READJUSTMENT OF REPRESENTATION


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRAN0OIS POULIOT (Temis-couata): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition signed by Mr. and Mrs. Camille Sirois, of Sainte-Rita, in the county of Temiscouata, and by 110 other persons, who are protesting against the removal of that parish from the dominion constituency of Temiscouata.
I have another petition signed by Mr. Eugene Delisle, mayor of the parish of Saint-Cyprien, in the county of Temiscouata, and by 116 other persons who are protesting against the removal of that parish from the dominion constituency of Temiscouata.
Those petitions have been endorsed in compliance with standing order 68.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. Pinard be substituted for that of Mr. Blanchette on the special committee on human rights and fundamental freedoms.
That the name of Mr. Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval) be substituted for that of Mr. LaCroix on the special committee on railways and shipping.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. J. G. GARDINER (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I stated to the house some days ago that I would be prepared to make an announcement with regard to the return on dairy products to go into effect immediately.
In view of the fact that subsidies on butter-fat used in the manufacture of creamery butter and on milk used in the manufacture of cheddar cheese will be discontinued as of tonight and that certain production costs, not-
Dairy Products and Eggs

ably of feeds, have increased, I wish to announce at this time certain arrangements that have been made that will affect returns to producers with respect to butter, cheese, evaporated milk, and eggs.
Butter.-With the concurrence of the Minister of Finance I am authorized to state that the wartime prices and trade board have increased the ceiling price on butter by ten cents per pound effective May 1st, 1947.
From January 1st, 1944, to date, the subsidy paid by the dominion government to producers of milk for the manufacture of creamery butter has been on the basis of ten cents per pound butterfat, equivalent to 8J cents per pound of butter. The new ceiling therefore not only compensates for discontinuance of this subsidy but also provides an extra 1J cents per pound of butter.
Another factor influencing returns to many producers of milk for butter production is an agreement recently negotiated with the British Ministry of Food for the sale of at least eight million pounds of roller skim milk powder, at a price of 13\ cents per pound.
It was announced some time ago that in the event of an increase in. the ceiling price of butter action would be taken to capture the increased inventory value of stocks of butter held at the time the ceiling was changed. This action is being taken by the Commodity Prices Stabilization Corporation Limited.
Cheese-The cheese agreement with the Ministry of Food covering the production year beginning April 1st, 1947, has been amended to incorporate the following prices for export cheese delivered F.O.B. factory shipping point or grading station shipping point: First grade, 25 cents per pound; Second grade, 244 cents per pound; Third grade, 24 cents per pound.
This new price of 25 cents per pound for first grade cheese compares with 23-3 cents per pound which the Ministry of Food had previously agreed to pay.
The returns from the 25-cent price provided under this amended 1947-48 contract represent an increase of 1 * 7 cents per pound of cheese above those available in. the 1946-47 contract year from the 20 cents per pound price for cheese plus the subsidy of thirty cents per hundred! pounds of milk used in the manufacture of cheddar cheese.
Evaporated Milk.-It will be recalled that the subsidy paid by the dominion government on milk used in the manufacture of evaporated milk was discontinued as of September 30, 1946. Effective October 1, the wartime prices and trade board authorized an increase in the ceiling price of evaporated milk sold in Can-

ada so that returns to producers would not be disturbed as a result of the discontinuance of the subsidy. The pack of milk (600,000 cases) for the Ministry of Food under the 1946-47 contract had already been completed by that date.
With respect to the 1947-48 contract, the Ministry of Food has already agreed to purchase 600,000 cases of evaporated milk in the production year beginning April 1, 1947, at a price of $5.25 per case, basis f.o.b. ocean steamers Montreal, Vancouver or New Westminster or, in the event of shipment through some other port, f.o.r. the ports mentioned. This would give producers the same returns for milk as they received in the 1946-47 contract year, when the dominion government paid a subsidy on milk used for this purpose.
In view of the higher returns that have now been provided for cheese and other dairy products, negotiations are now being carried on with a view to amending the 1947-48 contract for evaporated milk at a price to be mutually agreed upon which will keep returns to producers of milk for this purpose in proper relationship with returns for other dairy products.
Eggs.-Prices for eggs under the British contract are to be advanced by 14 cents per dozen effective with eggs purchased or contracted for by the special products board on and after May 5, 1947. An additional increase of 14 cents per dozen will be effective on fresh eggs purchased under the British contract for export in the shell during the months of September, 1947, to January, 1948, inclusive.
These adjustments have been concurred in by the Ministry of Food in order that egg production, and supplies to Britain, will not be curtailed as a result of recent advances in poultry feed costs or of further advances in feed prices which may occur when subsidies on grains are removed.
Whether or not these adjustments will compensate in full for increases in feed prices which have taken place or may take place in the future, the British have made it clear that this is the limit to which they can go under the present contract, which expires on January 31, 1949. It is our opinion that if producers desire stabilization of prices based on contracts with the United Kingdom they should not expect variations in contract prices following every change in costs.
Prior to the latest adjustments, egg prices under the present contract were 14 cents per dozen higher than in 1946 for the period of February to August, inclusive, and 2| cents per dozen higher than in 1946 for fresh eggs

International Refugee Organization
exported during the period September to January, inclusive. With the present increases, prices from May 5 to the end of August will be 3 cents per dozen higher than in 1946, and fresh export eggs in the September to January period will be 5i cents above 1946.
The immediate increase of 1| cents per dozen will, as already stated, be effective with purchases of eggs from suppliers by the special products board as from May 5. The Ministry of Food have stressed their expectation that the full amount of this increase will be reflected immediately to producers for all eggs delivered at registered egg grading stations for carlot shipment to the special products board.


Mr. ISNOR:: Why were not the two eastern Canadian ports, Halifax and Saint John, included in this agreement as shipping points?


James Garfield Gardiner: These two products are mostly delivered to the British government at the points mentioned. The points mentioned are the basis of the agreement. Some of the products are shipped from Saint John and Halifax. The terms given here dealing with these products apply at the maritime ports.


Mr. HACKETT:: Is not the difference between the cost of transportation to seaboard added if the goods go to Halifax? I refer particularly to the long train haul.


James Garfield Gardiner: It depends on where the product originates. Some originate in Nova Scotia.
Mr. CRUICIvSHANK: May I express my appreciation to the minister for the statement he has made? At last the Fraser valley has partly come into its own.



INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ORGANIZATION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary [DOT]of State for External Affairs) : I should like to table contents of the constitution of the international refugee organization and related documents, among others the agreement on interim measures. This constitution and agreement are the result of lengthy discussion in the united nations concerning the international problem of refugees and displaced persons. *Canada, represented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) signed both the constitution of the I.R.O. and the agreement on interim measures on December 15, 1946, immediately following the adoption of the resolution by the general assembly. As a matter of fact Canada was the first state to sign both these documents. The constitution and the agreement on interim measures have now been signed by thirteen states, only two of which, the United Kingdom and New Zealand, have signed without reservations as to subsequent legislative acceptance. The constitution will come into force when it is signed and ratified by at least fifteen states, whose combined total contributions would equal 75 per cent of the proposed budget.
The agreement on interim measures, which establishes a preparatory commission of the
I.R.O., came into force when it was signed by eight states who had also signed the constitution. Unlike the constitution, it does not require parliamentary ratification in addition to signature. The preparatory commission, which has already met once in Geneva, will meet again in Lausanne on May 1, and the Canadian representative will be Mr. Jean Desy, Canadian ambassador, Brazil.
In view of the urgent necessity of establishing the I.R.O. as soon as possible, I shall shortly introduce a resolution in this house proposing ratification of the constitution by parliament. At that time, when hon. members have had an opportunity of studying these documents, I hope to make a more extensive and detailed statement concerning the international refugee organization.
With the unanimous consent of the house I move that this constitution and interim agreement be referred to the committee on external affairs.
Mr. GRAYDON:: May I ask whether Russia is one of the nations subscribing to this constitution?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I am sorry to have to say that the answer is a negative one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I present to the house a petition of Canadian and British subjects residing in the district of Mackenzie in the Northwest Territories of Canada. It is additional to the petition I presented on the twenty-fifth day of this month. The petition prays that the district of Mackenzie be not included with the
Questions

electoral district of Yukon, and it sets out what seem to me to be very convincing reasons. They say among other things:
That your petitioners prefer to have the representation of Mackenzie district to parliament postponed and to remain for the present without such representation rather than to have the district included with the electoral district of Yukon.
They go on to ask that the words "including the Mackenzie district of the Northwest Territories" in section 2 of Bill No. 18 be struck out.



BRETTON WOODS


Mr. R. W. MAYHEW (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker. I wdsh to table the report on the operation of the Bretton AVoods Agreements Act. 1945, statutes of Canada, 1945, chapter 11, section 7, including:
1.	First annual meeting of the board of governors, held at Washington, D.C., September 27-October 8, 1946, of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development- proceedings and related documents;
2.	First annual meeting of the board of governors of the international monetary fund, held at Washington, D.C., November, 1946- report of the executive directors and summary' proceedings, September 27-October 3. 1946;
3.	By-laws, rules and regulations of the international monetary fund as amended to March 1, 1947.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. GORDON B. ISNOR (Halifax): I wish to moi'e that the second report of the standing committee on public accounts, presented on April 28, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
(Translation):
PRIVILEGE-Mr. CAOUETTE

Mr. REAL CAOUETTE (Pontiac):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I wish to state that, according to the English version of the "Parliamentary Guide" for the current

year, I hold in this house a unique record, because it would appear that I was born on September 26, 1937, and that I was married when four days old, that is on September 30, 1937.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The hon. member is referring to a book which is not considered as a document of this house. Therefore, he cannot avail himself of his privileges as a member to request that a correction be made in that book.


David Réal Caouette: May I at least be permitted to point out that I was born in 1917?


James Horace King: I am sorry. I have called the hon. member to order because he cannot avail himself of his rights as a member to make a correction in a book which is not recognized as an official document.
(Text):



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. SKEY:: 1.	How- many R.C.A.F. command, group and headquarters establishments are (a) in operation; (b) planned for formation in the next two years ?
2.	What are the names and locations of the establishments of 1 (a) and 1 (b) ?
3.	What was the strength of 1 (a) at March 1, 1947?
4.	How many R.C.A.F. permanent force squadrons are (a) in operation; (b) planned for formation in the next two years?
5.	What types of squadrons are authorized under 4 (a) and 4 (b)?
6.	How many R.C.A.F. auxiliary squadrons are (a) equipped and in operation; (b) planned for formation in the next two years?
7.	What are the locations for 6 (a) and 6 (b)?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: I wish to table answers
to parts 1, 2 and 3 of this question. As regards parts 4, 5, 6 and 7, the hon. member has been given the information and has agreed to drop them.
1.	(a) 3 Command Headquarters and 4 Group Headquarters; (b) None.
2.	(a) Central Air Command, Trenton, Ontario; North West Air Command, Edmonton, Alberta; Maintenance Command, Ottawa, Ontario; 9 Transport Group, Rockcliffe, Ontario; 10 Group, Halifax, Nova Scotia; 11 Group, Winnipeg, Manitoba; 12 Group, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Questions
3.
Strength		Establishment
(1st March,		(1st April,
1947).		1947).
460	Central Air	Command 227
275	North West Air Command 261	
352	Maintenance Command 407	
69	9 Transport	Group 37254	10 Group	57544	11 Group	38296	12 Group	592,250	1,086Note: The strength at 1st March, 1947 was greater than the establishment because (I) These headquarters were being used as collection points for personnel for the formation of units:	(II) Three of the above group
headquarters, Halifax, Winnipeg, and Vancouver, were command headquarters on March 1 with, therefore, correspondingly greater strengths than they will have as group headquarters.
4,	5, 6, and 7. I have given the hon. member answers to these questions and he has agreed to drop them as it is not considered to be in the public interest to give detailed information of this kind.


CIVIL SERVICE-HEALTH EXAMINATIONS
Mr. RICHARD (Ottawa East):: 1.	What steps have been taken by the civil service health division of the Department of National Health and Welfare for medical examination of civil servants?
2.	What civil servants are eligible for such health protection?
3.	Are new government employees given a medical examination and what is the nature of such examination?
4.	When was this work begun and how is the division organized to do it?
5.	Has a survey ever been made on amount of time lost by civil servants due to illness.
6.	If so, what were the results of such a survey ?
7.	How many civil servants have been given chest N-rays and in what cities?
8.	What other medical tests have been given civil servants?
9.	What has been done by the public health engineering division of the Department of National Health and Welfare to improve physical working conditions of civil servants?
10.	What health clinics for civil servants have been opened and how many more are being planned?
11.	Has the Department of National Health and Welfare any programme for providing periodic health examinations for the protection of civil servants?


Mr. MARTIN:: 1.	The nucleus of a clinical centre is now operating in Ottawa. This clinical centre is prepared! to dlo complete examinations of civil servants in this area.
Arrangements are now in effect to (a) Review medical certificates covering loss of time due to illness; (b) Rule on eligibility of casual leave claimed to be due to illness after eight days such leave has been exhausted; (c) Review and approve or reject applications for retirement due to ill health; (d) Conduct medical examinations of civil servants before permanent status is granted, when requested; (e) Conduct medical examinations of temporary civil servants at the time of appointment, on request of the employing department or of the civil service commission; (f) Conduct medical examinations of employees of crown companies and corporations on request of the employing agency.
Wherever the Department of National Health and Welfare has a full time medical staff, such as immigration and quarantine medical service in the port cities, examinations of civil servants are carried out by these medical officers. In other centres examinations are done under arrangements completed with the Department of Veterans Affairs who have country-wide medical facilities.
2.	Arrangements under 1 above extend to all civil servants.
3.	See 1 (d), (e) and (f) above. These examinations are complete medical examinations.
4.	This work has been carried' on increasingly since the department of health was first established in 1919. The medical investigation division was established in April, 1939. This division was absorbed in the present civil service health division in March, 1947. The present civil service health division proposes as staff, quarters and funds are available to carry on the activities outlined above in addition to instal "health units" where civil service population warrants and to arrange for periodic health examinations.
5.	Yes, from 1935-36 to 1938-39.
6.	The 1938-39 survey covered 35,215 employees and disclosed:
Number of persons absent on medical certificate, 9,826 (27-9 per cent).
Total illnesses on medical certificate, 13,397.
Total days lost, 268,357.
Average time lost per employee on medical certificate (more than 3 days), 5-9 days.
Average time lost-casual leave (3 days or less), 1-7 days.
Questions

Total average time lost, 7-6 days.
7.	From 1944 to 1946 approximately 60,000 civil servants were X-rayed in Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto. These examinations were arranged by the medical investigation division.
8.	A voluntary blood test for syphilis and estimate of haemoglobin has been provided1 in Ottawa. About 9,500 government employees have availed themselves of this test to date.
9.	On request, the public health engineering division makes inspections and reports on government buildings covering population, heating, ventilation, lighting and sanitary facilities and conditions. In its report it recommends measures for improvement where possible.
10.	A clinical centre has been opened in Ottawa. Branch clinics are planned for all large centres of civil service population. About ten such branch clinics are anticipated. In Ottawa nine health units have been opened or are in the process of organization. Others will be opened periodically as space requirements and arrangements with government departments permit. It is estimated that about 30 such units will be required adequately to cover the Ottawa area.
11.	See 4 above.


RADIO BROADCASTING-CKVI, VERDUN
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Who is the holder of the licence to operate CKVI, Verdun, Quebec?
2.	Who owns and operates the said station?
3.	When was the application by such owner or operator to operate said station granted?
4.	Have there been applications since 1944 to operate radio stations in Verdun, other than the one granted? If so, who were such applicants and what reasons wvre given for refusing each of such applicants a licence?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1.	J. Tietolman.
2.	The licensee.
3.	Issue of the licence was authorized by order in council, P.C. 491 of February 15, 1946, and the licence was issued on May 13, 1946.
4.	Yes. Messrs. Albert Rolland, Rene Hebert and Rodolphe E. Mackay, jointly. The board of governors of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recommended rejection of the application on the grounds that,-
"The Board has already recommended that a licence be granted to Mr. J. Tietolman, for a day-time station in Verdun and it is the opinion of the board that two stations could not operate successfully in this area as service is also given by all Montreal stations".
IMr. Martin.!


RADIO BROADCASTING-&quot;RADIO WORLD&quot;
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Was the Radio World broadcast from Toronto, on April 18, at which Premier Drew, Mr. Dunton and others spoke a commercial broadcast? If so, how much was paid therefor and by whom?
2.	Have there been previous broadcasts sponsored by Radio World over the C.B.C. ? If so, when, and how much was paid for each?
3.	Have the private stations, whose facilities were used been paid in respect of such broadcasts?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	Yes. The total charge to the sponsor, Radio World magazine was $1,378.20.
2.	Yes. Since December, 1945, programmes sponsored by Radio World have been broadcast on C.B.C. stations regularly each Monday until April 1, 1946, and since then on alternate Mondays. These have been charged for at the regular published card rates of the stations.
3.	No facilities of private stations have been used in connection with broadcasts referred to in (2). In connection with the broadcast referred to in (1) private stations are paid at usual rates.


CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
[Stage Direction]
s.s. "prince rupert"
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: 1.	Were tenders called or bids asked for within the last two years for the construction of a ship to be called the Prince Rupert, or other name, stating tonnage?
2.	What firms from (a) eastern Canada; (b) western Canada were asked to tender and submitted bids, stating the amounts and date of delivery ?
3.	To whom was contract let, stating price and date of delivery?


Mr. CHEVRIER:: This question has to do with tenders or bids asked for by the Canadian National Railways for the purchase of a steamer on the west coast. Part of the question asks for the amount of these bids. While there can be no objection to other parts of the question, there is to quoting prices. The Canadian National Railways have always followed the practice of not giving the amount of the bid, and with that reservation I answer the question.
The Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1. Tenders were called on May 16, 1946, for the construction of a new passenger and freight vessel for the Canadian National Pacific coast, services. The proposed ship will

Questions
replace the S.S. Prince George which was destroyed by fire and will be of approximately 5,700 gross tons.
2.	The following firms were asked to tender: Eastern Canada
Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal, Quebec; Davie Shipbuilding & Repairing Co., Lauzon, Quebec; Marine Industries Limited, Sorel, Quebec; St. John Dry Dock & Shipbuilding Co., Saint John, N.B.; Halifax Shipyards Limited, Halifax, N.S.
British Columbia
Burrard Dry Dock Co., Limited, North Vancouver, B.C.; Pacific Dry Dock Co., Limited, North Vancouver, B.C.; West Coast Shipbuilders Limited, Vancouver, B.C.; Victoria Machinery Depot Company Ltd., Victoria, B.C.; Yarrows Limited, Victoria, B.C.
Great Britain
Cammed Laird & Co., Ltd., Birkenhead; Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson, Walls-end-on-Tyne; Harland & Wolff Limited. Belfast.
Quotations were received from the following with delivery dates as indicated-Halifax Shipyards Limited, probably September-December, 1948; Yarrows Limited, January 31, 1948; Victoria Machinery Depot Co., Ltd., probably June, 1948; Davie Shipbuilding & Repairing Co., Ltd., August 1, 1948; Cammed Laird & Co. Ltd., probably August, 194S.
3.	Contract was awarded in September 1946 to Yarrows Limited with a delivery date of January 31, 1948. It is not the practice of the Canadian National Railways to release information on prices quoted in competitive tenders.


Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: I think we should have the entire answer to the question. There is complaint in the maritime provinces that they were not given the contract although the prices were several hundred thousand dollars below the price at which the contract was let. The house should have the answer.


Lionel Chevrier: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct. The contract went to the lowest tenderer, which in this case happened to be Yarrows Limited.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister has given onty partial information and I think we are entitled to full information. If the contract was let at the lower price we should have the price.


WESTERN CENSUS-CONSTITUENCY OF WINNIPEG NORTH
Mr. STEWART (Winnipeg North):: 1.	What was the name of the census commissioner in the federal constituency in Winnipeg North responsible for the 1946 quinquennial census?
2.	W'hat pay or emolument and expenses did he receive?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1.	Peter Taraska, 325 Mountain Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba.
2.	Special allowance, $375; expenses, $7.04; emoluments, $1,019; total, $1,401.04.


FOOD COMMODITIES-PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
Mr. McCUAIG:: 1.	How much of the following commodities were produced in Canada in each of the years 1937 to 1944, inclusive: beef, pork, mutton, eggs, butter, cheese?
2.	What per cent of each of the above commodities was consumed in Canada in each of the years mentioned?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1 and 2
Production '000 lb.
Beef
1937..	..	724,5381938..	..	700,4781939..	..	714,0021940..	..	717,4671941..	..	812,0731942..	..	822,5301943..	..	892,9691944..	..	960,991
Pork
1937..	..	688,5721938..	..	587,9271939..	..	625,6891940..	..	865,4041941..	..	1,060,7611942..	..	1.189,0981943..	..	1,395,7051944..	..	1,504,586
Mutton and Lamb
1937..	..	60,4091938..	..	60,7991939..	..	60,4461940..	..	52,6301941..	..	58,5941942..	..	56,7321943..	..	62,2391944..	..	63,542
Consumption Percentage of Quantity Production '000 lb.
602,682	83.2
638,184	91.1
599,151	83.9
645,289	89.9
698,115	86.0
723,503	88.0
837,575	93.8
815,06S	84.8
469,301	68.2
420,459	71.5
432,776	69.2
525,376	60.7
550,094	51.9
635,581	53.5
725,645	52.0
731,390	48.6
61.924	102.5
60.924	99.8
60,677	100.4
54,032	102.7
59,155	101.0
59,529	104.9
56.736	91.2
58,409	91.9
Questions

Consumption. Percentage of
Production	Quantity	ProductionEggs	'000 doz.	'000 doz.	1937....	239,943	238,942	99.61938....	221,150	220,409	99.71939....	229,142	227,422	99.21940....	242,269	231,728	95.61941....	251,075	234,170	93.31942....	285,827	257,020	89.91943....	321,816	279,372	86.81944....	368,316	291,681	79.2'000 lb.	'000 lb.	Total Butter	(Creamery, dairy, whey)	1937....	342.591	346.737	101.21938....	360,168	344,908	95.81939....	356,878	347.835	97.51940....	350.986	357,351	101.81941....	370,795	359,498	97.01942....	365,798	385,946	105.51943....	369,316	336,671	91.21944....	356,013	356.724	100.2Total Cheese	(Cheddar, other, farm-made)	1937*...	131,628	39,549	30.01938*...	124,905	42,409	34.01939*...	126,332	42,504	33.61940....	146.673	42,167	28.71941....	153,589	52,054	33.91942....	208,219	45,823	22.01943....	167,035	55,053	33.01944....	182,650	54,991	30.1
*Previous to 1940 total cheese based on eheddar and farm-made cheese plus other cheese in Quebec only.


IGOR GOUZENKO
Mr. McCUAIG:: Did the government receive any information from the government of the U.S.S.R. charging Mr. Igor Gouzenko with embezzlement of embassy funds, before August 31, 1945?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No.


RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE-WESTERN POINTS
Mr. IRVINE:: By what route and by what railways is mail carried to (a) Calgary, Alberta; (b) Winnipeg, Manitoba, from (i) Prince Rupert; (ii) Prince George, British Columbia?


Mr. BERTRAND (Laurier):: (a) Calgary, Alberta:
Canadian National Railways from (i) Prince Rupert, B.C., and (ii) Prince George, B.C., to Edmonton, Alberta.

Canadian Pacific Railway from Edmonton to Calgary, Alberta.
(b) Winnipeg, Manitoba:
Canadian National Railways from (i) Prince Rupert, B.C., and (ii) Prince George, B.C., to Winnipeg, Manitoba.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. PEARKES:: 1.	How many foreign awards have been granted to personnel of the Canadian armed forces since September, 1939?
2.	By what countries have these awards been made?
3.	How many British awards were granted to personnel of allied forces upon the recommendation of the Canadian government?


Hugues Lapointe: I may tell the hon. member that the minister intends, when his estimates come before the house, to lay on the table the list of all awards to complete those that have already been tabled, and also a summary of all awards since 1939. If the hon. member wishes to have that information earlier, this question can be made an order for return, but the information will be given when the estimates are brought down.


Mr. PEARKES:: May I have it answered?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dropped.


Hugues Lapointe: I do not understand whether the hon. member agrees to drop it or whether he wants to have it made an order for return. I did not hear him.


George Randolph Pearkes: I should like to have it answered.


Hugues Lapointe: Order for return.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Before you leave questions, Mr. Speaker, may I remind you that on Monday I called your attention to the fact that one of the questions, which appeared as No. 3 on Monday's order paper, had not been answered in the answers tabled in the house by the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance. My remarks will be found on page 2485 of Hansard. Is the parliamentary assistant in a position now to supply the answer to the fifth question, which was not answered at that time?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Robert Wellington Mayhew: If the hon. member had asked what insurance was placed with Dale and Company we would have been glad to give the information, but he did not mention the name of the company and we could not give that information. I shall be glad to give it as soon as I can.


Mr. FLEMING:: The question reads:
"What other insurance does such broker hold" and so on. The reference is to Dale and Company all through.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: If the hon. member had said what broker he was referring to we would have got the information but he did not mention the broker.


James Horace King: I cannot permit a debate on the question.


Gordon Graydon: He is trying to smoke the government out.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: Tory ambiguity. MOTION FOR PAPERS



CONSOLIDATED MINING AND SMELTING COMPANY-BRILLIANT DAM-DEPRECIATION AND TAXES

Mr. HERRIDGE:: For a copy of all agreements, correspondence, letters, telegrams, memoranda, reports and other documents exchanged, from January 1. 1940 to December 31, 1946, between the government of Canada or any department or officer thereof and any officer, agent or representative of West Kootenay Power and Light Co. Ltd., or Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Ltd., or of either of them or of any other corporation concerned with, interested in or participating in the construction of a dam and power plant on the Kootenay river near Brilliant, British Columbia, together with statements, accounts and reports showing the total cost of this project and the amount of accelerated depreciation allowed to any one or all of the above corporations in connection with their respective income taxes or excess profits taxes in respect of the above mentioned power project.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Stand.


James Horace King: I would call the attention of hon. members to the fact that it is not for the Speaker to decide if a notice of motion for the production of papers is to stand or to be adopted. I would ask the minister concerned to cooperate with the Speaker in order that he may give the house the proper answer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, was this motion carried or did it stand?


James Horace King: It stands.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: On a point of privilege, this is the second time this motion has been stood over. Will the minister say what reason there would be for standing over such a reasonable request?


Robert Wellington Mayhew: This concerns more than one department, and we are investigating to see whether we can comply with the request. We are not prepared yet to say whether we will give the information or not. We think we will be able to do so on Monday.


James Horace King: Motion stands.



REQUEST TO PROCLAIM PRICES SUPPORT ACT

Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, this being private members' day, there is no opportunity to direct questions to a minister. I should like the consent of the house, however, to permit one question being asked. The Minister of Agriculture made certain announcements this afternoon with respect to the adjustment of the prices of certain dairy products. The question I wish to ask has to do with another food product, namely, fish, on which no such action has been taken.
In view of the prevailing relatively low prices for fish in the maritime provinces and in central Canada, will the Minister of Fisheries advise what steps the government is taking to meet this situation and, more specifically, will he consider proclaiming the Fisheries Prices Support Act, 1944, so that steps may be taken to establish floor prices for this product?


Hon. H. F. G. BRIDGES (Minister of Fisheries):: As there are no orders of the day, I believe the question is out of order. However, I will say that this matter has been and is receiving the constant attention of the department, and it is the intention of the government to proclaim the Fisheries Prices Support Act just as soon as a suitable person is selected to be chairman of the board.



HIS MAJESTY THE KING

[Stage Direction]
PROPOSED CHANGES IN STYLE AND TITLES- "king of Canada"
Mr. MARQUIS moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, at the next conference of the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the dominions, the representatives of the dominion of Canada should request the conference to adopt a resolution recommending to the parliament of the United Kingdom and the parliaments of the dominions that an act be passed making it lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty to make such alteration in style and
"King of Canada'

titles of His Majesty, more particularly so as^ to include in such style and titles the words-"King of Canada."
He said: This resolution is, I fear, rather of a technical nature, but given the present status of Canada, of a very practical importance. It expresses the wish of this house that at the next conference of the nations of the commonwealth, the latter will pray His Majesty to make an alteration in his title so as to include therein the words "King of Canada". The title of His Majesty the King is based upon the proclamation under an act of the parliament of the United Kingdom known as the Royal Titles Act of 1901. It was altered in 1931 to give effect to Certain resolutions adopted by the imperial conference of 1926. I wish to quote a passage from the report of the interimperial relations committee of this conference, usually called the Balfour declaration:
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 internal affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth.
This declaration makes clear the spirit which prevailed at that time. It was conducive to a new legal status and to an alteration in the royal title.
On this point may I quote Doctor Maurice Ollivier, joint law clerk of the House of Commons, from his excellent book which I dare say most members of parliament have read, "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", at pages 300 and 301:
The royal title has been altered three times in the last sixty-five years. The title which had been proclaimed under the Royal Title Act of 1901 was "George Y, by the Grace of God. of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."
When the Irish Free State acquired the status of a dominion, it was recognized that this form of title hardly accorded with the altered^ state of affairs. Having ascertained His Majesty's wishes and obtained his consent a slight change was made pursuant to the recommendation of the conference of 1926 so that the royal title is now: "George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain. Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith. Emperor of India."
It is also a convention that this title and that the act relating to the succession should not be altered without the consent of all the dominions. This proposition of the conferences of 1926. 1929 and 1930 appears in the following lines of the preamble of the Statute of Westminster.
"And whereas it is meet and proper to set out by way of preamble to this act that, inasmuch as tile crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations, and as they are united by a common

allegiance to the crown, it would be in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne or the royal style and titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom."
But if we refer to the Statute of Westminster, we shall see that Canada has been given the right to pass her own laws, without the consent of the parliament of the United Kingdom. May I refer hon. members to sections two, three, four and eleven of the Statute of Westminster with which they are acquainted and which I need not read here?
Those provisions deal with the repeal of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, with extra-territorial powers, with the inapplicability of the acts of the United Kingdom to the dominions, and finally to the word ''colony", in Imperial Statutes, which is stated not to extend to the "dominion".
According to this legislation, Canada was no longer a colony. She had the right to pass laws relating to internal and external affairs-As a member of the British commonwealth, she had become one of the realms of His Majesty the King.
As to external affairs, may I again quote Doctor Ollivier at page 293:
By the statute of Westminster, Canada has complete freedom from control administratively, judicially and legislatively. Having those powers, Canada is sovereign and as evidence of her sovereignty she fulfils the two international tests of sovereignty, entering into treaties with foreign countries quite independently of the United Kingdom, as we have seen, and exchanging diplomatic representatives with them.
At the time the Statute of Westminster was passed, Canada had not yet legislated on most of the subjects on which she was entitled to legislate. But, since then, many laws have come into force under the authority of our parliament.
Since the adoption of the Statute of Westminster, not a session has passed without the Canadian parliament legislating in consequence thereof. This legislation has covered a very wide field, and our government has tackled therein many problems with courage and vision, problems which previously were to a certain extent, if not entirely, outside our jurisdiction.
Those acts, amongst other matters, dealt with the shipping laws, the admiralty, the exchequer court, the oaths of allegiance, the abdication of His Majesty, official secrets, the royal seals, the navy, the army and the air force, etc.

"King of Canada'
All this legislation-and I have mentioned only some of the statutes-has given a new status and a new importance to the body of our federal laws. The alteration that has occurred is due to the constitutional evolution of our country which has been brought about in an orderly manner with the inevitability of gradualness.
I want to put on the record a further quotation from Doctor Ollivier's book at page 316:
We now possess all the attributes of a sove-* reign state, amongst others: the right to legislate without interference, right of foreign diplomatic representation, right of abolishing appeals to the privy council, extra-territorial powers, and finally the right to decide what amendments if any, are to be made to the Canadian constitution.
To illustrate better the constitutional evolution of the dominion, it is interesting to turn back the pages of contemporary history a few years and to consider what happened at the coronation of King George VI, on May 12, 1937. Prior to that date the coronation oath, as provided by older legislation was as follows:
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the dominions thereto belonging, according to the statutes in parliament agreed on, and the respective laws and customs of the same?
I solemnly promise so to do.
The oath which was provided and which George VI took in 1937 was in the following form:
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the people of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, of your possessions and the territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, and of your Empire of India, according to their respective laws and customs?
I solemnly promise so to do.
The new oath was the consequence of our constitutional evolution embodied in the Statute of Westminster. It illustrated, for all the world to see, the distinct legal personalities of the dominions, which, as stated by Doctor Kennedy in his book, "The Constitution of Canada", in no sense whatever "belong to" the United Kingdom. And further to quote Doctor Kennedy:
It is interesting to record, in this connection, that Canada, conscious of the inappropriateness of the term "belonging to," had already eliminated it from the oath of allegiance which holders of public office take in Canada.
The alteration follows the constitutional development of our country, and we have to consider now our real position among the nations of the world. Canada is represented abroad by highly qualified ambassadors, who enhance her prestige and make her better
known in all parts of the world. Their close relations with governments of other countries contribute to the furtherance of world peace.
The increase in our trade has given to this dominion a most predominant influence amongst the nations. Canadian ships are carrying the name of this country to every part of the world. People abroad have learned to understand us better and to appreciate our way of living.
Even before the war, when His Majesty the King visited Canada, he addressed us as "King of Canada".
Canadians are not vassals of other countries, but subjects of His Majesty George the Sixth who, being a constitutional monarch, acts, as far as Canada is concerned, as King of Canada, and then only upon the advice of his Canadian ministers.
May I quote on this subject the Ottawa Ciiizen of November 9, 1945, in an editorial entitled "King of Canada":
Since King George is constitutionally King of Canada with his own Canadian ministers to advise him the inclusion of the word "Canada ' in his official title is merely recognition of a constitutional fact.
A change in the King's title so as to_ include the words "King of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa," would doubtless be approved by King George himself. To him, his Canadian tour, as he has often said since, was one of the greatest experiences of his life.
Moreover, it is not a small matter that in all royal documents sent to every country in the world or appearing in proclamations in the United Kingdom, the name of Canada should be there for millions of people constantly to see.
A well known French paper, Le Devoir, in its edition of November 7 speaks as follows:
(Translation):
Each dominion is not designated by name: it is implicitly mentioned in the expression "British territories beyond the seas". The word "territories" savours of disdain and does not correspond with the constitutional evolution of those countries which we are prone to praise. The English wording of the enumeration is most respectful: George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." We note here the word "Dominion" which is not in the French version.
Since the Statute of Westminster, the government of the countries of the British commonwealth of nations are equal in principle; they are respectively designated under the names "Government of His Majesty for the United Kingdom", "Government of His Majesty for Canada", etc. The King is King of Canada, of Australia, of New Zealand, of the Union of South Africa to an equal degree and just as directly as he is +he sovereign of Great Britain. His reigning majesty asserted his direct kingship over Canada at the time of his visit to Ottawa in 1939. He sanctioned bills, received credentials from the minister in Washington and spoke
262S
'King of Canada

of "My Kingdom of Canada". However, the instruments issued in the name of the monarch do not expressly mention Canada amongst the kingdoms.
(Text):
As members of one family, with different branches, all united by personal union under the same king, can we not be clearly identified as different realms of the king especially when we are just coming out of the recent war?
The most significant part taken by the Canadian people at home and in the front line during the conflict established our position as a sovereign state.
Like the United Kingdom, Canada has declared war of its own free will, without for instance, like the Soviet republics, waiting to be attacked by the forces of nazism, and this war was conducted by our own government and our own people without any interference from outside powers, but with complete cooperation. Victory has become a glorious reality due to the combined effort of Canada and other allied nations. The magnificent contribution we have made in money and manpower speaks loudly for our love of freedom and self-government.
At the end of this terrible conflict, have we not the right to claim a better designation of our beloved country? Have we not the right to ask for the full recognition of our actual status as a free nation? During these painful years, Canadian statesmen have discussed on equal terms with statesmen of other countries, Canadian soldiers have fought and died with no less courage than soldiers of any other allied country. Canada has, thus, as a result of those tremendous sacrifices, won her place amongst the victorious nations of the world. As an equal member of a British commonwealth, is it not just and fair that Canada's name be embodied in the designation of His Majesty's titles?
The crown is the symbol of the free association of the members of the British commonwealth of nations. As the head of a family, a father would proudly designate each of his children and not differentiate between them, so are we hopeful that the king may designate in his title each of the countries united by a common allegiance to the crown.
The object of this resolution is to suggest that its subject matter be brought up in the next imperial conference in order that steps be taken to include Canada's name and the names of the other dominions so that they may be included in the designation of His Majesty's royal title. In discussing this question, the house may put forward recommenda-

tions which might be the basis of subsequent consultation with His Majesty the King and with the other interested governments.
Especially when we have adopted recent legislation respecting Canadian citizenship and a separate ministry of external affairs, I suggest that we should unanimously accept the principle involved in this resolution. This could not bring an immediate change to the royal title because it is in accord with the established constitutional position of all the members of the commonwealth in relation to one another that any alteration in the law touching the royal style and titles requires the assent as well of the parliaments of all the dominions as of the parliament of the United Kingdom.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this house will, when the time comes to deal with this matter by legislation, take the necessary steps to give to our country its real significance in His Majesty's royal style and -title.


Mr. J. A. DION (Lake St. John-Roberval) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I second the resolution put forth by the boa. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis). I quote:
That, in the opinion of this house, at the next conference of the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the dominions, the representatives of the dominion of Canada should request the conference to adopt a resolution recommending to the parliament of the United Kingdom and the parliaments of the dominions that an act be passed making it lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty to make such alteration in style and titles of His Majesty, more particularly so as to include in such style and titles the words -"King of Canada."
To sum up, w^e request that at the next conference of the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the dominions, His Majesty's royal titles be modified in order to include the words "King of Canada".
It has been said and- repeated on several occasions since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster, that the dominions which make up the British commonwealth are equal in status, in no way subordinate to one another in any aspect of their domestic or international affairs and united only by a common allegiance to the crown.
Every one of them should therefore be on the same footing when designated in His Majesty's titles. The historic statement made by Lord Tweedsmuir. former governor general on the sovereignty of Canada has often been quoted. It reads as follows:
She is a sovereign nation and cannot take her attitude to the world docilely from Britain or from the United States or from anybody else. A Canadian's first loyalty is not to the British

"King oj Canada'
commonwealth of nations but to Canada and to Canada's king and those who deny this are doing, to iny mind, a great disservice to the commonwealth.
This opinion was recently corroborated) in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), when he said that Canada, from now on, must take her own stand on external affairs.
Since Canada is now a sovereign state and as such her sovereign, His Majesty the King, must be officially designated as the King of Canada, it must be admitted that from a practical standpoint, we are still lacking certain attributes which denote .the full sovereignty of a state. Those attributes may be summed up as follows:
1.	The right of Canada to amend her own constitution.
2.	The abolition of appeals to the privy council.
3.	The selection of a distinctive flag which does not bear the emblem of another country.
In regard to the first point, everyone knows that our country must still request from the British parliament authority to amend her own constitution. In this respect we are lagging behind the other dominions, such as Australia, the Irish Free State, South Africa and New Zealand, who now possess that right.
I understand that in practice the present procedure is as follows:	An address is voted
by the parliament of Canada to the parliament of the United Kingdom informing the latter of the desired amendment to the Canadian constitution. The British parliament, acceding to the wishes of the Canadian parliament, approves by its vote the amendment to the constitution of Canada as expressed in the British North America Act.
The fact remains that the process is quite unworthy of a sovereign state. No country fully master of its destiny can tolerate some other country's interference in the matter of the changing of its constitution. I realize that this principle is recognized by the vast majority of both Canadian and British statesmen, but its application is being delayed for reasons of convenience which, sooner or later, must also be discarded. However, before Canada is allowed to change its constitution, we shall certainly have to look carefully into the machinery and methods whereby the change should take place. If Canada is to change its constitution, we must know just how it should go about doing so and to that end a dominion-provincial conference must be called to study the matter. An organization must be set up and endowed with full authority to act, completely respectful of the rights and prerogatives of both the provinces and the central government. This conference should take place in an atmosphere of calm and serenity above futile party bickering. To succeed, it should be free from animus and from political argument which can only spread dissent and give no positive or lasting results.
The second point I wish to stress and which now prevents Canada from declaring itself a sovereign state, is the maintenance of appeals to the privy council. Yet this tribunal itself recently declared that the Canadian parliament has a perfect right to abolish such appeals. All we have now to decide, is the proper time to achieve that end. In my humble opinion, the sooner it is done, the better shall true Canadian interests be served.
It cannot indeed be held that a state master of its destiny should confer upon a tribunal, however respectable, in some other country, the right to interpret its laws and its constitution. All the more so since, in constitutional matters, the privy council had handed down interpretations which were equivalent to actual amendments of the Canadian constitution. The venerable court was then overstepping its judicial powers and entering the legislative field. Indeed, in the case of the Temperance Act. the privy council decided that an emergency situation was not necessary to empower the federal government to invade the field of provincial prerogatives as defined in section 92 of the British North America Act.
With a few exceptions, all jurists today admit that a Canadian court should be called upon to hand down final decisions in cases relating to civil and constitutional rights. Appeals to the privy council in the criminal field have been abolished many years ago and no one has dared to suggest that the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence had been on a lower plane than that of the privy council.
If, in matters of constitutional law, it could be claimed that our present supreme court-does not offer sufficient guarantees, means of changing its constitution should be considered, but, at all events, we feel that an exclusively Canadian court should be called upon to hand down final decisions in all Canadian cases in the civil, criminal and constitutional fields.
The third point, which I shall not labour, but which I take the liberty to mention, is that of a distinctive and essentially Canadian flag, bearing the emblem of no other country. I hope that Canadian opinion, more and more enlightened, will finally realize that a country such as Canada must have a real flag, which may be unfurled anywhere as a solely and decidedly Canadian emblem. Can-
'King of Canada'

ada, due to its wonderful development in both the national and international fields, due, especially, to the sound policy of our present prime minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who has established embassies in all the important countries of the world, Canada, I say, is presently acknowledged as an international power. But an international power should be a truly sovereign state and a truly sovereign state cannot allow another state to amend its constitution. It may not permit a court of another country to interpret its statutes and its constitution and it should not accept a flag unless it be absolutely distinctive and show no emblem originating in another country. Moreover, a truly sovereign state must insist that, in the designation of the sovereign to whom it renders allegiance, its name be directly mentioned.
Briefly, to be a truly sovereign state, Canada must be in a position to call its king the King of Canada. For this reason, I sincerely thank the hon. member for Kamouraska for having moved his resolution.
I take pleasure in supporting it with all the means in my power and I shall also be glad to vote for it.
(Text):


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: The motion before the house illustrates the necessity of abolishing private members' days immediately, particularly when there is so much other important work before us at the present time. In the first place the motion is out of order. What does it propose to do? It proposes to change the title of His Majesty. According to a great textbook the office of the crown is indivisible. Instead of bringing in a bill along these lines the hon. member proposes a resolution. If we discuss all the resolutions on the order paper we shall be here until after September. Private members' days should be abolished altogether.
Let us read the motion to see what it says:
That, in the opinion of this house,-
It is not the opinion of this house or of the country. I continue:
-at the next conference of representatives of the United Kingdom and of the dominions-
There is no conference proposed. The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has said that it is a daily conference with the other dominions and with the overseas authority. This proposal was discussed at the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power in 1896. At that time it was proposed to call the reigning sovereign, the late Queen Victoria, the Queen of Canada. What this motion proposes would mean a change in the British North America Act as amended, because the 
office of the sovereign is described therein. It is the same whether the sovereign is a king or queen. The office is described as King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the dominions beyond the seas, Emperor of India, Defender of the Faith. That is the present title. It may be amended next- year because of the situation in India. This motion refers to a conference of the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the dominions, and that the representative of the Dominion of Canada should request the conference to adopt a resolution. What conference? There is no conference. Representatives of New Zealand and Australia were here and asked for a conference on trade, defence and migration within the empire, and also preferences. What did we do? We rejected it. There used to be, every ten years or so, what is known as a conference, which is all set out in a textbook. That book gave the title of the king. I am not going to read it today because it would be a waste of time. I hold in my hand a copy of that textbook, which sets out. the status, sovereignty, autonomy, of the sovereign and of the component parts of the empire. It is a modern textbook. The Statute of Westminster also gives the status, rank and titles of the sovereign. It states that the office of the king is indivisible. He is king of all the dominions overseas. I shall come to that in a moment.
Let us pursue this a little farther. The resolution continues:
-the representatives of the dominions and of Canada should request the conference to adopt a resolution recommending to the parliament of the United Kingdom and the parliaments of the dominions that an act be passed making it lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty to make such alteration in style and titles of His Majesty, more particularly so as to include in such style and titles the words "King of Canada."
He has no power to do that. It is all in the British North America Act as amended. The office of the king is described therein. There is no conference. This resolution proposes to request His Most Gracious Majesty to change his title, which he cannot do. He is now the king of Canada and he has always been the king of Canada, king of all the dominions overseas. The title has not been changed.
Let us examine this question further. It is founded on separatism. There is a regular wave of separatism, liquidation and scuttling the empire in the world today, nnt only in the dominions but in other parts of the empire. That is going on here-also change the flag, the anthem-yet hon. members pay no attention to empire affairs, and some of the press are not much better. Little or no

'King of Canada'
attention is paid to it. I do not blame them for that; far from it. These academic matters, like this resolution, are not worth discussing at the present time, particularly when we have more important matters with which to deal. Here we are wasting a whole day on these academic matters. Last night the budget was delivered and it may be days before it is discussed. The same thing happened last year and the year before. We had discussions on the flag, the anthem, appeals to the privy council, and on many matters such as status, sovereignty, autonomy and so forth. All these things involve a change in the status of Canada. This motion is based on the status of Canada, on our autonomy and sovereignty. The resolution is based on that. Our status and autonomy were good enough for a million men in the first world war. They went overseas voluntarily under that status; 130,000 of them fell on the field of battle, and what they did changed the whole history of the world. In the second world war five times as many went, and at ten times the cost. If our status, autonomy and sovereignty were good enough for these men it should be good enough for those who stayed at home.
I wish to point out that the present gracious sovereign and his gracious queen paid a visit to the hon. member's constituency, Kam-ouraska, and to the constituency next door in his province, Temiscouata, at Riviere du Loup. No part of Canada gave a finer welcome to the king and queen than did the loyal people of Quebec. These people have done a lot for the country and for confederation.
This matter of king of Canada came up at the time Sir Wilfrid Laurier was in power, but it did not get very far. The resolution is not properly worded. No part of Canada gave a better welcome to the king than did the counties of Ivamouraska and Temiscouata. The school children with flags marched around the park five or six times. The stay which was supposed to take about half an hour took an hour and a half. The gentleman who is now chief justice of New Brunswick, Hon. Joseph E. Michaud, but who was a minister of the crown at that time, was in charge of the visit. The king asked him if all the school children of Quebec were at the gathering at Riviere du Loup. All the people of Quebec acted in the same way, of giving the king and queen a wonderful welcome.
I should like to refer to the visit of the king and queen and the gracious Princess Elizabeth to South Africa. The princess made a speech which appealed to me, as I am sure it appealed to other hon. members. It was
made to the youth of twenty-one years of age and under, in the whole empire. I hope it will be read for many days in this country and in the schools; her solemn declaration and dedication of a lifelong service to the empire by a girl of twenty-one years, in her appeal to all youth, which reached the hearts and minds of all the youth of our glorious empire.
I am not going to say much more about this motion, because there are others who no doubt wish to take part in the discussion. But there seems to me to be a wave of separatism passing over this country at the present time. We have thirty-six representatives here from foreign countries whereas we used to have none. We have twenty-six ambassadors abroad on the seven seas representing Canada. A list was given the other day; compare that with Great Britain. Great Britain is represented in foreign countries by no more than fourteen ambassadors. France has fewer representatives abroad than the Dominion of Canada. We have more than Russia or the United States. I cannot help thinking that there is a deliberate attempt to scuttle the empire, liquidating parts of it here and there.
I wish to point out the law in regard to this matter. I submit that the motion is out of order because the object sought can be attained only by means of an address from both houses of parliament to the parliament of Great Britain to change the British North America Act. It cannot be done by resolution. The only procedure that we can adopt is an address by this House of Commons and the other place. An address to whom? To the king and the parliament of the mother country-an address to amend the British North America Act. After all, is not His Majesty at the present time the king of Canada, and always has been, and also king of all the dominions overseas? In this connection I would like to read from the "Statute of Westminster and Dominion Status". I recommend this book to hon. members. They will find it well worth their attention. The author is K. C. Wheare, London, England. I quote:
It has seemed necessary at the outset first to distinguish constitutional rules of strict law. as exemplified by the Statute of Westminster, from non-legal constitutional rules, as exemplified by the conventions declared in the Imperial Conference Reports, and immediately thereafter to assert the interrelation and interaction of these two classes of rule, as exemplified in the term "dominion status," because there is a tendency, in the discussion of British constitutional development to underestimate the importance of rules of strict law, and in particular of statute, in that development; to overestimate the import-
'King of Canada

ance of non-legal rules; and seriously to misconceive the relation of the two classes of rule to each other. It is asserted, for example, that Great Britain and the British empire have an "unwritten" constitution.
That is what this motion seems to contemplate.
A constitutional statute is regarded therefore as something alien to the spirit of the constitution. On such a view of the nature of the British constitution, and of the constitution of the British empire, it was inevitable that the passing of the Statute of Westminster should appear to be a mistake. Some members of parliament in the United Kingdom and in the dominions objected to the proposal to pass the statute, not because of the terms it contained, but because it was a statute. Lord Buckmaster, an ex-Lord Chancellor, put this point of view in the House of Lords during the second reading of the Statute of Westminster Bill. He said that he intended to support the bill, but that he felt it was a mistake. "It is not-he said- that its actual terms offend any of the relationships existing between ourselves and our dominions. It is that it is, as I believe, for the first time, an attempt made to put into the form of an act of parliament rules which bind the various component parts of the empire, and that I regard as a grave mistake." He went on to assert that "the thing which has made this country grow is that it never has had a written constitution of any sort or kind, and the consequence has been that it has been possible to adapt from time to time, the various relationships and authorities between every component part of thiis state, without any serious mistake or disaster. That is what I think ought to be the ideal aimed at between ourselves and the various other nations which together make up the British empire . . . You should avoid as far as possible putting a definition of what the relationships may be into the unyielding form of an act of parliament. That is what this statute has attempted to do."
Chapter 7 of this book, the Statute and the Legal Status of Canada, sets out the law on this subject-and this is regarded as one of the most learned text books we have. I quote from page 177:
The fundamental fact in the case of the Dominion of Canada was that it was a federation. The powers and functions of the federal and provincial parliaments and governments were demarcated and their existing distribution was guaranteed by an act of the United Kingdom parliament, the British North America Act, 1867. This act was unalterable in essentials by the federal or provincial legislatures in Canada; it was completely alterable by the United Kingdom parliament only. From 1867 to 1930 inclusive, it had been amended seven times by that parliament. No clear rules regulated the procedure by which amendments of the British North America Act, desired by the provincial or federal parliaments in Canada, should be transmitted to and executed by the United Kingdom parliament . . .
Thus dominion status, after the passing of the Statute of Westminster, as before, though its predominant characteristic is conventional equality of status, contains legal ingredients which are different and are unequal from one

dominion to another. Apart from this common ingredient of conventional equality, the recipe differs in each case to a greater or less degree. Dominion status to-day, it should be emphasized, means equality of conventional status, but it does not necessarily mean equality of legal status or identity in the legal rules which define that status for each dominion.
It can be seen that from the legal point of view what is proposed here is not the proper form in which the motion should be presented to parliament. As I have pointed out, the proper procedure should be through an address by both houses of parliament praying for an act to change the British North America Act.
On the question of policy, is it desirable at this time that we should pass a motion of this kind? After all, consider what the mother country has done for us. She has borne the brunt of the war, and there is no reason to believe that the status, the autonomy and the sovereignty of Canada are at this moment endangered. If our status is good enough for over a million men who enlisted, so many of whom died, so many of them having suffered so much on land, on sea and in the air, then I suggest that that status should be good enough for those who stayed at home. Is there really any interest in this motion? Look at the slim attendance there is in the chamber today, at the very mention of the word "empire". We barely have a quorum. Next to the Christian church, Mr. Speaker, no other agency has contributed more to the freedom, liberty and civilization of the world than the mother country has done. For two and a half years she stood alone, save the dominions, while others did nothing, and but for her we would have lost the war.
I would like to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on my submission that this resolution is out of order on the ground that it is not in the form of an address to both houses. In my opinion it is not necessary. In fact, I think it would be a good thing for parliament and the country if private members' day were abolished altogether for this year so that we could devote our time to the consideration of practical questions for the welfare of the people.


Mr. BONA ARSENAULT (Bonaventure):: We have heard with interest the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), who is one of the most distinguished members, but unfortunately we cannot share all his views. If we did, the hon. member would not be sitting on the other side; he would be here.


An hon. MEMBER:: You would be over
here.


Bona Arsenault: Don't worry; I do
not think you will ever see that day. The hon. member for Broadview claims that there

'King of Canada'
is no conference of the nations of the commonwealth at the present time. No, but the motion speaks of the next conference of the nations of the commonwealth, and surely there will be a "next" conference one of these days, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.
This is an important matter, notwithstanding that the hon. member for Broadview thinks it is not. He thinks we are wasting the time of the house at great cost, but I do not see any force in that contention. We are discussing item No. 4, which is to be found under notices of motions, and since this is private members' day we are free to discuss such motions until six o'clock. If we dispose of the present motion we can go on to Nos. 5 and 6, so that we are not losing any time, particularly when we are dealing with so important a subject.
The hon. member does not always speak in the name of the opposition, but as usual he recalls the days-and it is well that they should be recalled from time to time-when the empire did much for Canada. I think, however, that we should sometimes recall- it is done more often on this side than on the other side of the house-what Canada has done for the empire.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration provides for the recommendation to the next conference of the nations of the commonwealth that the royal style and titles of His Majesty the King include the specific designation of His Majesty as the King of Canada. May I compliment highly and sincerely the sponsor of this resolution, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis) who, in the circumstances, has not only demonstrated the great progress he has made, since his election to this parliament, in the way of mastering the English language, but shown for himself, for his constituency and for the population of this country which is of French extraction, his and our great devotion to His Majesty the King of Canada; his and our love for this country of ours which is called Canada. The hon. member for Kamouraska has quoted the Balfour declaration, which dates back to 1926 and which stipulates that all nations of the British commonwealth are autonomous and equal in status. He also quoted excerpts from "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", written by our distinguished and, I was going to say, genial and outstanding law clerk of the House of Commons, Doctor Maurice Ollivier, indicating that to alter, the royal style and title of His Majesty requires the consent of the parliaments of all the nations of the commonwealth. Therefore I feel that this is an ex-83166-168
ceptional occasion when the voice of this nation should be heard in support of a resolution which is specifically and categorically Canadian and which at the same time is designed to augment, if it can be done, our respectful and loyal devotion, and our common allegiance to the crown.
As hon. members have probably noticed, I have purposely used the word "nation" instead of "dominion". I am sure the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) will not agree with me in that. I will further add that "dominion" is a word which should be used as seldom as possible in this house. I will go farther and say that the word "dominion" is a remnant of colonialism which should be banished as soon as possible from our official texts. I will go even farther and say that the word "dominion" is a word which offends the sentiments of a substantial part of the population of this country, is a word which is largely responsible for the legitimate doubts which we deliberately implant in the minds of statesmen of other friendly nations as to the accuracy of the evidence of the legal and constitutional status of this free parliament and sovereign state. For example, what would hon. members think of countries such as France, Holland, Belgium and even Italy or Germany if they bore the official designations of the dominion of France, the dominion of Holland, the dominion of Belgium, the dominion of Italy or the dominion of Germany and at the same time, Mr. Speaker, claimed equal status with the greatest powers of the world either at the peace conference table or at the united nations meetings? Hon. members would say that those nations may be right; nevertheless they act as if they were wrong, having regard to the designation of their official status, especially if none of those countries which I have just mentioned had a national flag representative of their traditions or aspirations, or a national anthem; but had a dominion day to celebrate. I would say that if there is a place in this world where the word "dominion" should disappear, as used to designate our country, Canada, it is in the wording of the royal style and titles of His Majesty the King.
How much more deeply, Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all creeds, of all races, of all extractions and of different languages, would feel in their hearts and souls their loyalty to the crown on the day they heard and could legally say, "George the Sixth, by the Grace of God King of Canada".
Let us be realistic about this matter. With all the respect we owe to the Balfour declaration or to the provisions of the Statute of

"King of Canada1

Westminster which was so ably quoted by the hon. member for Kamouraska, the term "dominions beyond the seas" is no longer good enough for a substantial part of the population of this country for the purpose of designating Canada in the title of His Majesty the King, but should be changed to the King of Canada. Even if this resolution is adopted there may yet be a long period of time before this matter will be brought to the attention of a conference of the nations of the commonwealth.
Therefore, in the meantime, I would respectfully urge hon. members who share the views which I express at the present time, to refrain as much as possible from using, in their addresses in this house and in all their addresses in public, the word "dominion" when applied to Canada. It is so easy and so natural to say "Canada", "the government of Canada", "the parliament of 'Canada" or "the Canadian parliament", instead of "the Dominion of Canada" or "the dominion government", and so on. The dominion government of what; of Australia; of New Zealand; of Canada? It does not say. Some hon. members may wonder why I have these telephone directories on my desk. Looking up the telephone directories for Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec and other cities, what do we find if we look under the word "Canada"? I take the Ottawa directory, and I find: Canada Cement; Canada Dry Cleaners and Dyers; Canada Dry Ginger Ale; Canada Starch; Canada Wire and Cable Company, and so forth. Then if I look under "Canadian", I find:	Canadian Ayrshire
Breeders' Association; Canadian Congress of Labour; Canadian Feather and Mattress Company; Canadian Mercantile Agency; Canadian National Institute for the Blind. How long would it take a stranger to this country, a visitor from the United States, for instance, to find the words "government of Canada" or "Canadian government"? It would take him as long as it took me to find the same words when I first came to Ottawa. It was only after a considerable length of time that I persuaded myself that in order to find the telephone numbers of the Canadian government I had to refer to the word "dominion", but in the case of a stranger coming to this country his reaction would be that, in spite of all we say, we are still a colony.
Why that should be so I do not know. It is that way .because it has always been that way. I respectfully suggest that instructions should be issued that in the next issue of the Bell Telephone directories, not only in Ottawa but all through this Canada of ours, govern-

ment offices may be found under the heading "Canadian government" as the offices of the high commissioner for Australia may be found in this very book under the heading "Australian high commissioner", and as the high com-misisoner for New Zealand may be found under "New Zealand high commissioner." We are not dominioners: we are Canadians. We are not dominion citizens; we are Canadian citizens. If we are truly proud of Canada, this land of ours, and of our title of Canadians, why do we in so many instances endeavour to hide those glorious names from the sight of strangers and, what is far worse, from the eyes of our own children? And until such time as our truly Canadian patriotism is recognized and interpreted by official texts of appropriate legislation, let us in this free, autonomous and sovereign state-unfortunately without an official Canadian flag; unfortunately without a Canadian national anthem, but with a Dominion day to celebrate-when referring respectfully to our king say that His Majesty is the King of Great Britain, of Ireland and of the dominions overseas, but that at the same time, above all and in the first place, in our hearts, as it should be in our texts, His Majesty is the King of Canada.
Mr. LEON J. RAYMOND (Wright) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I do. not wish to pass up the opportunity of discussing the resolution moved by my excellent friend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis). However, I intend to limit myself to a few brief remarks.
Besides, the resolution does not call for lengthy explanations. Its wording is quite clear. What does it request? It reads as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, at the next conference of the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the dominions the representatives of the Dominion of Canada should request the conference to adopt a resolution recommending to the parliament of the United Kingdom and the parliaments of the dominions that an act be passed making it lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty to make such alteration in style and titles of His Majesty, more particularly so as to include in such style and titles the words "King of Canada".
The hon. member for Kamouraska merely asks that His Majesty should be officially designated, as far as this country is concerned, by the title corresponding to Canada's true status.
Now, as regards Canada, His Majesty King George and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth are King and Queen of Canada. Indeed this country is an autonomous and sovereign nation. It is the equal of Great Britain and

"King of Canada'
of the other members of the British commonwealth. It is subordinate to none of them. Under the circumstances, those who reign over it cannot but be actually King and Queen of Canada, for the same reason, to my mind, why the King and Queen of Denmark or the monarchs of Norway or Sweden, are respectively King and Queen of Denmark, Norway or Sweden.
This fact has now been acknowledged by a great many Canadian citizens and even by a large number of our public men.
I well remember the expressions of thanks of the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe at the laying of the corner stone of the new supreme court building in Ottawa by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in 1939. Addressing the august and charming sovereign, he said:
The royal visit which honours us-a fact of unprecedented historical importance-enables me to address Her Majesty as the first queen of Canada and to convey to her, and to His Majesty the King, the assurance of ever unfailing loyalty and devotion, as well as of sincere and respectful affection from our whole people.
In these words, the late Minister of Justice was simply acknowledging the fact that Their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth are King and Queen of Canada.
The fact is also acknowledged by a large number of Canadians. During the royal visit which I just mentioned, Their Majesties were readily designated by the expression King and Queen of Canada.
Some jurists will undoubtedly try to confuse a crystal clear issue and pretend that the British Crown is indivisible. In my opinion, such a theory sprang in the minds of people interested in impeding the achievement of autonomy and sovereignty of the British colonies. They used that theory to postpone the development of the colonies.
One must not, however, take that contention too seriously. The same physical person may hold various offices. For instance, the Prime Minister of a country may well be the chairman of some association. In the same way, the sovereign who rules over the British countries may at the same time be King of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Such a situation implies no contradiction, and we often see the same physical person holding a plurality of moral attributes.
It would be advisable to have legal documents reflect the situation which exists in fact. Those who would derive the greatest benefit therefrom are the heirs to the British Crown. If Their Majesties were officially called King and Queen of Canada, they would be closer 83166-168J
to the hearts and minds of the Canadian people, who would be more devoted to the Crown, for if the sovereign who rules over Canada were designated as King of Canada, they would regard him more as their own. I cannot see any valid reason to oppose such a change. The only pretence which might be brought up is that by designating Their Majesties as King and Queen of Canada, the bonds which unite the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations might be loosened.
On the contrary, the change proposed by my hon. friend from Kamouraska would have the opposite effect. Indeed, it is the Crown which unites the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and not economic or political bonds, and anything which tends to increase the devotion of the people to the Crown should be encouraged, as it would be an excellent means to rally the British nations round their Sovereign.
I understand that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) stated a moment ago that this motion was out of order. I do not intend to discuss this matter, but I wish to say, interjecting perhaps a sentimental note, that as the years go by the word "Canada" assumes a deeper significance for us; from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we no longer regard Canada as a stopping or trading place, but as the fatherland. Those of us who-though broadminded -are deeply rooted to their native soil, cannot be blamed if they claim to be Canadians first and foremost, if they think as Canadians, if they prefer Canada to any other country, if they want it recognized as their fatherland, with their own King, if they want their country to attain greatness and to go forward in order to play unrestrained her part in the Commonwealth and in the world.
Through implementing the resolution presented by the hon. member for Kamouraska, not only would we contribute to the fostering of patriotic feeling in Canada and to the strengthening of the bonds which unite the various parts of the Commonwealth, but we would add greater weight and lustre to the name of Canada among the nations of the world.
I have no other course left to me, therefore, but to approve of the motion before the house, to congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska and to suggest that Parliament make the proposed change as soon as possible.
(Text):


Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to make a few remarks on this resolution, may I read briefly from the resolution itself, which requests-
'King of Canada'

. . . that an act be passed making it lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty to make such alteration in style and titles of His Majesty, more particularly so as to include in such style and titles the words "King of Canada."
In speaking on this resolution, I ana fully conscious that it has been, introduced by a Quebec member, my good friend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis), and that this matter is generally regarded as of outstanding importance and significance to all Quebec members. But I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that this is the House of Commons for all Canada, and that it is the responsibility of members, whatever part of the country they happen to represent, to analyse the significance to their constituencies of steps such as those envisaged by this resolution. To the average citizen it matters little whether the king is known as the king of the dominions or more specifically as the King of Canada. His full title is "George VI, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India". Most of us-I believe I am safe in saying all of us-have a clear understanding of the symbolism involved, and what the king stands for. We fully realize that he is the symbolic head of the great British empire; and I do not believe this change of words would make any great practical difference to the layman, though it may have a great deal of significance for students of the constitution or historians who are concerned with the various steps in the development of Canada toward full nationhood. In other words, I feel that the rank and file of Canadian citizens will regard this as an academic problem.
There is, of course, the strong feeling that by adopting this resolution we would be taking another step in the direction of complete and separate nationhood ; and there is no denying the fact that we have been growing quite quickly in this direction in recent years. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 guaranteed our status as a nation, and the Citizenship Act passed by this parliament further clinched the deal. Recently we have had up for consideration the matter of a distinctive national flag, or drapeau Canadien, and the question whether we should continue to call one of our national holidays Dominion day or change it to Canada day .
There is a growing feeling in Canada that we may be rushing somewhat too quickly along this road. By keeping these issues of nationalism before the people we may in fact be making Canadians conscious of our internal difficulties and problems. The feeling is growing that at the moment we need a shake-down period to consolidate the gains we have made 
and to give us a chance to become more familiar with our new strength, to get used to it and to work out our problems arising therefrom. Growing pains can be uncomfortable. There is a feeling in many quarters that our differences of race, language, religion and so on could be more easily overcome if we had greater solidarity and separate entity as a nation. But I am not at all sure, Mr. Speaker, that as a member of the British commonwealth we have been denied any opportunity to overcome whatever obstacles we might have had or might still have in this direction.
At this point I should like to refer the house for a few moments to some of the problems with which my own province of Nova Scotia has had to cope, because I think in good measure the rest of Canada might well take a lesson from the road Nova Scotia has travelled. As all hon. members are aware, Nova Scotia was discovered somewhere around 1497 by John Cabot, who set foot on Cape Breton island just five years after Columbus discovered America. I would also remind hon. members, at this time, that it was some forty years later, in 1534 I believe, that Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence to make his landings on this continent. Then at a later date, in 1621, James I of England deeded all the land that now comprises the three maritime provinces and part of Quebec to Sir William Alexander. He justified this action because of the prior rights established on behalf of England by John Cabot. During this development period the French Acadians played a strong and active part in the growth of Nova Scotia with their establishments at Louisburg, Port Royal, Beausejour and other centres. The names of Marc Lescarbot, Samuel Champlain and Pierre du Gast with their Order of Good Cheer go deep into our provincial history. There is a rich French heritage in Nova Scotia. Then, too, there were the Germans from Hanover who were so closely linked with a sovereign who later became George I of England that their ties with Britain are unquestioned. I say these ties are unquestioned because, coming from Lunenburg, the centre of the German settlement, I know this to be the case; but I can tell this house that there are many people in Canada who, particularly during the first world war, felt suspicious of this colony because of their German background. This suspicion, of course, greatly maligned a class of people whose loyalty to Canada as a nation within the British commonwealth of nations has been a bright beacon whenever this country has been under stress. They have

"King oj Canada"
not hesitated to fight against their former fatherland wherever there was a call for them to do so.
Then, too, there were the Gaelic-speaking Scots, who made a noteworthy contribution as our hon. friends from Pictou and Cape Breton will attest. It seems that these Gaelic-speaking Scots have the ability to make a contribution wherever they land. Since that time we have had elements of other foreign nations within the province. I mention the great part which the United Empire Loyalists have played in the development of Nova Scotia. I also would recall the group known as the Canadian Yankees. These last two classes within the province were at odds with each other during the American revolution. But each contributed in its own way toward the development of the province, and some very fine books have been written on the part they played. One in particular, written by a native of Nova Scotia [DOT]-Tom Raddall-sets forth in a clear and interesting way the close association between people in Nova Scotia and their friends in the United States.
The house is well aware that we have not been without our serious and unfortunate racial incidents, one of the most regrettable of which culminated in the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia at Grand Pre in 1755. Longfellow's immortal poem, "Evangeline", is based on this unfortunate incident.
But Nova Scotia has been able to take all these racial differences in her stride and mould the various factions into a unified group whose only interest is the welfare of the province. In the main, the differences have not impeded the province in its march forward, as is evidenced by the leading place she is taking in Canadian history. As is well known, Nova Scotia is the cradle of responsible government and is the only province in the dominion which is unified under a flag of its own. In that connection I should like to read briefly from a book, "The Book of Ultima Thule", by Archibald MacMechan. I quote:
Only Nova Scotia has a provincial flag, not English, not French, in origin, but all its own. It is a white flag with the blue St. Andrew's cross (saltire) dividing the "field" in four. In the centre is the double-tressured lion of Scotland, the ruddy lion rampant in gold. You recognize, of course, the arms of Sir William Alexander, first grantee of the province, still borne in part by the baronets of Nova Scotia, that order of nobility to which Sir Arthur was so proud to belong. Sir William was a Scot, a poet, and a favourite of that kindly Scot, King James, First of England, but Sixth of Scotland. He burned to found a kingdom in the New World, and was granted the province of Acadie.
When in 1867 we entered confederation, the system of unification within the province did not stop.
My purpose in presenting this brief background of racial history and the problems encountered, is to demonstrate that even before confederation the process of welding these different religious and racial groups into one unified whole was well under way and it did not stop after we entered into confederation. Although, after confederation, our status, like that of the other provinces, was that of being just one of several provinces within the Dominion of Canada we have never felt that this fact was an impediment to the development of unity within the province. We have lived with this matter of provincial sovereignty, now provincial rights or provincial autonomy, so long that we have been able to take it in our stride, as is evidenced by the fact that we have in Nova Scotia overcome all problems resulting from race, language and religion. Nationhood or, indeed, true provincial unity is something that must be developed by the people. Legislation will not do it.
To go one step farther, even as Nova Scotia did not find it to be any lasting obstacle to provincial unity to be only one of the provinces forming Canada, I do not believe it to be any obstacle to Canada's status as a nation that she is one of the British commonwealth of nations. I say in this connection that there was no "lasting" obstacle to provincial unity in Nova Scotia because I would not want the house to believe that there was no obstacle at all resulting from these various racial problems and racial groups.
I know that in this house we all agree, regardless of language or race, that it has been to Canada's advantage in full measure that she has been a member of the British commonwealth and that we have had the privilege of enjoying the benefits accruing to us from this association. I am aware that this matter of benefits is not a one-way traffic, and as the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Arsenault) has said, the British commonwealth likewise should be pleased that Canada has been a part of that commonwealth.
To return to the resolution, I do not feel that it presents a practical handicap to us to have the king known as King of the British dominions beyond the seas. Our status as a nation is assured regardless. It is not just a matter of words. It is an accomplished fact and one of which we are all proud. Almost every day events within Canada as well as the
"King oj Canada'

part which the dominion is playing with respect to other nations are serving to justify and emphasize our status as a nation.
Not being a lawyer or a student of constitutional history, I may be missing some of the significance of this resolution; but, as I see it, it is not a matter of outstanding practical significance. The rank and file of people in Nova Scotia, and in my constituency of Queens-Lunenburg in particular, are pleased with our status as a nation and I am sure they are not too dissatisfied with the king's title as it is at present. If, however, this debate shows that it would be to Canada's advantage in any way, shape, or form, to have the title altered so that the king would be designated separately as the King of Canada, we would find no grounds for opposing the resolution.


Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to offer to this house one or two personal views with respect to the resolution before us. I am speaking simply as one member and upon my own responsibility.
I am not familiar with all the constitutional intricacies involved in the resolution, which calls for a change in the title of His Majesty to designate him as the King of Canada. I sometimes wonder how much members of parliament regard their responsibilities as members. When I was first elected to the House of Commons I, as I suppose all members did, received from the Clerk of the House Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. As a newly elected member I, of course, began to read through it. Right here may I say I am reading it not because I am raising a point of order; I am reading it only to bring to our attention some of our responsibilities. I discover that in note 21 on page 6 the following appears:
Every member as soon as he is chosen becomes a representative of the whole body of the Commons, without any distinction of the place from whence he is sent to parliament . . . That every member is equally a representative of the whole (within which by our particular constitution is included a representative, not only of those who are electors, but of all other subjects of the crown of Great Britain at home and in every part of the British empire, except the peers of Great Britain) has, as I understand, been the constant notion and language of parliament. Every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither is not particular, but general, not barely to advantage his constituents, but the commonwealth.

The quotation is taken from "Blackstone", volume 1, page 159. I do not think anyone will question Blackstone's ability as a constitutional lawyer.
I have nothing to say against the discussion of such trivial things as fertilizer for farms, gopher poisons or nails for building purposes. These things are important to some people, but I wonder whether, in the exercise of our duties, we have not forgotten that they go far beyond these matters. I wonder whether we have not been just a little negligent in thinking through the problems respecting the destiny of our commonwealth. If the general idea lying behind the resolution under discussion is to have His Majesty's title read "The King of Canada" I can take no particular or great exception to the change, if the desire is to have His Majesty designated as such. If, however, the idea is to have Canada take any further step which will tear us loose from the British commonwealth, then I personally would take the greatest exception to it.
I rise this afternoon to speak with some feeling and with some emotion. I was born in England of English parentage. My father is buried there. My boy gave his life in sacrifice for the freedoms which the British crown has always stood for. Since the war I have been able to rescue my mother from the old land. I say "rescue" her.
The present title designating His Majesty reads:
His Most Excellent Majesty George VI by the grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.
I call attention particularly to the phrase "dominions beyond the seas, king". I do not wish to be an alarmist; I do not wish to sound a note that should not be sounded. How we have sung with a good deal of exuberance, "There will always be an England". That, Mr. Speaker, is my prayer. I do not say that prayer; I pray that prayer. But I trust that I am not out of line when I say that it is not beyond possibility that the term "dominions beyond the seas" may come to be obsolete. England today is economically bankrupt. The people of England today are going through the greatest hardship that perhaps history has ever recorded. The plight of England is, to some extent, beyond our imagination. I doubt whether the average member of this parliament has been able or could possibly be able really to look behind the scenes, and I cannot believe that a couple of snowstorms is the reason for it all.
I said that I did not want to be an alarmist. I say with a great deal of emotion that today

'King of Canada'
England is occupied country. That statement may take a little thinking through. It is true that foreign armies are not there, but I say this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, it is my personal conviction that a foreign way of life is there.
I say that one of the things we should be most concerned about is our Christian democratic way of life and the solidifying of the British commonwealth of nations in that one great common tie which has, throughout the ages, characterized the relationship of the peoples of that commonwealth. With that thought, I am going to resume my seat. I say, in conclusion I do not think it would be harmful for me to repeat what I said, that if behind the present resolution the motive is to tear us loose from that commonwealth, then I would be against it. But if the motive behind the resolution is simply to change the title so that His Majesty can be specifically designated as the King of Canada, I see no particular reason to oppose it.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish, at the outset, to compliment the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis) on his courage. The placing of a motion on the order paper entails in itself no difficulty, but to express it in clear terms without trying to disguise one's intention, or to lessen its scope, calls for courage, especially when the wish so expressed can wound feelings which arise from an extreme sentimentality or conjure up in the minds of some people recollections which they do not want to banish..
The honourable member for Kamouraska believes in the future of his country; that is normal for a good Canadian like him. He believes that a nation like ours must grow, assert itself, and take a larger part in world affairs. To do that it must advance and develop along constitutional lines. It must advance, even though the great powers, as they are called, courteously block its way toward the important place it should and will eventually occupy among those whose wisdom in domestic administration should bespeak the valuable part they can take in the drawing up of a peace programme for the whole world.
It is a world-wide psychological fact that wars have often been hatching for a long time before coming to light. They may lie fundamentally in a peace treaty based on temporizing only, which is a palliative, rather than on true principles with no solution of continuity among its essential parts, the union of which makes for permanent operation. They also lie in exclusive commercial agreements endangering the interests of other
countries which have no raw materials; in the delimitation of boundaries which are unacceptable to certain nationalities deeply rooted in the neighbouring country, of boundaries unacceptable to a whole country whose population is often too large and must expand beyond those boundaries in order to breathe and live. By the way, this is the most important problem to be solved by Germany. Prior to the last war, Germany, with a population of 69,600,000 people, had an area of 181,700 square miles; today, with a population of 71 million people, it is enclosed in an area of 137,640 square miles. Let us remember Hitler's cry for raw materials and living space for his people.
Also in the way of preliminary remarks which are necessary, in order to understand the specific object of the motion under discussion, I would add that the causes of wars often lie in the lack of judgment of certain governments which, instead of admitting the legitimate desire, the necessity of an evolution toward a freer, a more autonomous and, I was going to say, a more independent status, effect underhand deals which in most cases, do not proceed directly from them but from certain organizations or so-called key men whose actions and untimely utterings- although they are always in line with the policy laid down by the political parties of the country since centuries-wound the feelings of those rising countries whose inexhaustible resources are their greatest guarantee, especially when they are in a position to enjoy them and prevent them from passing over to strangers.
Policy laid down since centuries:	The
Canadian Press of April 16 contained a statement made by Viscount Bennett before the Women's Advertising Club of London, England, to the effect that Great Britain is no longer able to assume the defence of the commonwealth. Here are his words:
Which means that we must look to a common defence policy with common objectives. Such a policy will have to be adopted without delay.
Lord Bennett is not satisfied with advocating the eternal policy of the lords of the admiralty, mentioned in earlier days by Laurier, but he adds:
It is evident that one of the dominions is willing to seek the protection of Uncle Sam. As far as we are concerned, he adds, we should see to it that the oldest member of the commonwealth, that is your country, take the initiative in calling an imperial conference.
The eternal fear that Canada be too close to the great republic across the border, the eternal fear of the necessary evolution of a
'King oj Canada'

great country. Moreover, his statement is- and we are surprised to hear it from a former prime minister-a malicious allusion to a country which, with our brilliant and mighty cooperation, played a leading part in the last war.
Another so-called key man takes the liberty to utter untimely remarks and express his fear, proving at the same time beyond all doubt that our constitutional evolution is our strength and is known the world over. Speaking before the Royal Empire Society, H. V. Hodson said:
(Text):
As a country, Canada feels that if she is not 100 per cent Canada, she is, she feels, merely an appendage of the United States.
(Translation):
And he adds:
(Text):
It is all evidence that Prime Minister Mackenzie Ring was the principal accessory when the dominion government or at least some of them acted so that the imperial conference was quietly smothered in its bed a year ago.
(Translation):
He continues as follows:
(Text):
The dominions have only begun to assert the privileges of national status which they have acquired in the last generation.
(Translation):
This clearly shows his presumptuousness, and the idea he has of his own importance. He goes on:
(Text):
These privileges included the right to be represented here, there and everywhere by their own diplomatic envoys; the privilege of singing out of tune and being an argumentative party to every international negotiation that concerns them; and the small boy's right to cock a snook at his elders.
(Translation):
The only thing lacking to complete the picture is that an ambassador should tell us what national flag we should have.
Whatever those gentlemen may think, Canada is growing, although she is still young. She has reached maturity with a population of 12 million in a country which could contain an empire; she is strong enough to claim the privilege of selecting newcomers. That Canada should belong to an association of free countries gives rise to no complaint on the part of anyone, except those who are too much affected by imperial preference. That is what we find in the book by Sumner Welles, "Time for Decision", which was published in London and New York in 1944.

On page 176, he writes:
(Text):
I was impressed with the unhappy effects which the Ottawa agreements, providing for imperial tariff preferences, had had on the economy of all nations and particularly on that of the United States.
(Translation):
We see no great danger in this motion asking that in view of our slow constitutional evolution, the king actually reigning over the British empire be called King of Canada. It means only the bringing of our status to its logical conclusion. Eventually-one never can tell-it may be suggested that the crown, symbol of the constitutional King of Canada, be substituted to the union jack, emblem of another nation, on our national flag, itself subjected to the inevitable trend of events. These things cannot be avoided, Mr. Speaker. Time will follow its course. Those who wish to stem the course of events will fail in their attempt if they are not careful in aiding and guiding them. Doctor Ollivier, in the preface of his book "Le Canada, pays souverain", writes as follows, on page 9:
Our modern times are by no means monotonous. Our own generation, having witnessed a war unparalleled in history, bloody or peaceful revolutions, the collapse or dismemberment of time-honoured empires, is now called upon to witness the shattering of the classical moulds in which our universal concepts of state and sovereignty were shaped.
The most extraordinary changes have taken place in the international field: the birth of a soviet state, of a fascist state, the creation of the league of nations and, finally, the evolution of the British empire.
This book, if it were written today instead of in 1935, would add:	the birth and the
inconceivable strength of a soviet state, the birth and collapse of two fascist states, the creation of a second league of nations under a different name and the evolution of the British empire which Churchill himself fears to see liquidated under the present socialist government.
Such is evolution, the march of time, such
is,	too often, the unforgivable mistake, the
abuse of strength, the excess of faith in what certain great men consider as being eternal, which is only human. There is, to use a well chosen expression of my pastor, but one government that will never fall, but one empire which resists to all attacks:	everyone, even
its most indomitable enemies, know and fear
it,	although it is not necessary that we name it. Mr. Speaker, it is one of man's characteristics to be slow in acknowledging the inevitable and more so because his interests are always at stake.

1King of Canada"
Let us suppose, for a moment that the motion be agreed to and that the next imperial conference grant our wish:	a new step will
have been taken and no one could accuse Canadians of a lack of patience. Other countries might, unwarrantably, no doubt, practice this virtue to a lesser extent.
Fruit is good to eat when ripe; independence is a fruit which a nation must pick when it is ripe. The great republic to the south had to endure the frightful war of secession before it could finally pick the ripe fruit of independence.
Are we to believe that Poland, alternately dependent and independent since the glorious dynasty of Ladislases, will never be prepared for the enjoyment of a benefit so jealously prized by less advanced communities?
Judging from what is taking place, according to newscasts, India, which seems to have been promised independence, does not apparently show any greater readiness for it. Moslem and Hindu rivalries, the surgings of hitherto peaceable sects, foreign intrigue readily arousing a still queasy population, all seem to stand in the way of full independence. The British United Press announced last night that the United States of Indonesia who have just been granted independence, were on the brink of civil war. It will then be readily admitted that a maximum of genuine, deep, and not a merely apparent national unity is required within a nation that considers itself ripe for independence.
Our constitutional evolution is as inevitable as that of other countries. No one can stay its progress. It is all the surer for its being slower, more enduring. With each new step we now take, we grow circumspect and watch the next step. With each new war, we seem to hesitate.
Perhaps it is because of circumstances, of necessities arising from our union, from our nearness to a great country, our awareness of being called upon to take a leading part in world affairs. I congratulate the hon. member for Ivamouraska for introducing this motion and hope that the people of Canada will keep on showing patience, steadfastness and judgment, and will display even greater confidence, if possible, in the future marked by Providence for a country whose strength and courage compel recognition on the part of the most sceptical, the most timorous and especially the mightiest.
(Text):
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I should like to say a word of appreciation to hon. members who took part in this debate for the 83166-169
high tone in which the matters have been discussed and for the interesting material which has been brought to the attention of the house. My colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I were looking at the terms of this motion when the debate commenced and he supplied me with the words which, I think, properly describe this:	one
of the signs of the inevitability of gradualness. There is no doubt that the present royal style and title is not in full accord with the constitutional position of the units of the commonwealth and other lands over which His Majesty is king. This title is also the result of gradualness. One part of it, Defender of the Faith, if I am not mistaken, is a memento of a compliment paid to King Henry VIII by the Pope of Rome and has always been maintained in the description of the titular head of the United Kingdom. The form in which the royal style and title now appears is, as hon. gentlemen know, "George VI, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." This wording was established by a royal proclamation issued under the great seal of the realm and published in the London Gazette on May 13, 1927, in the exercise by His Majesty of the powers conferred upon him by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927. In it there was retained the expression "Defender of the Faith". There was retained also the expression "Emperor of India", which was first added to the description in 1876. There was also retained the expression "the British dominions beyond the seas", which appears to have been incorporated in the royal title by virtue of a statute of 1901. Though in many documents in which the words "dominion beyond the seas" were used, the word "dominion" commenced with a capital "d"; that was not so originally. In the statute of 1901 power was given to make addition to the style and title of the crown in these terms:
It shall be lawful for His Most Gracious
Majesty, with a view to the recognition of His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas

That is with a small "d", referring to his dominions beyond the seas and the lands over which he exercised royal authority.
-by his royal proclamation under the great seal of the United Kingdom issued within six months after the passing of this act, to make such addition to the style and titles at present appertaining to the imperial crown of the United Kingdom and its dependencies as His Majesty may see fit.
Following that statute, a proclamation was issued setting forth the style and title of

'King of Canada"

His Majesty in two languages, not the two languages which are official in this country, but the two languages used for such and like documents in England; that is to say, the English language and the Latin language. In the Latin language the words were:
et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt.
That is, the lands beyond the seas which are under dominion. I looked up "in ditione" to see just what was the origin, and I find it is one of the expressions of Caesar's De Bello Gallico.


Mr. MacNICOL:: May I ask the minister if he translated the expression correctly? I thought he said "under the dominions"?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, "under dominion."


Thomas Langton Church: What is wrong with the title now? Are you objecting to it?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: What is wrong with it now is that it is somewhat out of date; it does not make any distinction between the condition of those lands beyond the seas whose peoples have attained autonomous self-government, and the colonies which are still lands under dominion, administered from the colonial office.
The horn, member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters) says that to the layman this does not appear to be anything of importance, that it does not make much difference. I quite agree with him. Those of us who are within the commonwealth know exactly what the situation is, and it is not important as to whether or not it is accurately described in the title of His Majesty. That has no effect whatsoever upon the regard in which he is held here or upon the fact that in law, constitutionally he is our king; he is the King of Canada. The way in which he is described in this title has no effect upon that for us. But to others who are not within the commonwealth it may appear ambiguous; and those who remember their Caesar and their De Bello Gallico may think the "et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt" are in. the condition in which were the lands Caesar described as "in ditione Germanorum" or "in ditione Romanorum." That may or may not be important. Certainly it is not the fact. We are not "in ditione Germanorum"; we are not "in ditione Romanorum", and we are not "in ditione-"; I do not know what the Latin word would be, but whatever would be proper to describe the English people. We are not under the dominion of any but ourselves and His Gracious Majesty as King of Canada.
That is the fact, but it is also the fact that in the Statute of Westminster we, the United

Kingdom and the other autonomous units which, in the declaration of 1926, were declared to be all of equal status, agreed that there would be no further change in the royal style and titles without the action of the parliament of the United Kingdom, the parliament of Canada, the parliament of Australia, the parliament of New Zealand and the parliament of the Union of South Africa. This resolution directs attention to the fact that the style is not now in accord with what is the fact, but it also in terms recognizes that nothing more than a hope can be expressed by any one of the units, because the consent and concurrent action of all is required to bring about any change.
The resolution says that at the next imperial conference there should be a recommendation that all these parliaments concur in making this change. Well, I think a change will be inevitable in the course of this inevitability of gradualness. Have we reached the point where it is necessary that it be made at once? That is something upon which there may be various divergent opinions. All I can say as to the position of the government is that, this matter having been discussed in the high tone that was maintained throughout the debate, it will be considered by the government as its duty to ascertain from the representatives of the other autonomous units of the commonwealth if they feel that it should be considered at the next meeting. I think I can give the mover of this resolution the assurance that we shall ascertain, through ordinary diplomatic channels, if it is convenient to the other members of the commonwealth of nations that this matter be considered the next time there is an imperial conference. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) says none has been fixed. He is quite right, but these conferences take place from time to time. This resolution does not ask that a conference be called, and I would not want to give the assurance that we would ask to have a conference called; but I feel sure that at some near or later day there will be an occasion when representatives of the autonomous units of the commonwealth will be in session, and I think it would be proper to ascertain, through diplomatic channels, if they consider that when there is such a conference this matter should be on the agenda. It is something that I am sure will be considered in the same spirit in which it was discussed in this house. We cannot forever maintain forms that no longer represent the substance; and the substance has been changed. The substance is now different from the condition that existed when this form was adopted. When will that change

"King oj Canada'
have to be made? How soon will it have to be made? Certainly it will be made some day.


Thomas Langton Church: If I may ask the right hon. gentleman a question, would not any change in the style of titles require a proper address from both houses of parliament, and would it not involve a change in the British North America Act?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I do not think it would involve any change in the British North America Act, because the language in which the title is now expressed is not the language we find in the British North America Act. The language we find there is:
The provisions of this act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irel and.
That is no longer the form in which the royal style and titles is expressed, so I do not think it would require any change in the British North America Act. But it would require the concurrent action of the parliament at Westminster, of the parliament at Ottawa, of the parliament at Canberra, of the parliament at South Wellington, and of the parliament at Pretoria. Until all that is done, there would be no change legally made which would conform with the terms of the statute of Westminster.


Mr. FERGUSON:: Would there be discussion on it. before discussion took place in this house? Would an item of that kind be discussed at a conference?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. All I am saying this afternoon is that, through the ordinary diplomatic measures, we shall endeavour to ascertain whether the governments of the other members wish to have it on the agenda for discussion at the next conference.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Then it would be discussed?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, it would be discussed there; and it would have to come back here, and be discussed here, before it could be done.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Would all the points pertaining to it be discussed at the conference, prior to its being discussed in the House of Commons?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, the whole matter would be discussed at the conference. They would discuss as to whether or not it was advisable to take such action. There might not be agreement; and unless there was agreement it could not be done. It is something which any one of the units could prevent. One 83166-169i
dissenting state could prevent its being done. It would have to be something to which all those governments unanimously agree.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: A discussion in the conference prior to its being discussed in this house might give a wrong impression throughout the world respecting the thoughts of the majority of Canadians regarding the subject, the way real Canadians feel on the subject.
Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not admit that real Canadians would feel that it was necessary to keep the title in such form as would give anyone the impression that this country was still in ditione Anglorum.
With this declaration, that we shall ascertain whether or not others would feel desirous of discussing it, it seems to me that perhaps the hon. member would be content to have his motion dropped. It cannot produce any effect, unless there is discussion, and unless out of that discussion unanimous approval ensues.


Mr. POULIOT:: Queen Victoria is not dead.


James Horace King: Has the hon. member the leave of the house to withdraw the motion?
(Translation):


Eugène Marquis: Mr. Speaker, after this statement by the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), which agrees in every respect with the purpose of the resolution, I beg leave to withdraw it.
(Text):


John Ritchie MacNicol: Would the right hon. gentleman enlighten the house as to just how he will proceed to get in touch with the other dominions?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: That will be through the offices of the high commissioners in the several capitals. That is the way in which these things are always done. The high commissioners will be asked to ascertain in London, in Canberra and in the other capitals whether or not those governments feel that the next time there is a conference this should be on the agenda.
Motion withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Last night the leader of the opposition asked me in regard to the time for resumption of the budget debate. The government gave consideration to the request this morning, and have agreed that Tuesday next should be the time at which the financial critic of the opposition will resume the budget debate. But it is the
Immigration

intention of the government that, once that debate commences, it shall be pursued without intermission until its conclusion.
As hon. members will have seen from the order paper, next Monday is taken over for government business.


Gordon Graydon: Then will this be the last private members' day?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No; Wednesdays are still left, and there are the private members' hours on Tuesday and Friday evenings.
I think it is safe to say that the legislation of the government is practically all ready, and the length of the session will depend upon the length of the budget debate and the cooperation we receive from hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to private members' days. We have received excellent cooperation thus far, and I trust it will continue. If so, I think this session will be greatly shortened thereby.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 1, 1947