part of Canada, although it is conceded that she did not want to be. I am pleased to see a number of representatives from Nova Scotia in the house.
It is a matter of record that in 1625 Charles I of England granted to Nova Scotia a coat-of- arms and a flag with an orange tawny field. This flag, as I have said, is 176 years older than the union jack. The circumstances in connection with the making of it take us back to the days of Queen Anne. We find that after the Treaty of Union was signed
A Canadian Flag
[Stage Direction]
between England and Scotland on January 16, 1707.	Queen Anne was requested to
appoint ensigns armorial to conjoin into one flag, the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, and in May, 1707, the flag was displayed at St. Paul's Cathedral in London, where a solemn celebration was held to commemorate the union.
It was not, however, until 1S01, when Ireland was joined in the legislative union that the cross of St. Patrick was added. The result of this addition is the union jack or union flag in use to-day by Great Britain and all her colonies.
It may not be a bad idea for the house humbly to pray the province of Nova Scotia for the privilege of flying this as the national flag of Canada. In the centre of the blue cross of St. Andrew, on the flag of Nova Scotia, we find a red lion, all of which is placed on an orange tawny field. This is a very attractive flag indeed, and one no doubt of which Nova Scotia is proud.
We have adopted the beaver as a national emblem. We find it was first used in 1630 by Sir William Alexander, who received in 1621 a grant to colonize Nova Scotia from King James I of England, who was also King James VI of Scotland. So far as I know, no objection has been raised by Nova Scotia to the use of the beaver as an emblem. Therefore I feel confident that Nova Scotia would not refuse us the use of her ancient flag.
New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa have flags of their own. I can remember how anxious we were at one time to take part in the conflict in South Africa. Recently there has come to my notice an article from a Vancouver paper dealing with the flag of South Africa. Dated at Vancouver, September 27, 1937, the article states:
When the team of forty-three South African lawn bowlers arrived on the Pacific coast during their trans-Canada tour, they were determined to include a pilgrimage to a tree stump at Campbell river, Vancouver island, in their sight seeing.
It was from a stand of timber at Campbell river that a British Columbia_ fir was felled last summer, trimmed to a 105 foot flag pole and sent to Johannesburg, South Africa for the city's 50th birthday celebrations.
Attempts to transport the huge gift from the sea to Johannesburg by rail five hundred miles away, were abandoned in favour of roads because of the many sharp curves in railroad tracks. At some points only the tip and the butt of the pole rested on freight trucks.
A second problem arose with the erection of the pole, for nowhere in South Africa may the Union Jack take precedence over the flag of the Union of South Africa, and it is usual to erect twin flag poles.

There is, however, another matter which must be considered before the adoption of a national flag can follow. I refer to the meaning of the word "Canadian," and in this respect I should like to quote from "Canada 1937." Under the heading of racial origins, to be found at page 24, I find the following:
The object of securing information on racial origin at the census is to ascertain from what basic ethnic stocks the Canadian population, more particularly the recently immigrated population, is derived. The answer "Canadian" is not accepted under this heading, as the purpose of the question is to obtain, in so far as possible, a definition of "Canadian" in terms of racial derivation. It is clear that to accept the answer "Canadian" to the question on racial origin would confuse the data and defeat the purpose for which the question is asked.
May I suggest that the census taker could readily ascertain racial derivation by asking information as to the parentage of the individual, which I have no doubt would be supplied in all cases. As there is no provision on the census tables of Canada for the enumeration of Canadians, it is apparent that the paragraph just quoted from "Canada 1937 is a subterfuge, an explanation which does not explain but which accentuates the omission of the word "Canadian" from the official record. As we all know, were Canadians enumerated on the census, some provision would necessarily have to be made for Canadians to exercise their franchise at the polls as Canadians. Therefore I consider it somewhat of an anomaly that we should be discussing the adoption of a national and official flag for Canadians when even the hon. member for North Battleford is not officially a Canadian. Of course something is wrong and I suggest that we make it right. Is it true, as the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl) says, that there was no confederation or federal union? I leave the questiou with you:	Are we still a colony?
Frederick Cronyn Betts: Mr. Speaker, I feel strongly about this question, but I shall endeavour to follow the excellent example of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) and couch my views in moderate and dispassionate terms. The resolution reads:
That in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations.
As was pointed out, it would be ridiculous to pretend that by adopting what is referred to as a distinctive Canadian flag we would be jeopardizing the position of the dominion in



[Stage Direction]
A Canadian Flag
the empire or be weakening the part that the empire plays to-day in the affairs of the world. To say that would be putting the situation altogether too strongly. My objections to the resolution, which I shall state simply and shortly, are these: There never has been a time in the history of the world when the British Empire played such an important part as it is now playing in the preservation of such world peace as still remains and in the observance of fair play and justice and all that Christianity stands for. Therefore, this is the time when everything that we in this dominion can do to identify ourselves with the British Empire as closely as possible should be done.
One way in which we can foster and strengthen that bond is by exercising what I deem to be one of our greatest privileges, the flying wherever and whenever possible of the union jack. Unfortunately we are subjected to many influences which tend to weaken our imperial connections. The radio and the press of the country to the south are constantly disseminating influences that are in no sense of the word imperial, let alone Canadian. As an antidote to these often undesirable influences we have the union jack. To do other than fly it when and where we may, would in my opinion be bad policy. Something is said in the resolution about a distinctive Canadian flag. The union jack was sufficiently distinctive for the 60,000 men who laid down their lives for Canada in the great war. It is distinctive enough for me and, I believe, for the vast majority of those whom I represent.
There is another practical consideration. I do not think the mover of the resolution or any one else will deny that the most desirable type of immigrant we can get is the immigrant from the old land. Those are the immigrants whom we wish to attract above all others. Surely it would be a consideration in the minds of such people if they knew that when they reached our shores they would still find floating in the proudest position of all the emblem to which they had become accustomed. In some of the press references which the hon. member for North Battleford read into the record something was said about silly sentiment in discussing this question. Whenever we discuss a flag, whether it be a Canadian flag, the union jack or any other flag, a certain amount of sentiment must enter into our deliberations. There is a strong feeling of sentiment for the union jack. My hope is that it will be preserved and increased because it is an honourable sentiment.
There is sentiment in our feelings towards Shakespeare, Milton, Shelley and Burns, and
the works of these men arouse the same feelings deep in our breasts as are aroused when the union jack is mentioned. Therefore, for my part, Mr. Speaker, I deplore any move to fly any other flag than the union jack. In my opinion the motion is untimely, and such a motion would, in my view, be untimely at any time. I shall vote against it.
Mr. H. E. BRUNELLE (Champlain) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasant duty to compliment the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh),first, upon the appealing and convincing way in which he has presented his case to the house, and second, upon his tenacity in bringing up again and again in the house and promoting this most laudable project, which unfortunately so far has not met with the approval of this chamber. The perseverance and energy of the hon. member were not unknown to me because I saw him at work in his constituency of North Battleford, where I lived for many years, and where I am proud to say I had occasion to vote for him. As one who is no longer interested in his constituency I wish to tell the hon. member for North Battleford that not only in his constituency but in many other parts of Canada, probably -owing to his attitude in connection with a national flag, he is looked upon as a true, devoted and broad-minded Canadian.
I saw fit to make these few remarks with regard to the hon. member for North Battleford, because a decision such as the one we are about to take might seem queer, even wrong in the estimation of those who, though I believe they are in- good faith may consider it as a sacrilege, as it were, the fact of seeking to change in any way the British flag in order to have a strictly Canadian flag.
While I have the opportunity, I take great pleasure in paying my own and my constituents' compliments to the right hon. the Minister of Justice. I wish him health, happiness and success on this 34th anniversary of his coming to this house. These wishes are all the more sincere since the success of the Liberal party, the government and the country are so closely connected with the success, the happiness and the good health of the right hon. Minister of Justice. They may, to a certain extent, smack of selfishness, but I may assure the right hon. Minister of Justice that they are nevertheless profoundly sincere.
The reason I am taking the liberty of saying a few words in support of the motion introduced by the hon. member for North Battleford, is because I believe Canada has reached such a measure of self-government
A Canadian Flag

that we should enjoy all the essential characteristics which such autonomy entails. It may be-and I share this opinion-that we ought to retain substantially the character of the British flag, but we should make it distinctly Canadian by adding to it our emblem, as, for instance, the maple leaf. I wish to express my admiration for the British flag which, for many years, and even many centuries, has victoriously flown all over the world. We must admit that under the protection of that flag, except for the bad treatment that was meted to us in the early days of British domination, we enjoyed liberties and privileges of which we would certainly have been deprived under many another conqueror. The crosses of St. Andrew, St. George, and St. Patrick which are to be found on the British flag well indicate the union and cooperation which bind together the oldest members of the empire, and they also show that these elder members of the British Empire wished to have their emblem on the British flag. I think it is expedient that Canada add her own emblem so as to show that it is also her flag.
Since the other colonies, or I should rather say the other members of the British commonwealth have their own flag, why should not Canada have hers? As the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts) said a moment ago. we must admit that in a discussion where feelings intervene, reason and logic do not always prevail. But since we are only seeking to add our emblem to the union jack, I think there is no ground to protest against adding to the old flag anything that would make it more attractive and more characteristic in the mind of Canadians. Besides, the lack of a distinctive Canadian flag is a paradox, an anomaly. A proof of this is the fact that, in those countries where Canada maintains legations, she must create some kind of a flag different from that of the empire through the addition of the Canadian coat of arms. Thus, Canada has a flag, outside its territory, but she has none for her own citizens.
On the other hand, the empire is not a federation. I do not think, either, that the idea of centralization has met with such a measure of approval among Canadians, that the latter should be willing to keep forever as their own the mother country's flag. A Canadian flag would no doubt hold much mere attraction for Canadian citizens. Such a flag would appeal much more to the imagination of children and better arouse their national pride. It would form a link that would unite more closely the French and English speaking native born Canadians with those who are simply naturalized Canadians. The thought or

ambition of those people who came to our country was not simply to become British subjects. I rather believe that they were determined to become plain Canadian citizens. Again, who could deny the fact that every nation must have her own flag. It is futile, if not ridiculous, to cast doubts upon anyone's loyalty in such debate. I reseut the suggestion that those who would adopt a Canadian flag have no attachment or loyalty towards the crown. This is not definitely stated but it is hinted, or insinuated, and every one can read between the lines; on the other hand, every one is quite free to say or think whatever he pleases. And I shall take the liberty, and avail myself of this opportunity to say that I am neither ashamed nor afraid to state that, while second to none in my loyalty towards the crown, if the interests of the mother country should ever happen to conflict with those of my native country, without the least hesitation, I would devote myself body and soul to Canada.
In reality, the opposition against the adoption of a Canadian flag is caused by imperialistic feelings. Let us hope for the day-'the sooner it comes, the better it will be for us all -when it may be possible, in our country, to discuss matters of interest solely from a Canadian viewpoint. Meanwhile I believe the best way of being a good British citizen is to remain a good Canadian.
There are in Canada groups whose traditions are not identical. It would be neither wise nor fair to wish for the disappearance of those traditions, but these different racial groups must meet upon a common ground. A national flag, along with our splendid national hymn, would provide this common ground and constitute a closer bond first between the provinces-they need it-and then between native born Canadians and naturalized Canadians, who should all be proud, at this stage of our history, to declare as a matter of principle that one country is enough for any man and that, from a practical viewpoint, the boundaries of their true fatherland should not extend beyond those of Canada.


Mr. J. R. MacNICOL (Davenport):: I first will address myself to some of the remarks made by the mover of the resolution (Mr. McIntosh). If I understood him correctly he said that in 1933 a resolution similar to that which is now before the house was withdrawn because of the distress in the cities and the serious condition in the country. If that reason was effective in 1933 it is a first class reason for withdrawing the resolution to-day. I am sure that conditions in the constituency of the hon. member and other parts of the

A Canadian Flag
west are not so gratifying that this house can afford to waste its time debating an educational or academic motion of this kind. People in the west are crying to Ottawa for measures, whether they be the building of reservoirs, diverting rivers, or other constructive operations that will bring relief to the troubles caused by the drought; they are not, I believe, very much interested in the question of a flag, but are more concerned with their own pressing difficulties. I know very well that that is the situation in the east, and I am sorry to observe that while conditions did improve for a time, in the last month or two they have been getting worse.
Yesterday I spent the day with some friends in a railroad town not far from Ottawa and had a conversation with three railroad men. One of them remarked, "I see that the house is going to debate a resolution in connection with the flag. I want to tell you that so far as I am concerned, not only is the union jack good enough for me, but I am much more interested just now in getting a job." He said that fifty of the engine repairers in the town I am referring to had been laid off from the car shops because the large new locomotives are so powerful that they can run from Detroit to Toronto, and from Toronto to Montreal without a change. This man remarked to me, "As far as we are concerned we are interested in getting jobs at the present time; we are not interested in you men down there wasting your time debating a question which at best is only an educational question."
The hon. member who proposed the resolution quoted certain expressions but did not use them himself. I wish to compliment him on the mildness of his language and on the way he said what he had to say. Some of the quotations he used, however, intimated that anyone who has the nerve to oppose this resolution is prejudiced, that to do so is absurd and could have no other motive than a silly sentiment; he also produced a clipping which applied the word "ridiculous" to anyone presuming to oppose the motion. I do not intend to be deterred from what I have to say by any such expressions, neither do I believe such terms would be employed by the hon. member himself. On the other hand, respecting as I do the views of other hon. members, I expect them to respect mine.
I recall the hon. member said that the sentiment throughout Canada favouring the adoption of a so-called distinctive flag was almost unanimous. Before I sit down I shall
be able easily to show that that is not so; that on the contrary, opinion against the change is much stronger; that the organization which is responsible, as I see it, for creating the agitation to induce someone to bring this type of resolution before the house has for several years past been engaged in advocating a new flag, and that its late president, to whom I shall refer later, resigned because he believed that that organization was advocating the disruption of the British Empire. I do not argue that such a result would follow the adoption of a new flag-far from it. I am merely repeating what some of those in the organization behind this movement have been quoted as saying.
The hon. member who moved the resolution said that the Saskatchewan weekly papers are unanimously in favour of this proposal. With his powerful eloquence and his position as an outstanding editor in the province, if he went to a meeting of the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association and could not persuade them to adopt his resolution, or at any rate to support his point of view, I should be surprised.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was not there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, the weekly newspaper which the hon. member so ably edits lauded such a resolution. Am I not right in that? His views are well known in Saskatchewan. He has said something about Newfoundland. I must correct him in that particular, because on a trip to Newfoundland I discussed the flag situation with the commission. I found that the union jack is the flag used on land, and on the water they have a similar flag to ours, using their coat of arms on their blue ensign in much the same manner as we do, as well as on their red ensign.
We have already had two suggestions as to what could be put on a new flag. One was a maple leaf, which is a wonderful emblem. The beaver was also referred to, I believe by the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Elliott) as a suitable emblem to place on the flag. But I should like to call attention to what was said by the hon. member for London (Mr. Betts), and I agree with it, that as it is we have sufficient difficulty in this country in trying to maintain a sentiment of loyalty to Canada, and a sentiment for the maintenance of Canada as part of the empire. There is no question that some are affected by the press of the republic to the south making jocular references to our traditions, our government and our king. We are also exposed to radio influences; I have myself heard many speeches delivered over the radio to which it was not very pleasant for a Canadian to listen.
A Canadian Flag

I endorse, therefore, what the hon. member for London has said, that in this matter we should go very slowly about doing anything that would tend to break down our sentiment towards the union jack and the old land.
As I have so far been for the most part replying to what has already been said in the debate, Mr. Speaker, if you will call it six o'clock I will give my own views when the house resumes after recess.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, just before the house rose I believe I said that :n view of the peaceful penetration of this country by newspapers from the republic to our south and by radio programs from the same source- and I might also add by commerce-in my judgment we should be very careful about starting anything new that might in any way weaken our adherence to our traditions and those of the empire to which we belong.
Perhaps it would be best right at the commencement of my remarks to correct a statement often made, which I think we have all read in the literature that has been sent to us recently by an organization which is pronouncedly against the union jack. I believe it fitting that at this moment I should point out that we have three official flags in this country. The one that was made official first is the blue ensign, which was made an official flag for Canada's government marine by the Colonial Defence Act of 1865. That flag bears on its fly the Canadian shield. The second official flag is the Canadian red ensign, which is used by our merchant marine on the seas and the lakes. That red ensign was ordered by an admiralty warrant in 1892. I might just interject here that when the house rose, someone, I have forgotten who, intimated to me that he felt that Canada ought to have a flag, and apparently he meant a distinctive flag, because if he went to Montreal or elsewhere and saw ships coming in, he could not tell from the flags which were Canadian ships. That is not correct; his information was wrong, and I desire to correct him. I now say that all Canadian merchant ships have flying at the stern the Canadian red ensign. Then, of course, we have the union jack, which in 1912 was ordered by the Secretary of State for the colonies as a land flag for Canada. So we have three official flags: the union jack on land, the red ensign with the Canadian
[Mr. MacNicol.)
coat of arms on the fly for our merchant marine, and the blue ensign with the Canadian coat of arms for our government marine.
I might say that when I was overseas last summer, in anticipation of the probable reintroduction of this resolution, which I believe has been before the house now on six or seven different occasions, I endeavoured to find out everything possible about the origin of those component parts which go to make up our flags and the heraldry associated with them.
I went back into antiquity as far as I could, visiting the signal offices of the Admiralty, the factories where they make the admiralty flags and the record offices of the great newspapers in London as well as the great magazines such as the Illustrated News, the Graphic and others. I wanted to try to disprove to my own satisfaction the statement that the union jack on land is not a distinctive Canadian flag; I wanted to disprove the statement that our red ensign with the coat of arms on the fly and the blue ensign with the coat of arms on the fly were not distinctive Canadian flags.
I have convinced myself, in any event, that they are more distinctive to Canada than almost anything of which I can conceive; that is, if one considers that a flag, to be distinctive of a country, must at least appertain to the races that go to make up that country. I will say this, that the more I searched and the further back I went into antiquity, it appeared to me that the race that had the most to complain about, as far as flags go, was the English race itself. The English people themselves would have more right to complain about their flag not being distinctly British, or ours not being distinctly Canadian, than any other race. Take, for instance, the union jack itself, with its three crosses. St. George's cross was originated not in England but in Asia Minor. The Greeks used it long before the English did. Of course they used a white cross on a blue field, while the British used a red cross on a white field. It is called St. George's cross because of the martyrdom, according to legend, of St. George on April 23, 361. St. George's cross on a flag was brought to England in 1194 by a Norman king, Richard I, on his return from the crusades. It was not of English origin at all; but the English, being broad-minded and steeped in business above everything else, were not perhaps so particular about the ordinary things, and were happy to obtain it. As I have said, that cross was introduced into England in 1194 by Richard I, a French-Nor.man king.
Then take St. Andrew's cross. That is not Scotch at all; but the Scotch, being receptive also, were willing to take perhaps almost any-



[Stage Direction]
A Canadian Flag
thing worih while. St. Andrew was martyred at Patros in Greece in 69, and according to legend about 370 the relics of St. Andrew were found on the W'est coast of Scotland.
Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is wrong in his history there.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not mean that the cross was adopted then. It was used in 740, I believe, by King Fergus, or some other king.
Then we have St. Patrick's cross. How much Irish is there about that? The Irish are also a fine race, and are willing to take anything that is good. St. Patrick himself was born in Scotland according to legend; but so far as the legend goes he went to Ireland and then to France. History says that his father was a magistrate for the Romans in the fourth century. Whether or not his father was Roman I do not know; but it is said that his mother was French, and St. Patrick's cross was introduced in Ireland about 1169 by the son of a Welsh king. In other words, the English themselves got their cross last. The Scotch got theirs in 740, the Irish in 1169 and the English in 1194.
As far as these crosses go, they are anything but English. Why there should be any feeling against the three crosses on the union jack is something I cannot comprehend. So far as the armorial bearings and the shields on our flags go, what is there about them that is English or Scotch or Irish? Again, the old country took advantage of something that was very good; they appropriated it, and finally used it on their flags. I believe it was stated in the circular sent out by the Native Sons of Canada that a flag bearing St. George's cross was the first English flag. No such thing! The early English did not have a flag. The Romans brought their flag to England, on which was a dragon or a lion. The Romans themselves had in turn acquired the symbol of a lion or dragon from Parthia, part of present Russia. In other words, the lions on our flags are not English. Originally they were brought in by the Romans from Parthia.
So it will be at once apparent that we have quite a mixture in our flags. Richard I, following the Norman procedure of having a lion on a flag, placed the Norman lion on the English armorial bearings. Then, how did we happen to get the fleur-de-lis on our flags? No hon. member will say that that is English. No; it is a very beautiful flower, and it is French. It was placed on the English arms by Edward III in honour of his French mother.
We see, therefore, that we have the fleur-de-lis from the French and the harp from
Ireland. I am convinced that the English are certainly a broad-minded and generous race. As I said before, if any race has a right to complain against its own flag, then it must be the English. But they are not complaining; they are just sawing wood, and going ahead. I had expected to see every French Canadian member in the house stand up and speak against the motion. I must say that I could not understand the two hon. members who have already spoken. If they understood that the flag is more French than English they would say, "That is our flag, above any other."
When William the Conqueror landed in 1066 he brought a flag with him. I was anxious to learn what kind of flag he had. Then I searched the records of antiquity to find out what kind of flag the Britons had. Hon. members will recall that, as history relates, it was the Saxon Harold who fought against William. On Harold's flag was found a dragon, copied from the Roman flag. He was supported at Hastings partly by men of Kent, on whose flag there was a white horse. The white horse had been the emblem of the Jutes and Westphalians.
May I point out that if any flag in the world is cosmopolitan, certainly it is the union jack. I say it should be accepted as our land flag, and as our water flag we should retain the red and blue ensign carrying our armorial bearings. Those flags should suit everybody, and all races within our borders.
When William landed in England he carried with him a flag given to him by His Holiness the Pope, a yellow cross on a white field. It has been said that we must have something distinctive. Well, of what should our flag be distinctive? I have listened to speeches over the radio about Canada having a distinctive flag. Of what will it be distinctive, if indeed it is not distinctive of the races which go to make up the people within the borders of the country it represents? About the only race to which it does not refer is the English. It is more French than English. As I pointed out earlier, part of the flag is Parthenian since the lions were Roman, that is Italian and were adopted by the Romans from Parthia. There we have the cosmopolitan flag which should please every Canadian, no matter of what nationality he may be.
There is no other flag like it. Let us see what the other nations have. What will happen if this matter is given to a committee? I cannot help thinking what happened as a result of the splendid speeches made in the South African house. Their resolution was
A Canadian Flag

sent to a committee, and I cannot help thinking what came back from it. Of course I can say that perhaps the Canadian House of Commons is more intelligent than any other, and might bring in a better report. Personally, however, I should be very sorry to see anything of this kind sent to a committee.
Let us see what the other countries have. Most flags consist of either horizontal or perpendicular bars. The majority of them have three bars, and they are of almost all colours of the rainbow. On the flag of Albania there are three bars: crimson, black and crimson. On the Argentine flag there are three horizontal bars: blue, white and blue. The flag of Austria has three horizontal bars: crimson, white and crimson. On the flag of Bolivia we find three horizontal bars: red, yellow and green. The flag of Bulgaria carries three bars: white, green and red. On the flag of Esthonia there are three bars: blue, black and white. The colours are assembled in different ways.
Other nations have the three horizontal bars with an emblem superimposed. Then we come to the natisns with flags having perpendicular bars, and as an instance I refer to the flag of France, with perpendicular bars: blue, white and red. I have found flags of five nations having three perpendicular bars. In addition to these there are the flags with perpendicular bars having emblems superimposed on the centre bar.
We now come to the other types of flags. In this connection we might refer to the flag of Turkey bearing a crescent and a star, and the Egyptian flag with three crescents and three stars. We must not forget Old Glory to the south of us, with its forty-eight stars and thirteen bars. We find throughout the world a combination of stars and bars or bars and bars, either horizontally or vertically arranged.
No other flag has anything near the same combination as has the union jack, or our own red and blue ensign. Traditions behind these flags go back to the remotest past.
I am wondering why it should be necessary to take up more time in the consideration of this motion, and I would suggest that the hon. member sponsoring it might very well withdraw his motion, and let us get on with the business of the house.
By whom has this agitation been brought about? We know it is only an agitation, because the vast majority of Canadians are not as keenly interested in the flag as they are in some other matters. They are much more interested in getting jobs. The people in the western provinces are more interested in the rehabilitation of their farms. If we were

asked to adopt some measures along those lines I am sure we would be more likely to have the support of the unemployed workers in the east and the drought stricken farmers in the west.
However, the motion is before us and we must debate it. The agitation comes principally from an organization known as the Native Sons of Canada. I am a native son of the fourth generation. Although not in a direct line, some of my ancestral family were at Ticonderoga and at Quebec, so I do not have to defend my Canadianism, when it. is compared with that of others who can trace back only one or two generations.
What do the Native Sons of Canada have to say? We find that they sent out a booklet described as A Catechism on Canadian Status, from which I shall quote only a few questions and answers. This is one question:
As Canada now has no national flag-
Notwithstanding the fact that I have proven we have three-
-should it, when adopted, contain the union jack as a part of its design?
The answer is:
No. It would be entirely improper unless placed in the design so as to indicate that it was so placed for sentimental reasons only.
The next question:
Has Canada officially adopted any flag?
And the answer:
She has adopted a flag for the use of the governor general, and one to fly on Canadian government buildings in foreign countries.
Before I forget I should like to correct the mover of the resolution in his reference to Canada House. I went to Canada House many times while I was in London and every time I visited that building I used to crane my neck to see whether a flag was flying. As a rule when people in London want to go to Canada House or to our legation in Paris they do not bother their heads to look to see if the union jack is flying; they simply find out where the building is located, call a taxi at their hotel and are dropped at the door. I am glad to say that Canada House had more union jacks flying during the coronation than any other government building in London that I noticed. There were usually four union jacks flying, and frequently one red ensign. South Africa house always had the South African flag flying, but I might say that I never saw it without a union jack as well. The same applies to the buildings of New Zealand and New South Wales. People are not interested in what flag is flying at Canada House or at the Canadian legation in Paris.

A Canadian Flag
All they are interested in is the business they have to do at these places. I quote again:
Is not the flag flown by the Canadian merchant marine a Canadian flag? No.
That is the answer of the Native Sons of Canada in the face of the fact that two of the official flags in Canada are the governor general's flag and the Canadian red ensign.
The next question reads:
Should either of the two flags mentioned be considered as a Canadian national flag? No. Canada has no national flag.
Well, Canada has a national flag; in fact, it has three of them. The next question reads:
Is it proper that the union jack should be flown over Canadian government buildings? No.
Well, it is proper and it is the law of the land. What does this organization propose as a flag for Canada? I suppose every hon. member has received a copy of this catechism. And on the last page of this circular containing the president's address we are practically told that any man who opposes the adoption of a new flag for Canada should be treated as a traitor. That is fine language to use as regards any member of parliament. The flag proposed by this organization consists of a purple background with a maple leaf and crown thereon. Wherein does such a flag tell of the sentiment of the French Canadians, of the Scotch Canadians, of the Irish Canadians or of the English Canadians? There is not much on it representing what I stand for or what I want on a flag.
The hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) said that he had had a hundred, or was it a thousand flags sent to him? I have had quite a number sent to me, but most of them landed in the wastepaper basket. I show one with the union jack up in the corner and a maple leaf in the centre. A past president of the Native Sons of Canada has this to say:
I would not be a party to anything which, to my mind, would make the union jack appear ridiculous, as it does to me, in the flag of South Africa.
They have a union jack on the flag for South Africa, but it occupies only one-eighty-first of the total area of the flag. I shall not take time to discuss some of the other flags suggested as most of them are just something. This is a report of a statement made by a past president of this organization, Doctor J. Cotton:
"I have refrained for some time from attending meetings and my resignation will be sent in shortly." declared Dr. Cotton. "The original constitution of the native sons was against separation from the British commonwealth and annexation to the United States," he declared, but he added, about a year and a half ago a
catechism was issued through a group in the organization. This literature, he asserted, "would cause any person who is sane to believe that the native sons were against a British connection."
I am not against British connections; I am for British connections. Earlier in the afternoon the hon. member for North Battleford said the vast majority of the people of Canada were for a new flag. The Sons of England is an important organization and some time ago I understand they sent a resolution to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I should like to quote from the Sons of England Record, as follows:
The copy of the proposed Canadian national flag was duly received and considered, and I was instructed to advise you that the members of the supreme council of the Sons of England Benefit Society are strongly opposed to any change in our flag, feeling that the union jack is good enough for Canada and is a flag that we are proud to live under.
That was the letter from the supreme secretary of the Sons of England to the national secretary of the Native Sons at Toronto. The Canadian Legion in my riding passed a unanimous resolution instructing me to oppose this motion. I think some attention should be paid to this organization. I attended a meeting of the United Empire Loyalists at which a resolution was passed endorsing the union jack as the national flag of Canada. Instead of sentiment being for a change, in my judgment it is far stronger against a change.
South Africa has two flags. As an hon. member to my left said, they always have to erect two flagpoles there as the law of South Africa states that the union jack and the union flag shall fly side by side. The Australian flag is made up of a blue ensign with the southern cross. The New Zealand flag is similar, the southern cross being arranged differently. The flag of Brazil also contains the southern cross. I have no fault to find with what has been done in other parts of the empire, but I feel that we have a flag of which we should be proud.
India has a rather attractive flag and one to which I have no objection. It is made up of the union jack with the Star of India on it surmounted by a crown. If the different countries in the empire could decide upon a uniform flag, I would not oppose it particularly. But the way we are going now, with each country adopting a different flag, we are going to end up with a hodgepodge. I made an exhaustive search into the origins of the Indian flag, the Malta flag and the Jamaica
A Canadian Flag

flag. In each case the union jack has been used with the respective coats of arms superimposed.
I should like to close by relating an incident which occurred during my visit to London. Perhaps you, sir, and other hon. members will remember the great banquet which was held by the borough of Westminster. That was one of the most elaborate banquets I have ever attended. There were about 100 tables, with from eight to ten people at each. The government took care to see that there would be visitors from different parts of the empire at each table. A nobleman from Malay sat close to me and I engaged him in conversation. After a speech by one of the great statesmen of South Africa I turned to this gentleman and said, "We have a wonderful empire." He had told me that originally his family were Chinese but they had lived in Malay for ten generations. I tried to write down from memory a few days later just what his reply was, and I shall quote from my note:
Yes, we have a marvellous empire. I often ponder about these islands.
Then, as if pondering, he added these words:
If these islands, with their culture and the knowledge of the arts and sciences, with their love of right, their respect for colour and creed, with their integrity and their valour were to suddenly sink beneath the Atlantic, the nations of Europe in dismay and madness would destroy each other. With Britain's strong restraining hand gone, nation would fly at nation, the last remaining one would be impotent, a shambles. I shudder to contemplate the tragedy that would befall Asia, befall India, befall Malay, should the flag of this country sink to rise no morej
If such a catastrophe as that did happen, Mr. Speaker, it would not matter much what flag was chosen by parliament to fly over this country because whoever got to us most quickly, and was stronger than we were, would see to it that their flag flew over Canada.
I close with the thought with which I commenced when the house met at eight o'clock. In view of the peaceful penetration of this country by the United States, by means of the radio, the press, literature and commerce, we should be very, very careful to do nothing to weaken the traditions upon which this countiy has been built, traditions, as I have tried to point out, that are steeped in the glories of the French, who brought with them from Europe their language and their culture to help build up this nation; and I appeal to my French-Canadian compatriots not to hasten, not to jump and vote

for this resolution, because certainly now is not the time to present a resolution of this kind with the condition this country' is in at present. I appeal also to my hon. friend from North Battleford to withdraw his resolution and concentrate his splendid energies and outstanding ability on supporting measures in this house which will make for the rehabilitation of those fine provinces of the west, and which will at the same time assist in rehabilitating and giving employment to thousands who are now unemployed.


Mr. C. E. BOTHWELL (Swift Current):: Mr. Speaker. I have only two or three thougius to contribute to this debate. I had anticipated that I would have something to answer when the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) had taken his seat, but I am persuaded that the research which he made in the old land during the past summer must have more or less convinced him that the speech he made in the house in 1934 was not entirely right, because it seemed to me as I listened to the hon. gentleman to-night that he did not wax as eloquent or was as fluent as he was over the flag situation three or four years ago.
One expression he used was that the vast majority of the people of this country are not interested in this question of a national flag. When this question first came before the House of Commons back in 1929 or 1930 I was somewhat of the same opinion, but I have changed my mind since then. I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of the people of Canada are interested in this question and are anxious that this parliament should do something towards adopting a national flag for this new nation-Canada.
I had an opportunity this past summer of attending two meetings of people of racial origins other than those of people from the British Isles, and I noted that the flags of the countries to which they originally belonged held a predominating position. I was interested, too, in listening to the speeches that were made at those meetings in connection with the countries from which these people came, and in their statements as to why they came to Canada. They believed that they could better themselves here. They apparently believed that they were going to help build up a new nation on this north American continent; that they themselves were going to play a part in its building up, and I wondered on those occasions why people who came here with such ambitions should not have an opportunity of honouring a national flag in their new land as they honoured the flag of the old land from which

A Canadian Flag
they came. These people now constitute a majority of the people in this country, for according to the 1931 census, the people from the British Isles and their descendants constitute a minority, and I believe that from 1931 onwards that minority will be found to be much smaller than it was in 1931. These people came here and brought with them the best traditions of their race, their best thoughts and culture, and they are trying to assist every other nationality that there may be in this land in building up a new nation in Canada.
I have no doubt, after talking to a good many of these people and their descendants, Who came here from other lands, that- they are prouder of what took place at the imperial conferences of 1926 and 1932 than we who constitute the British stock. They realized they were in a country where they were going to share in building up a new citizenship and a new nation. They are trying to play their part, and we are not being asked to do very much when we are asked to give them an opportunity of honouring a flag that they can use in place of the flag of their old land. Many of these people came from strife-torn Europe. From their childhood they may have been taught to harbour resentment against some other European country. They may not look upon the union jack with just that reverence and honour with which those of British stock view it, but they know it is a British possession-


Frank Exton Lennard: And they should honour it.


Charles Edward Bothwell: And they do. But they may not look upon it with the same honour and respect and reverence that we do. Let us give them an opportunity to develop the pride they have in their new land and in the citizenship they are building for themselves. That is one thought, Mr. Speaker.
The next one came after the coronation ceremonies in England last year. I was interested in reading the newspaper accounts of them, and proud of the part that Canada played, proud to know just how Canada was honoured at that great pageantry of empire. I want to read to the house a few lines penned by a man who used to sit in the press gallery of this house, who happened to be in London at the time, giving his impressions of the position that Canada occupied in British eyes, even though she was the senior member of the commonwealth of nations at that great ceremony. He says:
Most Britons resent Canada sponging on the old land for a flag. Moreover Canada's poverty of national pride (if the British people did not ignore it) would sensibly diminish what might be called the glorious pageantry of empire.
And again:
It was irritating to a Canadian in England during the coronation celebrations to see this bogus Canadian ensign everywhere; to see Canada's ministers of state riding in motor oars on which the Lancashire-made emblem was flown. No doubt, if Premier Mackenzie King and his colleagues had done the right thing they would have asked that these illegal ensigns be taken down and would have pointed out to the British government that Canada did not want a flag of its own but preferred to use the British banner. Such a request almost certainty would have been refused. The British still have a keen sense of national pride. They want their own place in the empire and they would find it impossible to understand why the senior dominion desired to confuse its identity with that of the parent member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who wrote that?


Charles Edward Bothwell: To use a British flag at the great spectacle of the gathering of the empire at the Aldershot tattoo would be to confuse the spectators. Nobody would know that the soldier carrying a second British flag represented Canada . . . Unless a spectator was so close that he could see the maple leaf on their badges, a British flag would mean that here was another regiment of home troops.
In Britain, of course, this is an utterly impossible situation. A Canadian flag, in Britain, is a necessity. If one doesn't exist, it has to be invented. And hence, it is, that the textile manufacturers of the north country have discharged the function of the parliament of Canada and have produced millions of bits of bunting which are sold and displayed as Canadian flags. Incidentally, all the other dominions-Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa have spared Lancashire this trouble.
That was at the coronation, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Whose statement is that?


Charles Edward Bothwell: That was written by Grant Dexter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought so.


An hon. MEMBER:: That damns it.


Frank Exton Lennard: A native son, I suppose.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I hope so. I have no doubt he is. Is the hon. member saying that being a native son is something to be ashamed of?


Mr. YOUNG:: Has the hon. member any objection to a native son?


Frank Exton Lennard: Of that type-yes.


Charles Edward Bothwell: He writes as follows in connection with his journey to the continent and what he saw and heard there:
At Amiens, in the cloistered stillness of the chapel of the cathedral, the Canadian flag question took on a different aspect. Britons, Australians, New Zealanders, Newfoundlanders,
A Canadian Flag

South Africans and Canadians died in the great battle which was fought a few miles to the east of the city in those terrible days of 1918 when the last desperate onrush of German troops threatened to snatch victory from defeat. Southeast of the city, in the little village of Moreul, the name of Canada is written on the hearts of the villagers; they repeat the name Canada as they would the name of the patron saint. Just outside the village are the woods of Moreul which were held by the Canadian cavalry brigade. No country ever paid a higher price in the blood of its manhood for any bit of land than did Canada for these few acres of grass and trees. . . .
One of the leading citizens of the city happened to be in the cathedral when it was visited and volunteered to act as guide. The writer put to him a question which haunts the battlefields. " Do you regard it as a miracle that men from the ends of the earth-from Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, South Africa and elsewhere came here and died in the defence of land that could not possibly have any importance to them?"
	The guide replied, "Yes, a thousand
times yes. These men were called of God in the defence of civilization and we were specially blessed that our lives and our homes were defended. Here in our cathedral we have tried to 6how our gratitude not only to God but to the men who died."
He led the way around the altar to where, on one side of the lady chapel were hung the flags of those countries whose soldiers had stood between Amiens and the invader. He went on to explain that there was no flag for Canada and the people of Amiens deeply regretted this was so. Canada, alone, was missing. But it was not their fault. They had tried to obtain the Canadian flag. They had taken the matter up with the government at Paris and had been told that there was no Canadian flag. It would not be right, he said, to hang a second British flag. He felt and his fellow townsmen felt that this would be unworthy of Canada and. in any case, would be meaningless-since one British flag was there already. If the writer could assure him that there had been any change in this situation, the city of Amiens would write to Paris immediately. Unfortunately no assurances could be given. It did not seem right that the Canadian boys, of all who fell in the battle of Amiens, should not be remembered in this ancient and holy place.
Reading that article by Grant Dexter, I came to the conclusion that if I had an opportunity of speaking on the flag question in the House of Commons at this session I would embrace that opportunity. For the three reasons I have given, I hope that the house will see its way clear to grant the prayer of the resolution and appoint a committee to consider a flag. I also have received many cuts of flags, some of which will provoke discussion to such, an extent that I believe any committee appointed from this house will be able to work out a flag which will truly represent the new nation of the north American continent-Canada.


Mrs. MARTHA LOUISE BLACK (Yukon):: As a life member of the Imperial Order of

the Daughters of the Empire, I feel that I would not be doing my duty if I did not say just a few words on this question.
We are talking of the flag, the union jack, and of foreigners who come to this country. When they came here they came under the protection of the union jack, knowing what the union jack stands for on land and sea in Australia, in New Zealand, in India, in Canada itself. Surely they did not come thinking they were going to live under the protection of a newly made flag. Let those of us who perhaps think the union jack does not mean so much, who may be forgetting what the union jack typifies, what it means, what it holds, reflect that we have the tricolour of France in the red, white and blue; white, for purity of purpose; blue, for tenacity; and red, for steadfastness in time of trouble; the cross of St. Andrew, for the Scots; the cross of St. Patrick, for the Irish; and the cross of St. George, for the English. I ask all hon. members to stop and think before they tamper with the union jack, which has meant so much for ages past.


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (Cochrane):: I want to compliment sincerely and highly the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) upon the attitude and energy he has shown over a good many years in bringing this resolution forward for discussion on the floor of the House of Commons. At first, it is certain, it was a thankless task; but there is no doubt in my mind that the fine ideals he has propounded and the wonderful publicity they have received throughout the length and breadth of this country, through this discussion on the floor of the House of Commons, have brought about a condition of public opinion wherein I am convinced that a majority of the Canadian people would like to have a distinctive Canadian flag, which, from their viewpoint, would consolidate their bonds with the other parts of the British commonwealth.
(Translation). Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer the right hon. the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) my most sincere congratulations on this, the thirty-fourth anniversary of his parliamentary activities in this house. May he be spared for many more happy years to his own family, as well as to the large Canadian community, who look to him with such confidence in the federal field.
(Text). I wish to say a few words to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) for whom I have the greatest respect. For the life of me I do not know why this afternoon he took occasion to cast reflection on the whole House of Commons. It has always been a revelation, to me at any rate, to see the parlia-

A Canadian Flag
mentary system we have in Canada, a system that has been inherited from the mother of parliaments, Great Britain; and one interesting aspect of that system is the provision for private members' day. Apart from the activities of the government, and altogether irrespective of the party in power, it is always possible for members of the House of Commons to bring forward any questions in which their constituents and the countiy are interested and submit them for the consideration of the house. Private members' day is, in my opinion, one of the best safety valves that any democracy could have.
I can assure the hon. member for Davenport that we have not been wasting time in the discussion we have had during the past two weeks in the debate on the address. The hon. member, I suggest, should be the last man to have the audacity to say that during those two weeks we have been wasting the time of the house in discussing the speech from the throne. Of course, it was a foregone conclusion, not only because of the government majority in the house, but also because of the excellence of the legislation forecast in the speech from the throne, that the address would be carried. I did not participate in the debate on the address, but I found it instructive and illuminating. Why? Because, in this wonderful national forum, I could hear the representatives from every part of this far-flung dominion, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, express the views of their electors. Surely the hon. member would not say that those were lost days. The motion could have been voted down in one or two days, but this is an open forum where members can bring forward and discuss any questions they are interested in. There are many other resolutions, besides this one with respect to a distinctive national flag, that will be brought forward on private members' days, and one is glad to think that private members will have an opportunity to present their motions. The provision is a very wise provision, because it gives leeway to private members to present to the nation at large through the House of Commons the views of their particular constituencies, and allows the movers to present their particular viewpoint.
The hon. gentleman said that Newfoundland had no flag. I wish to correct him; Newfoundland has a distinctive flag. There is a union jack on it, and I agree with the statement that there is not a member of this house who would like to see the union jack disappear entirely from the Canadian flag that we shall
have eventually. On the flag of Newfoundland is the escutcheon of that dominion, with the words Terra Nova and other Latin expressions. The hon. member for Davenport was not correctly informed when he said that Newfoundland had no flag.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I do not recall having
said that Newfoundland had not a flag of its own. I did say that the land flag of Newfoundland is the union jack; their merchant marine flag is a red ensign with a coat of arms on it, and the government marine flag is a blue flag with a coat of arms on it. -


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Canada has attained national status; but it has been well said that, unlike Great Britain, our history does not go back into the many centuries of the past; and while the union jack evokes the loyalty of all Canadians it is not a distinctively Canadian flag. So far as I am personally concerned, the tricolour suggests only the flag of France, and if I had any say about the matter I would rather have the flag that was flown under the old royalty. But it does not satisfy us, because they are not and cannot be our flags, these two flags of France.
I do not deplore the fact, as some people seem to do, that our neighbour is the great republic to the south of us. Many hon. members take occasion every now and then to cast slurs on the United States, but in my opinion we need have no regrets at being so close to that country. I do not take a back seat to anyone when it comes to loyalty to British institutions and to the British flag. I have studied the history of Britain and I believe I speak for all French Canadians when I say that they are absolutely loyal to British institutions and their ideals. But at the same time we belong to the British Commonwealth of Nations and Great Britain is absolutely satisfied to recognize our complete status as a nation. In other words, we must realize that the more intensely Canadian we are, the more British we are likely to be.
We have only to read what Lord Darling said when he visited Canada the last time- that the strength of the British Empire lies in the strict independence of its component parts and in its apparent weakness. We are not bound to Great Britain by any bonds of iron and blood. It is one of the striking revelations of modem history that, whereas twenty-one years ago the other nations of the world could not understand how it was possible for the British Empire to hold together without armies of occupation, the common loyalty of the people throughout the empire to the same ideals has been evidenced time and again in recent years. It was not any bonds of iron
A Canadian Flag

and blood that held us to the mother country during the war but purely and simply our common sympathy and the love we have for those "tight little islands" across the sea and what they represent. I myself, as a representative of the minority in Canada, rejoice in our freedom in both creed and language. This is the true spirit that helped to build that wonderful empire; it is the spirit that should animate all parliaments within the empire. Great Britain would be the first to welcome on the part of the Canadian people a distinctive flag of their own.
In August, 1928, during the Olympic games in Holland the governors were surprised, when young Percy Williams covered Canada with glory, winning the 100 metre race, to discover that Canada had no distinctive flag. Surely that is an anomaly.
We hear a good deal that is derogatory of the United States, but it would do many "little" Canadians good to visit that country more. It would not take them long after crossing the border to appreciate how intensely national the people there are, whether they are of German or Polish or any other extraction. They are all Americans, no matter whether their ancestors came from Germany, Ireland, England, or anywhere else. Unhappily, we in Canada do not cultivate that spirit sufficiently. The question has been asked, Who brought the immigrants into the section of the country I come from? Well, it was the old parties, Liberals and Conservatives, that brought them in. We must all share the responsibility in this matter. We are trying to make good Canadians of them, and they will be good Canadians if we give them the opportunity. In my section we have people from all parts of Europe, and they are intensely nationalistic. They have the greatest respect for their own flags, and when they come here they are surprised to find that there is not a distinctive Canadian flag; they cannot understand it. On many occasions I have seen some of these people parading with their own national flags. I asked one man why they did this, and in reply he wanted to know what our Canadian flag was, and said how gladly and quickly he would make it his own.
The hon. member for Davenport says that the legionnaires are opposed to a Canadian flag. I can assure him that there are thousands of fine legionnaires in my riding, and . I know that the great majority of them are in favour of such a flag for the good reason that they are both Canadians and good Britishers.
I also have Sons of England in my constituency, and I have spoken of this problem

to them. I have asked their opinion in regard to a Canadian flag, and almost always they gave me the same answer, that it was absolutely possible and feasible to be good Britishers and still have a distinctive flag for Canada. I am making these statements at this time, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want any innuendoes against the reputation of the Sons of England or any other section of our Canadian population, as all sections are naturally open-minded and broad-minded.
I do not desire to deal further with this subject to-night, Mr. Speaker; but I should like to express the fervent wish that it might be found possible at this session to send this resolution to a special committee, where it might be discussed on its merits, even though no legislation in regard to the matter were introduced this year. Finally may I express the sincere hope that eventually Canada, one of the jewels and the senior member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, will have a distinctive flag which will be absolutely Canadian.
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel); Mr. Speaker, I have only a few remarks to contribute to this enlightening and instructive discussion of a matter which has been brought up in parliament to-day for the first time since I came here in 1936. I want to congratulate the mover (Mr. McIntosh) of the resolution. His presentation of his arguments showed careful preparation and an undeniable conviction behind his sentiments. But, unfortunately, I must say that I was unable to agree entirely with the arguments advanced by the hon. gentleman. I want also to congratulate the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) on his contribution to this debate. I am sure most hon. gentlemen will feel much better after listening to the hon. member for Davenport describe exactly where the various parts composing our flag came from. I think he went back just about as far as any human being could go; I was afraid he would not stop until he had the pillars of King Solomon's temple embedded somewhere in the flag.
What I have to say in regard to this resolution is said entirely in a spirit of toleration and with all good will towards the various nationalities throughout our country who are not of the same racial extraction as myself. I make no apology, however, for belonging to a family which originally came from northern Ireland. At the same time I desire to make my remarks this evening in a spirit of great tolerance, because after all that is one of the things most essential in Canada as far as our national unity

A Canadian Flag
and national progress are concerned. During my remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I made the statement-and I still stick to it-that in this country there is just a little too much talk about national unity and such things and perhaps not quite enough action and work towards that end. I am not so sure that a question so controversial as that raised by this resolution is a proper question to be brought up at this stage of our national development. I am not dogmatic in connection with this matter; I do not profess to have all the solutions for this problem which has been brought before the house, but I do say that we must exercise the greatest care and caution at this time because this is a critical stage in our national life. A controversial issue of this kind-and I think I make this statement in all fairness-which does not affect the very livelihood of the people, their food and shelter, is something which I do not think should be interjected into the proceedings of the house at this time. It is a matter which I think could very well be left over until another time without in any way dealing with the question on its merits, as to whether there should be a change or whether the same old flag should continue to fly over Canada.
I want to give credit to the nobility of impulse and the sincerity of purpose not only of the mover of the resolution and those who have supported it but also of those great bodies of public opinion which no doubt are urging that there should be a change in the flag of our country at this time. I have no intention of casting any aspersions upon those holding such ideas. They may be just as worthy as mine; but I submit, most respectfully, that we should not accept that argument at this time. We must deal with these questions with broad common sense and vision. I have no intention of wrapping myself in the union jack in discussing this matter, nor have I any intention of arousing any latent sentiments which might not do justice either to the resolution or to myself. There are, however, in Canada two very well defined, strong viewpoints held by perfectly sincere and honest people, which viewpoints are diametrically opposed in regard to this question of our flag. While those views are held so strongly, and since this controversy is of such a disputatious nature, I would submit most respectfully that it would be a move in the best interests of Canada if the resolution were withdrawn and not brought up for discussion at this time.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is another cogent reason why the resolution should not 51952-28
be sent on to a special committee. There are many, many questions facing the parliament of Canada to-day. There are many matters of transcendent importance to the people of our land, and I notice that in 1933 the mover of this resolution, the hon. member for North Battleford. had something to say with regard to the withdrawal of his resolution at that time, very similar to what I am going to suggest to-night. I shall not attempt to read all that the hon. member said at that time, but at page 1837 of Hansard of 1932-33 the hon. gentleman said:
... I am going to ask that the house postpone its consideration of this resolution. The fact that many Canadians are without food, clothing and shelter causes me to withhold this resolution until some future occasion when it may be discussed under more auspicious conditions, thus helping rather than perhaps hurting a cause so near and dear to all Canadians strong in their national and empire zeal and faith. When this time rolls around I hope parliament will come to a flag conclusion that will redound to the welfare of this country.
To-night I take a similar view as to the propriety of this discussion. I believe to-day, as at no other time in my brief existence, the people of Canada are looking with eager and very critical eyes, on every move that is made in this parliament, because of the economic stringency through which many have passed and through which hundreds of thousands are still passing. While these matters remain for our consideration and these problems await solution, shall we as a house make ourselves ridiculous by attempting to discuss something which is not putting first things first?
In the resolution the mover, in all fairness and sincerity of purpose, whether deliberately or otherwise has put the cart before the horse. I say the resolution is not fair to those who are urging a change in the flag at this time. I believe the present situation is comparable with one where a city salesman, well dressed and riding in a shiny car, stops at a farmer's gate and, in order to sell the farmer a certain book, enters into conversation with him. The name of the book is Farming, And How To Make It Pay. At this particular time the farmer is trying to get the last two loads of hay out of the field before the rain clouds open. Without any reflection upon the book or the salesman, it is evident that a most inopportune time was chosen to make the sale, and the salesman was not likely to receive a warm welcome.
A comparable situation exists with respect to the resolution before us. I would implore the hon. member for North Battleford not to bring the matter before a special committee, because I believe the time is inopportune.

[DOT]134
A Canadian Flag

Whatever may be the merits or demerits of the resolution-and there is scarcely a resolution in which good and bad could not be found-I believe this is not the proper time for discussion.
Although I do not intend to enter into detail, I should like to point out, by way of caution and warning, that it is going to take all the tolerance, all the care and all the patriotism at the command of the Canadian people or a committee of parliament to evolve a flag which would meet with such widespread approval as the flag we now have. I leave that as a word of caution, because after all we have to be most careful in making changes of this kind. When it is a matter of bettering the conditions of our people I am certainly in favour of change, but may I close by saying simply that we can work towards bettering those conditions under the old flag. Let us leave the old flag as it is, without changing to a new one at this time.
Mr. T. J. O'NEILL (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, may I congratulate the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) upon the able manner in which he presented the resolution to the house. I wish I had the powers of oratory displayed by hon. members who have spoken. At least in some respects I agree with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and if by refraining from speaking on the question it were possible to relieve the distress of the many thousands in Canada who need help, I would take my seat at once. However, that would not follow.
I noticed, as the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) said, that for the past two weeks we discussed an amendment to the address in reply to the speech from the throne, well knowing that the address would be adopted. Despite our knowledge of that fact, ten days of the time of the house were taken up in a discussion of the amendment.
It seems to me that Canada has assumed the responsibilities of a nation, and she has the right to make decisions regarding her participation in world affairs. That right is vested in Canada's parliament, without regard to the decisions of the mother country. I was born in Canada. My father and mother were born in Canada. My grandfathers and grandmothers, great grandfathers and great grandmothers all came from Ireland. I am proud not only of the fact that I was born in Canada but, too, of my Irish ancestry. The Irish have always contended that it was their right and privilege to fight within the empire. But when the empire is attacked from without, that is another matter entirely. I have no fear for the loyalty of Canadian people.

It would be quite impossible to decide upon a flag which would meet the approval of all the people. It is not so long ago that "O Canada" was not sung at the opening or closing of concerts. Eventually people found out that the singing of "O Canada" would not make them disloyal to the empire, but that on the contrary it was an indication that they were more loyal. Then we entered into a controversy as to what version of "O Canada" would be sung. Even to-day all people are not united on that point. Eventually we shall all sing one version, but in the meantime the empire will not be disrupted nor will Canada be charged with disloyalty.
I cannot see why Canadians could be considered less loyal or less British if they were to have a distinctive Canadian flag. Last summer we were visited by the South African Lawn Bowling Club, and the members who came to Canada were amazed to find out that we have not a flag. Many designs have been suggested, and of course I have personal preferences. I should like to see the union jack and the maple leaf embodied in the new Canadian flag.
However I am more interested in the principle. The principle involved is that Canada should have a distinctive Canadian flag, and I think that this session of parliament should not dissolve without recognizing that principle. For these reasons I have much pleasure in supporting the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, mention has been made during this debate of the fact that the resolution we are now considering has been brought forward in previous sessions, and that much of what has been said has been a repetition of previous discussions. In my opinion that is all to the good and, in view of the subject under consideration, most fortunate.
Wherever there is a suggestion of change or a suggestion of departure from custom, numbers of people find such a course unpleasant even to contemplate. It is only by degrees that many of us find it possible to free ourselves from that to which we have grown accustomed. The arguments which have been urged against having a distinctive Canadian flag have to a great extent been arguments associated with profound sentiment and tradition. While these considerations are admirable in themselves, they are not necessarily decisive. Especially in times of change, we must look not only to the past but also to the future.
II consider it fortunate, that the resolution has come before the house as a private member's motion. As has been said by one hon.



[Stage Direction]
A Canadian Flag
I member, when the subject is presented in this { wnv hon. members generally have a sense of greater freedom of discussion. It removes the possible feeling of restraint which a government measure might occasion and permits much more in the way of a free and frank expression of view than -would otherwise be the case.	I agree with the hon. member for
Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) when he says that, -this debate has been characterized by an^ expression of views which will be distinctly helpful in the forming of public opinion on this all important question.
I should like to congratulate the hon. member for North Batt.leford (Mr. McIntosh) for having brought forward his resolution thus early in the session, and particularly upon the admirable manner in which he has presented the arguments pro and con. I shall not attempt in any way to review the discussions which took place on similar resolutions in previous years as those debates have been admirably covered by the hon. member for North Battle-ford. I would like, however, to call attention to the wording of the resolution. I was surprised to hear some hon. members express the opinion that the adoption of this resolution meant an immediate decision upon a design for a distinctive national flag. The question of design is entirely apart from anything that appears in the resolution. The resolution simply calls for a declaration as to the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag. If a committee is appointed and reports favourably upon the adoption of a distinctive national flag, and the committee's report is adopted, the question of design would then come up at a later time. The resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations.
The important words are "the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag." I cannot see why any hon. member of the house should be at all fearful about leaving to a committee of this house the consideration of the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag. The committee would be called upon to consider the expediency of making a declaration of that kind at this particular time. Undoubtedly it would take into account the fact that there may be considerable difficulty in getting agreement as to what design should ultimately be adopted for a distinctive Canadian flag. The possibility of such disagreement might conceivably be regarded as being so important that it might seem to the committee inadvisable to recOm-
-51952-28J
mend the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag. Personally I do not think that such would be the case. All that the house is being asked to do at the present time is to permit a committee of its members to view the situation from as many angles as possible and to report back as to whether or not they feel the time has come when Canada should adopt a distinctive national flag.
The historic facts in reference to Canada's flag are really most pertinent in a consideration of this matter. They afford strong reasons, it seems to me, why we should feel that the time has come when Canada should have a distinctive national flag. There are also practical reasons of necessity which make this desirable.
Let me briefly outline a few of the facts. I shall seek to set them forth in as concise language as I can. Following the conquest, British immigrants to Canada brought with them the British flag and it was everywhere recognized as the emblem of the colonies as of the mother country. After 1801, the union flag, more commonly known as the union jack, became the flag of the empire. This situation remained unaltered until after confederation.
Some hon. members on the other side of the house have been speaking as though the union jack had always been the flag of Britain. A great deal of what they'themselves quoted went to show that only in comparatively recent times has the union jack been the flag of Britain. Only in 1801 did the union flag, commonly known as the union jack, become the flag of different parts of the empire.
After the formation of the Dominion of Canada the desirability of having a distinctive flag for use on Canadian government vessels became apparent and by order in council of February 28. 1870, the blue ensign, defaced by the Canadian coat of arms, was adopted for this purpose. This was confirmed in the King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, Article 123. In other words, a distinctive Canadian flag was found to be necessary with regard to government vessels and an order was passed as many years ago as 1870 to require that the blue ensign, defaced by the Canadian coat of arms, should be adopted for this purpose.
As long ago as 1870 we came to have a third flag, a recognition also of the necessity of having a distinctive flag. There were government vessels, but there wras also a merchant marine. With the expansion of the merchant marine the lack of a Canadian flag caused frequent difficulties and after some discussion
A Canadian Flag
[Stage Direction]
the Lord's Commissioners of the Admiralty, were prevailed upon to issue a warrant, dated February 2, 1892, authorizing vessels registered in Canada "to wear the red ensign of Her Majesty's fleet with the Canadian coat of arms on the fly thereof."
This practice was confirmed in 1934 in the Canada Shipping Act, 24-25 George V, 1934, chapter 44, section 89. For some years after 1892, this flag was also in practice used on land as the Canadian flag and is indeed still employed in that way by many private citizens. After protests had been made, its use on government buildings in Ottawa was discontinued in 1904 and the union jack was hoisted in its place. Until 1904 we were flying the red ensign on most of the public buildings of Canada.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With the arms of Canada on the fly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is right. In that year the practice was adopted of flying the union jack.
How was it that the union jack came to be called the official flag of Canada? It is interesting to note that apparently the union jack was never declared officially to be the flag of Canada until 1911. On April 12 of that year Colonial Secretary Harcourt addressed an official dispatch to the Governor General of Canada declaring that the union jack should be flown on land as the Canadian flag.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the reason it is
on this building.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the
reason it is on this building. In the days when that office was still in existence, the colonial secretary indicated to the governor general of this country the flag that was to be used. But the office of colonial secretary has ceased to exist in so far as it is applicable to Canada. There remains of course a colonial secretary, but he no longer has to do with the affairs of the self-governing parts of the empire. For this purpose a new office has been created, that of secretary of state for the dominions. I would respectfully point out that there is a vast significance in this change of office, a significance which has its application to the question under discussion at the moment. The question is whether or not Canada, as a self-governing dominion with equality of status with Great Britain and the other self-governing dominions, should not have, as they have, a distinctive flag, instead

of having a flag which is the flag of the colonies of Great Britain and of none of the dominions save our own.
In 1911, under a memorandum of agreement between the British Admiralty and the Canadian government, ships of the Royal Canadian Navy were instructed and authorized to fly tne white ensign at the stern and the blue ensign, with the coat of arms of Canada on the fly, at the jack staff. This was confirmed by Canadian government order in council of December 16, 1911.
Difficulties having arisen in Canadian government offices abroad, due to the lack of a distinctive Canadian flag, an order in council dated January 26, 1924, was passed, authorizing the flying of the red ensign, with the Canadian coat of arms on the fly, "from all buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian government and situated without Canada."
So we have to-day the curious anomaly that the flag, which we fly in Canada as the official flag, is flying by virtue of some direction which came from the colonial secretary in Great Britain, whereas the flag, which Canada flies as her own flag on buildings outside Canada, is a different flag and is flown by virtue of an order in council which was passed by the government of Canada itself. If there were no other reason, I think that fact of itself makes it apparent that the time has come when a distinctive national flag, if one can be agreed upon, is in every way desirable so far as Canada is concerned.
Now what about the emblem itself that appears on the flag? The Canadian coat of arms used on the various flags consisted until March 31, 1924, of a shield upon which were quartered the arms of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. On that date, as late as 1924, the new Canadian coat of arms which had been assigned to the dominion by royal proclamation on November 21, 1921. was authorized for use on the flags. Thus, the Canadian flag itself, so-called, when it is officially used in this way, is one that has undergone considerable change in recent years.
Hon. members who were in this house some sessions ago may recall that in 1925 the government announced the appointment of a committee of civil servants to consider the question of a distinctive Canadian flag. That committee had been set up by one of the government departments, the Department of National Defence. The fact that such a committee was set up at all may serve to illustrate one of the practical needs of a distinctive national flag so far as Canada is concerned. I have drawn attention to the fact that the British Admiralty found the necessity of having a distinctive Canadian flag so far as

A Canadian Flag
Canada's merchant marine was concerned. As flying developed in this country, the members of the air forces felt that it was desirable, in connection with the manoeuvres in which they would have to engage, that there should be some distinctive Canadian flag associated with their service. As hon. members know, there are, on occasions, manoeuvres when the forces are interchangeable as between different parts of the empire, for purposes of training, exhibition and the like. To distinguish the forces of one part of the empire from those of another in these manoeuvres it became obviously desirable that there should be a distinctive flag.
It so happened that the departmental committee which I mentioned a moment ago had a complexion which was not wholly congenial to all parts of the house and the country. It was a mere accident that it so happened that all of its members were found to be of one religious persuasion. Immediately a section of the press of our country interpreted that circumstance as evidence in itself of some evil design. It was therefore thought advisable that the committee should be discontinued, as it was shortly after its formation. But the purpose of the committee was a thoroughly practical, a thoroughly good and a thoroughly necessary one, namely, to see if it were not possible to work out some distinctive flag that could help meet the needs of the forces of the Canadian Department of National Defence. The fact that some years ago it was thought desirable, from the point of view I have indicated, to have the question of a distinctive Canadian flag considered by a committee of civil servants, seems to me to make it desirable that parliament should not delay longer in seriously considering the question, and at least taking the first necessary step to ascertain whether agreement can be reached as to the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag. I believe the fact that the committee made the venture it did, in the circumstances it did, has operated to postpone further consideration of the question in a way which otherwise would not have taken place. The suggestion that a committee of this house should consider the matter ought to make it possible for us to ensure the personnel of the committee being as representative as possible of all shades of opinion in this house. Such a course will enable the first step to be taken, certainly without any danger, and with a great deal to commend it.
There are many positive disadvantages and difficulties existent to-day in not having a distinctive Canadian flag. Certain of these
have been mentioned in the course of the debate to-day. Perhaps I may briefly summarize the outstanding ones.
First of all there is the necessity of a Canadian flag for use on Canadian official buildings abroad. I ask hon. members, if Canada is to have legations, and I assume that we shall expand our legations rather than contract them, if we are to have commercial offices in different parts of the world, is it not also desirable for us to have a distinctive flag of our own to fly over them? As it is. we have for the purpose only a make-shift flag to-day. We are not using abroad our national flag, the flag that is the national flag at home, the union jack. At the present time the Canadian marine flag is flown over official Canadian premises abroad.
We are thus faced with the anomalous situation of the Canadian government using one flag in foreign countries and another flag at home. This is an absurdity to be found in the practice of no other country.
On the other hand, would any hon. member suggest that we should have flying from the Canadian legation in Washington, for example, the same flag that flies from the British embassy in Washington? Take the position in Tokyo. Are we to have the same flag flying from our legation there as flies from the British embassy? The same thing applies in Paris. London itself makes the need even more self-evident. Are we to have flying from the Canadian building in London, in the heart of the city, simply the union jack, while across Trafalgar Square you see the flag of South Africa, and a little further along Northumberland street the distinctive flags of Australia and New Zealand? And where there are other government offices representative of other parts of the empire, you see their distinctive flags flying from their buildings. The very fact that we are confronted now with that situation seems to me to make it imperative that we should not longer delay consideration of the advisability of having a distinctive Canadian flag.
Mention has been made of our war memorials in France, in Belgium, in Great Birtain and elsewhere. The hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) read this evening some dispatches which bear out notes I had made to the effect that correspondents have frequently pointed out that in cathedrals in Europe, where the flags of the allied powers have been enshrined in memory of the men who fell in the Great war, no Canadian flag is to be found, although the name of Canada is included in the inscription which
A Canadian Flag

accompanies the flags. So long as the union jack is the only official Canadian flag available for such use, the dominion will continue to be unrepresented, because the union jack will already have been used to represent the United Kingdom.
Then there is the matter of the necessity of a distinctive flag for use at international conferences. At all such meetings, when the United Kingdom is represented, the union jack will be used by the delegates from London. Even when the United Kingdom is not represented, the union jack is indelibly associated with that country in the minds of foreign observers, and its use will not gain for Canada the distinctive recognition which a national flag is supposed to evoke. When both London and Ottawa are represented at such international gatherings, the use of the union jack by the Canadian delegates will tend to identify them as part of the United Kingdom delegation. Such use might well be resented by the representatives of the United Kingdom. We had this extraordinary anomaly at the time of the coronation and of the recent imperial conference, that when my colleagues and myself arrived in London we were met at the station by representatives of the British government who told us that they had placed automobiles at our disposal for the time of the coronation and the conference, as was done in Ottawa by the government of the day for the delegates who came here on the occasion of the conference of
1932.	Over the radiator of each of these automobiles was a Canadian red ensign. We were told that that flag had been put there so as to distinguish our cars from those of the other self-governing dominions and from the cars used by members of the British government. All the time we were in London we were, by the act of the British government itself, expected, wherever we went, if we were travelling by motor to travel in a car which carried, not the flag which on the authority of the British government is the flag of Canada within the dominion, but the flag which is flown outside the dominion and flown, not as is the case with the union jack in Canada itself, but under an order in council of our own government making a different provision. That of itself, as I have already remarked, is a most curious anomaly. It shows the necessity-the necessity from the point of view of the British government as well as our own-of Canada having a distinctive flag. I cannot see wherein there is any sacrifice of sentiment or loyalty in the desire on the part of its citizens that one's country should be known in other parts of the empire or in other countries of the world.
(Mr. Mackenzie King.)
There may have been a time when we were a colony, under the old colonial status, when we would perhaps have wished to use a flag that was symbolical, not only of the mother country, but of all the colonies as well. Having, however, reached the status of full nationhood, it becomes essential, if we are to be distinguished from other nations of the commonwealth, not to mention colonial possessions, that we have a distinctive flag of our own.
Reference has also been made this evening to the need for a distinctive flag at international athletic meets. At the Olympic games and the empire games, Canada in practice is now represented by the marine flag and not by the national flag. There is nothing to justify such abnormal practice except necessity. No other dominion and no other country would think of being so represented. At the Antwerp Olympic games in 1928 the confusion over the Canadian flag caused a great deal of trouble and no little annoyance.
I have already referred to the need of a distinctive flag by the Canadian defence services at home and abroad. When details of the Canadian military forces appear at home or abroad they carry the union jack as their national flag. This means that by many they are identified with or mistaken for imperial British forces, unless the observer is close enough to see the maple leaves on the uniforms, whereas the defence services of other dominions are all readily recognizable where they appear, as at the recent coronation services and other great occasions.
The red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms is used at sea. Surely it is absurd to argue that a distinctive flag for use on land is a sign of disloyalty when a distinctive flag is already in use on the sea.
I would conclude this part of what I have to say with the observation that the continued use of the union jack gives a false impression abroad, and particularly in the country immediately adjoining. The use of the union jack on anything that is distinctively Canadian in the United States does not help to emphasize the individuality of this country or its distinct nationality; it helps to submerge them altogether.
I do submit that, viewing the matter historically, viewing the matter sentimentally, or in any other way, the argument all lies in favour of recognizing that the time has come when we should very seriously consider the adoption of a Canadian national flag. I would point out that as our constitutional development has undergone considerable change, it is only appropriate that there should be in connection with that statutory change the change

A Canadian Flag
in other particulars which may be necessary to make distinctive in the eyes of the world the different dominions which now have the equality of status of which we speak so frequently.
There is no doubt that the great war more than anything else was responsible for developing a strong national sentiment. I believe that those who served overseas for the most part came back more zealous than any other proportionate element in our country to have a distinctive flag which would designate their own forces and help to let Canada stand henceforth in the place in w'hich she has the right to stand.
Coming to developments which followed the great war, developments on constitutional lines, we had first, as the most prominent of the declarations, relative to our position as a nation, the report of the imperial conference of 1926, which made quite clear the position which Canada along with the other dominions had attained. This report has been referred to frequently in previous sessions of other parliaments, but there are in the present house many hon. members who were not here in the last parliament, and it might be of interest to them, in this particular connection to hear words that appear in the prefatory part of this report of the interimperial relations committee, which was a committee of the imperial conference of 1926. Perhaps I should preface the reading of what I wish to quote, by saying that the chairman of that committee was the late Lord Balfour, as great an imperialist, possibly, as the British Empire had, but a great political philosopher as well, and one who was capable not only of viewing the past but also of glimpsing something of the developments of the future. The wording of this report seems to me to disclose the wisdom of this country speedily making a decision with respect to a flag which will be distinctive in its nature. The report reads:
The committee are of opinion that nothing would be gained by attempting to lay down a constitution for the British Empire. Its widely scattered parts have very different characteristics, very different histories, and are at very different stages of evolution; . . .
That is a point to which I wish to call attention particularly. The colonies are still at the colonial stage, they are still using the union jack which is the flag of the mother country; but the self-governing dominions, with the single exception of Canada, have all distinctive flags of their own. The report goes on, referring to the empire:
-while, considered as a whole, it defies classification and bears no real resemblance to any other political organization which now exists or has ever yet been tried.
There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development-we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
A foreigner endeavouring to understand the true character of the British Empire by the aid of this formula alone would be tempted to think that it was devised rather to make mutual interference impossible than to make mutual cooperation easy.
Such a criticism, however, completely ignores the historic situation. The rapid evolution of the overseas dominions during the last fifty years has involved many complicated adjustments of old political machinery to changing conditions. The tendency towards equality of status was both right and inevitable. Geographical and other conditions made this impossible of attainment by the way of federation. The only alternative was by the way of autonomy; and along this road it has been steadily sought. Every self-governing member of the empire is now the master of its destiny.
I submit that, if these words had been used by a Canadian member of parliament a few years before this particular document was written, whoever had used this language would by not a few have been written down immediately as a separatist, as disloyal to the empire, and as wishing to make Canada a country apart from it altogether. The thought that we were masters of our own destiny seemed to be abhorrent to the minds of many of our people, who contended that the destiny of Canada could and should be determined only by what might be agreed upon overseas. That day fortunately has long since passed. Canada has come to feel that it is a national entity and that it is entitled to have its national individuality and characteristics known and respected and honoured as they should be in the eyes of the other nations of the empire and of the other countries of the world.
In considering the development which has taken place in the status of this dominion, we are not only justified at this time but are obligated to think very seriously of every aspect of nationhood and of what is essential to the assertion of it. Far from being a cause for separation, or a thought of separation, we should feel, and I believe we do strongly feel, that our national freedom, the free expression of our national characteristics and aims and purposes, is of all ties the one that holds us
A Canadian Flag

the most closely within that circle of communities which form the British Commonwealth of Nations.
What is embodied in this resolution of the imperial conference of 1926 later found expression in the Statute of Westminster. The Statute of Westminster sets forth very definitely certain alterations made in order to remove anachronisms which in one way or another were unsuited to the new relationship of empire as they have developed. There is a more recent development, which lends a new emphasis to the subject we are discussing to-day. I refer to the wording of the oath administered at the coronation of King George VI and sworn to by his majesty himself. On that occasion, for the first time, His Majesty the King undertook, with respect to the relations of the crown to the dominions, to govern each of them according to its own laws and customs, and the coronation oath specifically enumerates the different dominions. I made a reference to this when speaking on the address. May I read to the house anew the oath which was administered to His Majesty King George VT, the obligations of which he promised solemnly to fulfil:
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, of your possessions and the other territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, and of your Empire of India, according to their respective laws and customs?
Thus His Majesty the King declared that he would govern Canada according to her particular laws and customs, exactly in the same manner as he would govern Great Britain according to her own laws and customs. Why should not custom of all self-governing dominions be the flying of a distinctive flag that helps to identify one from the other?
Please note that all of the other self-governing dominions already have their distinctive flags. We are not now debating the question whether or not there should be one flag for the whole empire. That question has already been settled by the facts of the case. I believe it was the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNieol) who said that he would like to see one flag for the whole empire. Perhaps a good many would. But that is not the point at issue; it does not come up at this time and is not likely to come up for the reason that already Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, the Irish Free State and India has each a distinctive flag of its own. The Dominion of Canada is the one exception. The point we have to consider is whether or not we should longer remain the one exception, the one self-governing part of

the whole British Empire that has not thought it advisable to adopt a national flag. That is the question, and it seems to me that in the light of the past and having regard to the future the question admits of only one answer, which is that the time has come when we should adopt a distinctive national flag.
The perspective of years makes it essential that we should consider at this time the very important question that is now before us, Canada is a growing country. She is going to increase in world influence as well as in numbers and in wealth. She will need more and more her own national emblpm.. Moreover, we can consider this question now more opportunely, I believe, than at any other time. I suggest that it is important always to bear in mind that there are times and seasons for all things. There have been times in the past when to bring forward a resolution such as the one now before us would have been to create misunderstanding as to motive, a misunderstanding in other parts of the world as to the significance of the motion itself. I might go so far as to say that had Canada been the first to take such a step, her action might have been misunderstood in other parts of the empire and of the world. If Australia had not already adopted a national flag; if New Zealand had not already adopted one; if South Africa and the south of Ireland had not already adopted their own distinctive flags, then there might be some reason for hon. members to say, "Let us be careful lest we set a precedent which will be followed in other parts of the empire and lead perchance to the dismemberment of the British Commonwealth of Nations." But the fact is that as a result in part of each having its own distinctive flag the other members of the . commonwealth have come to have a new pride, not only in their respective countries but in that free association which they together enjoy in the British Empire. In these circumstances, the question for us to decide is whether so far as this matter is concerned we shall remain in our present state of isolation, or, like them, adopt for ourselves a flag which shall be the emblem of our distinct personality as a people.
Let me conclude with these words. There has never been a time, I believe, when the relations between Canada and the mother country were so cordial, so completely friendly, helpful and cooperative in every way as they are at the present time. The present is the time, then, to consider this question. It will not be disposed of, in my opinion, until it is settled in Canada as it has been in the other dominions. If we do not settle it now, some issue may arise in the

A Canadian Flag
course of a few years which will provoke another discussion and lead to the settlement of the question in a manner that may be misunderstood elsewhere. To-day there is no possible danger of misunderstanding on the part of anyone in this country, in Britain, in Europe or elsewhere in the world, as to what Canada has in mind in seeking to have a distinctive national flag.
So, Mr. Speaker, I feel we are greatly indebted to the hon. member for North Battle-ford who has brought forward this resolution at this time. I hope the hon. members who have expressed quite sincerely their views in opposition to it will feel, once they understand that the motion does not go as far as they thought it did, namely the length of deciding at this time on the design of a national flag but only asks that a committee be appointed to consider whether the time is not opportune for adopting a distinctive flag, that they may support the resolution and allow it to be unanimously adopted.


Richard Langton Baker: Mr. Speaker,
I have no intention of addressing the house on this question. I think the matter has been quite fully covered, but in case the resolution should be adopted I should like to offer a suggestion to the mover. I am not declaring my stand on the resolution itself; that is not necessary until the time comes, but I should like to know if the mover would be willing to add the words "with the union jack prominently included in the adopted-design," so that the resolution would read:
-adopting a distinctive Canadian flag with the union jack prominently included in the adopted design-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The committee might include that if it wished.


Richard Langton Baker: Then it would be obligatory on the committee to include the union jack in that design. If that could be done I think it would be a sound step, and I make the suggestion in the interests of safety.


Richard Bedford Bennett: of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag-
With all deference to my hon. friends who take a different view, I cannot see that the house should not set up a committee to consider the advisability of anything. I see
A Canadian Flag

no reason why it should not. Just why the House of Commons should not name a committee to consider the advisability of adopting a distinctive flag by the Canadian people I cannot see. I confess that I may be very wrong in the view I take, but surely the house can safely ask a committee to consider the advisability of a distinctive flag. It will be observed that the resolution does not go further than that; it states:
-for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion as an equality partner in the British commonwealth of nations.
The last part is surplusage, as far as the resolution is concerned; I think that would be agreed at once. All that we are asked to do is to name a committee to consider the advisability of this action being taken, not to determine what the action shall be. I was surprised that the hon. member should have put forward his resolution in those terms, for Mr. Dickie's resolution was far, far wider than that. As will be remembered, Mr. Dickie's resolution provided for the flag itself. I referred to it a moment ago, and I might take time to read it again in order that there may be no misunderstanding. Mr. Dickie's resolution was as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, a national flag representing the Dominion of Canada should be adopted; and that in any design for a Canadian flag the union jack must he conspicuous.
That resolution did two things. First it said, "We must pass a resolution for the adoption of a Canadian flag," and, second, it said that in that flag the union jack should occupy a conspicuous place. That language was used, with respect to the latter part of that quotation, by the present Prime Minister himself, as well as by the hon. member for North Battleford. In view of what has been said I can see no reason why in the interests of harmony it might not be well for the hon. gentleman, with the consent of the house, to add those words to his resolution. Offences must need come, but woe unto him through whom they cometh. If by adopting the suggestion which has been made any difficulties would be overcome, I think it might be well that the suggestion should be acted upon.
Upon the large question, I expressed an opinion in the house some years ago that I believed it was desirable, as I do to-night, that the country should have some flag by which it could distinguish itself from other parts of the world. But that question is not one which should be debated in the house.
The resolution does not deal with that. It asks that a committee-not this chamber- consider the advisability. When the coin-
mittee has made its report it will then be for the chamber to consider whether or not that report will be adopted. The history of the flag, its use on sea and land, have been considered here to-night. But I would like to say to the Prime Minister that if he will look into the matter he will find that a colonial secretary did not send a dispatch to the parliament of Canada, without correspondence having taken place. Sir Wilfrid Laurier at that time was contemplating going to the imperial conference, and one of the problems which confronted them had to do with our naval force.
The question was plainly put as to what flag should fly, for instance, on our parliamentary buildings, when we were in session. Although my memory is not sufficiently clear on the point at this time, I know it was not a bolt from the blue on the part of the colonial secretary as to what the flag should be. Colonial Secretary Harcourt did not do business in that way. What was done was in response to an inquiry, just as in the case of the +able of precedence, and other questions, when requests are made of the colonial office. The colonial secretary transmitted his views to the governor general.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But it was the colonial secretary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course. Nobody else could do it at that time. They ask the king; the king refers it to his government, and the colonial secretary is of course the person who makes the reply to-in those days-the governor general direct, and to no one else. That has all been changed, of course.
There was one observation made, not by the Prime Minister but by another hon. member, which should be corrected. The flag which floats on government house is the king's flag. It was settled by the king himself, and it is the flag which floats in every dominion and every union under the sovereignty of the king. It is called the king's flag because he settled the terms of it, and wherever his representative may be it is supposed to float, whether on this building, or on a building at St. John or at Halifax, or wherever it may be. In South Africa, for instance, on the one side it bears the words "The Union of South Africa" in English, and on the other side in Dutch. In this country it bears the single word "Canada," which is the same in English and in French, and there is no question of the use of different words.
That flag is a flag which was settled by the king, and is the flag which floats over the residence of the governor general, wherever he may be, whether in the capital city or some-

A Canadian Flag
*where else. But that has nothing to do with the question we are discussing to-night. It is a personal flag, given by the king to his governor general, and practically holds his power of attorney, indicating that he is the representative of the sovereign.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not called the royal standard?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is an entirely
different matter. The royal standard is flown only by the sovereign himself. His representative does not fly it in the dominion. It was to obviate any discussion of that character that the king's flag was settled.
I do not propose to discuss the merits or demerits of claims which may be made before a committee, but I do propose to vote for the formation of a committee. It seems to me almost monstrous that the House of Commons should deny the right of a committee to consider the advisability of our taking any step in the world. Some years ago, for instance, the hon. member for Wellington North (Mr. Blair) introduced a resolution as to how criminals should be executed, and there was a reference to a committee to consider the advisability or otherwise of the action he suggested being taken.
To-night we deal with an entirely different matter, namely the question of a flag, and the advisability of the use of it. I can quite understand the conflict of sentiment in the minds of men surveying a matter of this kind. After all, however, it does seem that we should have some method by which to identify ourselves in the eyes of those who look upon our bunting as it floats in the wind.
I visited Australia and New Zealand some months ago, and it would be a brave man indeed who would say that New Zealand was lacking in loyalty to the British crown. Yet New Zealand has a distinctive flag which it has adopted for a definite purpose. Australia, too, has a distinctive flag, and I do not think the casual observer would state that there is less devotion and loyalty to the British crown in Australia than in Canada. In fact, I think it possible that the opposite view might be taken. Those countries found -no difficulty in selecting their flags. In South Africa there was a real difficulty, and they might as well be frank to admit it. A committee was appointed, and out of the discussion in that committee there came some results. There was a good deal of acrimonious talk, but in the end there came two flags.
A very large union jack is fastened on the wall of their parliament buildings, side by side with their own flag. As has been properly pointed out before, both flags fly over the official residences, and at points where justice is administered in the different parts of the union.
There were grave difficulties to be overcome. The blacks, numbering about six million, as against two million whites, were insistent that the union jack be preserved. They had their reasons. They remembered the early days of settlement when the Boers looked upon the black men as the children of Ham, and as servants to them as lords and masters. They strongly insisted that this flag be maintained. That is the reason I take it, among others, that it finds some place, although not a very prominent one, in the flag of South Africa.
Mr. Speaker, I would be needlessly taking up the time of the house if I were to discuss. as I almost had the inclination to do, many other matters arising from this one. But the resolution before us is one for the naming of a committee for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag. To that resolution I have no difficulty in giving my assent.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in this parliament nothing is being done for the people of Canada, I am not surprised that this should be the first motion on private members' days. After the appointment of all these committees and commissions, the House of Commons almost becomes a house of caretakers, for we have no powers or prerogatives; our functions have been usurped by commissions.
The discussion on the flag is not new, nor is the suggestion of a distinctive flag for Canada. May I point out that in the last few days twenty-eight dead soldiers have been buried by the chaplain of Christie Street hospital, their bodies bound by the union jack. That flag was good enough for 600,000 soldiers who fought for you and me in France and Flanders, and it should be good enough for the civilians who stayed at home.
This is not the time to bring forward such a motion. To-day I received twenty-five letters from housewives in Toronto who are complaining about the high cost of food and of living, and instead of talking about a new flag for Canada we might reconstitute the mass buying and spreads committee to deal with it. Many people are carrying the black flag. In my riding the people are up in arms about the high cost of living. They
A Canadian Flag

want to know what is going to be done about butter at 38 cents a pound and other necessities. We should not be considering a distinctive Canadian flag; we should be considering the black flag that is facing so many of the working classes of this country.
This resolution talks about the dominion being "an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations." Was Canada present to-day or represented at the opening of the great dock at Singapore? New Zealand, Australia, the United States and France were there, but where was Canada,-Canada which was first in the diamond jubilee procession in the days of Sir Wilfrid Laurier who claimed to have made Canada a nation? I doubt if he would approve of the flag changes which are to be made under the auspices of this new twentieth century Liberalism which we have in this country.
If this is the most important motion to be brought up by a private member, I am willing to withdraw the resolution standing in my name so that we may get on with our business and abolish private members day. As I say, this is the third time such a resolution has been brought up since I have been in the house. In 1935, a resolution was moved by a member of the Conservative party. At one time, June, 1925, I asked certain questions about a national flag and I found out that a committee of seven civil servants had been appointed to consider the matter, all of the one religious denomination, although all good men. I believe the time is not ripe for a motion such as this.
I do not know whether Canada is in the British Empire or not. It has been contended by some of these professors in our universities and colleges and some on these commissions that Canada does not belong to the British Empire. This is what has been told to the students at McGill university and the university of Toronto, that we are a sovereign state by the Statute of Westminster. Just the other day we had quite a debate on the first reading of a bill to take away the right of appeal to the privy council. I think we have gone far enough in this direction. We should not follow the lead of South Africa and southern Ireland. The Prime Minister of South Africa has refused to take the king's oath as a privy councillor. It has been said in the House of Commons-I can give the authority-that overtures have been made to Germany and a secret treaty or agreement years ago entered into to give away part of the country covered by the Boer war treaty to Germany.

As far as I am concerned, I am utterly opposed to this motion. There is no demand for a distinctive Canadian flag. A great deal was said by these gentlemen who call themselves the Native Sons of Canada about what they were going to do to me if I opposed a new flag. However, I am still here and I do not know if there are any of them left in my riding. Your Honour will remember that when this question came up before, I asked for information from the government. My question will be found at page 4364 of Han-sand of June 17, 1925. My first question was:
Will the government lay on the table of the house the text of a copy of order in council appointing a committee to select a distinctive Canadian flag for use ashore?
Hon. members will note that I referred to use ashore. That is where our navy is most of the time, on the shore. One of the newspapers has stated that I have asked sixty-eight questions, but I only asked not sixty-eight but twelve or fourteen and half of my questions deal with the separatism which is evident in this country in our foreign affairs. I contend it is the right of a member of parliament who represents his constituents to protest in this House of Commons against the wave of separatism which has been going through this country ever since this present government came into power in 1921. We hear a lot about this celebrated Department of External Affairs. I say that the government of the day has no mandate from the people to go on the way they are going. I claim the constitutional tradition that the Minister of External Affairs shall answer in this house for the way he administers this trust. There is a possibility and a great probability that this country will be invaded before long. We have a magnificent country with wonderful resources and it is bound to be invaded and is coveted. Germany is causing considerable trouble to Britain throughout the civilized world. We hear about her opposition to communism, but she used Russia in the great war and is using her also now for her own purposes.
It is the duty of the government to inform this House of Commons what is being done by this Department of External Affairs. From three to three and a half millions of dollars have been wasted on the League of Nations and the only result has been increased disarmament by Britain. I say that this is not the time to consider such a motion. If we want to hoist a flag, let us hoist one for another mass buying and price spreads committee; let us hoist one in a fight against the high cost of living; let us hoist one in an effort to do something practical for the working classes of the country; let us hoist a

A Canadian Flag
flag on behalf of the industrial workers, fifty-one per cent of whom have been driven out of their homes through foreclosures and other measures, and want the same treatment as farmers and fishermen get. I have seen homes in my riding with the red flag of the bailiff in front showing that he had taken possession of the house and put the family on the street in executions and foreclosures.
The time has come for twentieth century Liberalism to do something practical other than a flag motion. This is not a free parliament. We might as well all go home as our work here is purely academic. There is nothing left for us to do after all these commissions have been appointed. They have taken away many of the functions and privileges of members of parliament. The people are going to protest against this motion and I doubt very much if it is in order under the Statute of Westminster. These were my questions in 1925:
2.	Who is asking for such a Canadian flag and for such a change, and why?
3.	Is the union jack not Canada's only official flag, and was it not the one used by the Canadian expeditionary forces overseas in France, and since Canada has been a British possession?
4.	Will an opportunity be given the house to discuss such an unnecessary innovation in view of Canada having no land army and no fleet whatever except the proposed Petersen fleet?
5.	Is such a change of policy not for parliament to decide instead of the governor general in council?
These are the members of the committee who were to consider these matters:
G. J. Desbarats, Esq., C.M.G., Deputy Minister of National Defence, Chairman.
Thomas Mulvey, Esq., B.A., K.C., Undersecretary of State.
A. G. Doughty, Esq., C.M.G., LL.D., Dominion Archivist.
Commodore Walter Hose, C.B.E., A.D.C., Director of the Naval Service.
Major General H. A. Panet, C.B., C.M.G., D.S.O., Adjutant General.
Group Captain J. S. Scott, M.C., A.F.C., A.D.C., Acting Director of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
That was a splendid committee, but all of one religion, it may be noted. Some were returned soldiers who had been decorated many times. But they did not want a job like that as some of them did not believe in changing the flag. Some of them had led their men in Flanders under the union jack and had seen it used many times to drape the body of some poor soldier who had been killed. No wonder the people of the motherland are wondering where Canada is going I The only thing that binds Canada to the motherland are the ties of blood and race.
Our governor general does not represent the king any more; he is just the viceroy. The
lieutenant-governors of the provinces, when they call a party together, refer to it as the viceregal party. Pick up the Globe and Mail any morning and you will see where vice-regalism has been installed in Canada illegally as the governor general is the only viceroy. As I say, there is no demand for a resolution of this type. It is all very well to talk about Canada first and the empire a very poor second.
As I have said before in the house and on many occasions outside the house the fathers of confederation made a great mistake when they foisted these provincial legislatures upon the country for political and not economic purposes. I believe in the policy of one king, one flag, one school and one empire such as the principle they have in the United States. That is a country which is copied very often to-day, and those are principles they follow there.
Saturday was Abraham Lincoln's birthday. Is anybody over there proposing to change their flag? They have one flag on the ocean, one flag on the land. Talk about a flag for the Canadian navy on the ocean! Has any part of our navy gone over to protect Canadian subjects in Japan? No; they hug the shore. When the naval bill was up in 1909 the Hon. Charles Murphy, then Secretary of State, a very respected member of this house, said that under the navy bill if an enemy ship was coming up the St. Lawrence, we would have first to pass an order in council before the Canadian navy could fire off a pinwheel, a fire cracker or a sky rocket. With a humbug navy of that kind, what is the use of saying we are a nation and all that?
I have no desire to talk out the resolution of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). I have sat on a committee with him, and I have found him very fair, and a very fair chairman. I do not want to be unfair to him or to talk out his motion, but I have been opposed to this thing for many years. The people who sent us here sent us to solve Canada's economic problems. We have been here for three and a half weeks and I fail to see any problem that we have yet solved. With conditions as they are in this country, with the many problems we have to solve, no wonder we have communism in Canada. It is the duty of this parliament to remove grievances within, because the mother country will look after grievances without. It is the armed strength of Great Britain, her navy and her army, that protect our shores, and in the old land they are beginning to wonder if Canada and the other dominions are not a drag on the British Empire.
A Canadian Flag

You had an imperial conference last year. Did you solve any of these problems there? Was this question of a Canadian flag brought up at that conference? I have not been able to find out that it was.
I want to say to these hon. gentlemen who come from the west, for whom I have every respect, that I believe in the principle of confederation, the old Cornish battle cry-" each for all and all for each." What is for the benefit of the maritimes is for the benefit of Ontario, and what is for the benefit of the great prairie provinces, which are suffering so much, is for the benefit of Ontario and the rest of Canada. We should be a happy and a united people, and this question of a change of flag should not be taken up at this time, with so many real problems before the country. We have no defence against an invader in this country, on the Pacific coast or anywhere else.
The senate have hauled down the flag on their part of the building; they have gone on a three weeks' holiday, as they have no work, they say, with all these economic problems unsolved. We have been sitting here for three weeks, and we might as well have gone on a holiday also for the last three weeks for all we have done to solve the problems of the people of Canada. If you keep on appointing commissions I do not know where you are going to end up.
Instead of having a committee appointed to consider a Canadian flag we shall soon need a pan-American flag because we are depending upon the Monroe doctrine and the American fleet to protect our shores. We are depending upon the doctrine which Monroe enunciated over a hundred years ago, and upon pan-Americanism, and if what I read about this Anglo-American treaty is correct, dear knows what kind of flag we are going to have before we get through with that treaty.
I believe in a policy of Canada for Canadians. The Toronto Star for the past few weeks has been talking about income tax of our millionaires who left Canada, and it has been printing pictures of a number of Canadian millionaires who got sick and tired of taxation under the Canadian flag and paying Canadian income tax, and went off to Nassau and other places in the Bahamas, with the wealth they got out of the gold and other mines of this country. The Lord intended all these magnificent natural resources, the water powers and mines, for all the people, not just for some of the people.
True, these people who have been engaged in mining development are entitled to a large

part of the profits, but not the whole thing uncontrolled. But they have got their millions out of the soil on easy terms, and are now in Nassau, and the flag they have there is the union jack, which is plenty good enough for us, and has been ever since we were a country. It is the flag we had in the early days of this country, in 1885, when the Grenadiers, the Queen's Own and other regiments, left the city of Toronto, the thirteenth battalion the city of Hamilton, and the sixty-fifth French-Canadian battalion from Montreal and from Quebec. These volunteers from Ontario and Quebec carried the union jack and saved Canada from being dislocated in the northwest. It was good enough for them, and it was good enough in the South African war. There was no demand for a Canadian flag then. The veterans of the South African war and the Fenian raid of 1866 are forgotten to-day. They cannot get a nickel from parliament, let alone a flag, and many of them are suffering. The same is true of the veterans of the great war. There is no demand from any soldier organization that I know of for a change of flag.
Instead of Canada doing something about a new flag, I think it had better do something about making a contribution of a unit to the British navy. It would be better to work with Australia and New Zealand, helping the British navy instead of putting up defences of our own. Let us fight our foes from within, as well as from without. This country is becoming steeped in internationalism. I do not know where it is all going to wind up. Our men will be unemployed and our home market will be gone.
Read Green's History of England; what does it say about the flag? I quoted from it in the house last year regarding the industrial revolution, and I am not going to refer to it further to-night.
As I was saying, with the toy fleet we have, I fail to see that we need a flag at all. In fact, if I went overseas to Japan, or for an ocean trip, I would not want to go to the Canadian legation for protection. I do not know whether it is open. I heard from some people over there that Canada was one of those responsible for Japan getting out of the alliance with Great Britain. Do Canadians in Japan go to the Canadian legation? I know of nobody who goes there. There is nobody there to protect them. They all head for the British embassy, the same as they do in Germany and other countries.
Next Sunday Herr Hitler is going to announce at a great demonstration, when the German flag is up. that he is going to get back Germany's colonies from Britain, if

A Canadian Flag
you please. If so, good day to the British Empire! The discussion in the house on this motion will have an unfortunate effect, I fear, in England. The mother country has made investments in Canada to protect us. She invested, and paid, for example, for the whole Rideau canal as a back door into lake Ontario. As in the war of 1812 our army was separated in Upper and Lower Canada and the Rideau canal was built to overcome this. The British paid for that, and they have made investments all over this country for defence. It is their fleet that protects our shores. We are the fifth nation in trading, and yet we have no navy. We are using the British fleet to protect our shores and our trade routes. It would be far better, Mr. Speaker, if we spent our time in trying to solve these problems of trade, defence and immigration than in talking about a flag.
I will tell the house what this Anglo-American treaty is going to do. It is going to turn the next election into a union jack election; and it is pretty nearly time we had another union jack election, to find out if we are in the empire or out of the empire and where all this separation is landing us. The government is going to have a union jack election whether it likes it or not, and motions of this kind are what will bring it along. We shall find out whether we belong in the British Empire. We are not going to follow any longer South Africa and Southern Ireland. They had an election the other day in the northern part of Ireland, and we see how the vote went.
In the last census our population was 10,352,269 people. Of these twenty-nine per cent are fine subjects of the province of Quebec, who love their native Canada and love the motherland. Another twenty-nine per cent are of foreign origin those who have come to this country. Many have been here for years; for the most part they are on the prairie; they are mostly fine people; they have done a great deal of good work out there. But they are isolationists; they do not believe in taking part in the affairs of the empire. The other forty-two per cent are the British bom, English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh. While they hate war they love Canada. The parents of many of them came here years and years ago. Though some of them may be isolationists at heart, I believe that as regards a large majority of the two twenty-nine per cents and the forty-two per cent, if the motherland were in trouble to-day their young men would spring to arms under the union jack, because the majority of the people of Canada believe that Britain before God stands as trustee the world over for the peace of the world.
In conclusion, I may say that we need not look to the newspapers to give us the facts about the foreign policy of this country. I do not know whether there is actually a censorship on foreign affairs or on defence, but it appears there must be some kind of censorship or arrangement, because in the past two years in hardly any newspapers, except the Toronto Telegram and one or two other Toronto papers and like-minded newspapers elsewhere, have I been able to find the slightest reference to foreign affairs, and the people are being kept from the real facts. The members of this house are becoming almost like what they call in England and picture in the cartoons by the name of "shiffer" sisters. That is that section of the cabinet there that would cede to Germany her colonies. If we keep on we shall be "shiffer" sisters too, because we are afraid to deal with Canada's three great problems- trade, defence and the empire, or to support rearmament.
I have consulted with a great many people about this flag issue, and the general feeling is that it would be better for us first to provide a proper fleet on which to hoist a flag, and not boats like the Minnie M, the Ada Alice, the Island Queen, the Luella, and the Shamrock. I do not know where this Canadian fleet is, though I read naval orders, and I may say that my hon. friend the minister is one for whom I have regard. I first met him out at Vancouver when he arranged to take my university of Toronto senior hockey team out in the harbour there at the time we won the Allan cup in 1927. When we went out in the harbour all we could see was the union jack.
1	have asked in the house, Where is this magnificent fleet gone to? Where is Canada's navy? I cannot remember all their names at the moment. They have gone to Barbadoes, to St. Lucia; they have gone down to Nassau, apparently. The fleet has gone junketting in foreign waters on good will cruises, away down in the West Indies. I wish some of my colleagues could go with them; I wish we could all go down there and have a good time with this Canadian navy. Naval orders of January
2	say that the fleet has gone on a good will cruise. I asked the question whether any of this celebrated fleet has gone to Sino-Japanese waters. Of course not. There might be a scrap over there, and I would not want to be on board Canada's navy when there was one there.
So I say, Mr. Speaker, so far as this particular motion is concerned, wait until we get an adequate fleet to carry a flag and sufficient men to man the fleet. On land and sea and in the air what are we doing to-day for
A Canadian Flag

our own protection? Simply hoisting the panAmerican flag in and out of this house. Apparently we are going to depend upon it now, instead of the motherland and its great flag the union jack that has so long protected our shores; instead of depending upon that any longer we are going to rely on another power on the north American continent.
We need to-day a Gilbert and Sullivan to write about this magnificent fleet of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Mackenzie). We need some concert halls for a new version of Gilbert and Sullivan's H.M.S. Pinafore, as related to our toy navy. I ask again, Where is this fleet of ours which will have a change of flag if this motion passes? Where is it now? In the West Indies, down somewhere no doubt near the millionaires. I believe that one of the fleet went overseas for the Vimy Ridge celebration and another for the coronation. Nobody knows where they are at the present time. Perhaps they have on board some visitors or members or senators or others who have gone to foreign waters fur their health. It would be a good thing for the taxpayers if the members of this house could go away for three weeks also with the senate as we are doing no work for the people.
The flag in the Victorian era-that was a flag. The Victorian era built assets for the future; we have been squandering them ever since. In the days of Victoria under the union jack, the people kept the state; to-day, under the union jack, the state keeps the people. Instead of talking about a new flag, we need to-day to get the business man to hoist the union jack. Let us leave the day by day conduct of business to the men who understand and conduct business, instead of our passing a whole lot of useless motions and appointing committees and commissions of college professors to tell them how to run their business. Under the Victorian era the union jack was on top of the store in every part of Canada. Nowadays all our people are becoming proletarians; they do not own anything; they have no property. We have been slow to see how this has happened under the union jack.
Canada is becoming more and more the happy hunting ground of Americans who come to Canada seize our natural resources and then contribute nothing to the income tax. I see the young Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Usiey) here to-night. Two years ago, I think it was, I asked him if he would kindly look into the way these millionaires who hoist the union jack here can go down to Nassau and escape payment and into the revelations at

Washington. He has not replied to my question. I hope he will do so this session and let us know where these people go and how they get away and no doubt hoist the union jack down there. It is a good flag, anyway. We should do well to go back to the days of Sir John A. Macdonald and remember his declaration, "A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die." I have become alarmed as I sit in the house at recent separatist developments. In the last few days we have had proposals not only to change the flag but to abolish appeals to the privy council. If those appeals are abolished, goodbye to the principles of the union jack, goodbye to the rights and privileges and functions of municipalities and the provinces, and the rights of minorities in this country. No wonder, with this wave of separatism, it is now proposed to change the flag!
The mover of the resolution states in his motion that he would have a special committee appointed. We all know what special committees are. If they are appointed they are like the royal commission, because the members of the committee just meet and sit around a table; towards the end of the session. as is known in the old country, and here, the government of the day, having a majority in the committee, will write the report for them, and the committee can vote and talk as they like and get nowhere; I have sat on many of these committees and I know what their proceedings are.
What is this committee going to consider when it is appointed? It is going to consider the advisability, if you please, of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag. Well, in my opinion, it is not advisable in the present state of unrest in the country to entertain any such distinctive proposal. In 1925, the same language was used; a committee was to consider then " the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag." Is it advisable for us to be considering a resolution such as this when we know what the condition of affairs is not only in Canada but in the world at large, when the mother country is faced with the situation that exists in the far east? Is it advisable at the present time to raise this question when we are depending upon the motherland for maritime protection?
We are trying to establish an air force in Canada. We know how war has been revolutionized in the air. If the enemy were to sail up the St. Lawrence, what would be our position? We are unprepared; while we are talking about a new flag they could blow up the citadel, proceed to Ottawa and blow

Farmers' Creditors Act
up these buildings and the Chateau Laurier. They could come here and destroy our public utilities and return in five or six hours while we were talking in a committee about the advisability of adopting a national flag. This committee is going to consider the advisability of changing our flag, but the resolution does not say the change is necessary. The new flag would no doubt please a good many people in all the provinces; but, as I say, if the enemy sailed up the St. Lawrence, where would we be? Somebody in the committee might say, "We have pan-Americanism to protect us." The resolution speaks of a Canadian flag, " representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations." I say that Canada is not an equality partner; she is a sponger partner, sponging on the taxpayers of the motherland for her maritime protection, sponging on the flag we have at the present time, the union jack, for protection not only on land but on the sea and in the air. Talk about equality partnership 1 That was the language used in the Statute of Westminster with reference to " this British Commonwealth of Nations," a high-sounding title that was supposed to bring about the millennium in empire affairs. In my opinion it has done more to disrupt the empire than anything else. The people of Canada never voted or consented to that, and they have not voted on this question with regard to a change of flag.
And what about this committee? I have sat on several committees and I can say that some of them never meet. It would be a good thing if this committee did not meet. If we are an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations, to use the language of the resolution, all I can say is that we are making a pretty poor showing because at the present time Canada is doing nothing but the talking; Canada is doing all the talking in foreign affairs.
One of the questions before the conference had reference to shipping within the empire. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time there are 2,000 fewer merchant ships in the British Empire than there were in 1914? Do you know that this magnificent fleet which protects our shores, instead of burning coal is burning foreign petrol from Arabia and South America? If the enemy wanted to cut off our oil supply for the navy in war, we would be without a fleet to protect our shores. The fleet used to burn coal, but now burn foreign petrol. We talk about 51952-29
being an equality partner in the empire, but when we are asked to do something we say no.
If we could get this house down to business we would be doing something, instead of discussing a motion of this sort. The motion speaks of a flag symbolizing the dominion. That is all we have so far as our fleet is concerned; we have the sign or symbol of a fleet; that is all. I do not know where the fleet is; I do not know what flag it flies. I think it is after eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker. I have not concluded.


Walter Edward Foster: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: It is eleven o'clock.
Mr- HYNDMAN: If the house is not going to adjourn, Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the motion.


Walter Edward Foster: It is eleven o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, February 15, 1938