[Stage Direction]
Hon. RAYMOND D. MORAND (East Essex) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 35 to amend the Criminal Code (Race Meetings) .
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. MORAND:: The intention of this amendment is simply to permit the present racing time of fourteen days, under the act as it stands, to be on consecutive days on which racing is permitted, instead of having twenty days intervene between the two seven-day meetings. There is no enlargement in the number of days nor in the number of meetings; as I say, it is simply to have permission for races to be held on fourteen days consecutively on such days as racing is permitted.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. RHEAUME:: 1.	What is the name of the postmaster at Iberville, Quebec?
2.	What is his age?
3.	Is he in receipt of a salary or is he paid out of the revenue?
4.	In either case, how much salary has he received per month since his appointment?
5.	What were the revenues of this office for each year since 1928?
6.	Is the appointment at this post office under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission?
7.	If so, did the incumbent pass the examinations ordered by the Civil Service Commission?

Questions
8.	Did the Civil Service Commission make a recommendation as to the appointment to this position ?
9.	What person did it recommend?
10.	If this position does not come under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Commission, on whose recommendation was the present incumbent appointed?
11.	Is this appointment:	(a) permanent, or
(b) temporary?
12.	When was the present incumbent appointed ?
13.	How long will the present incumbent remain in office?
14.	Is this appointment in conformity with the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission?
15.	If not, why were such recommendations not followed?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	Pierre Ernest Thuot is in temporary charge.
2.	Sixty years.
3.	Paid out of revenue according to regular scale.
4.	From date of appointment, December 5, 1932, to June 30, 1933, $153.30 a month. Since July 1, 1933, $132.97 a month.
5.	Fiscal years 1927-28, $3,992.84; 1928-29, $4,091.08; 1929-30, $4,674.08; 1930-31,14,591.09; 1931-32, $5,028.19; 1932-33, $4,220.94.
6.	Permanent appointment rests with Commission.
7.	Yes. In connection with permanent appointment.
8.	Yes.
9.	Wilfrid Denicourt, O.A.S.
10.	See answer to question 6.
11.	P. E. Thuot is acting as temporary Postmaster only.
12.	December 5, 1932.
13.	Pending decision as to the respective qualifications of two applicants who are both returned soldiers.
14-15. Temporary transfer was effected before consideration was given to the permanent appointment by the Commission.


COLONEL O. C. MCLEAN
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: 1.	Is Colonel G. C. McLean of Norwood, Manitoba, in the employ of the federal government ?
2.	If so, what is his title?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What are his duties?


Mr. GORDON:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief for Manitoba.
3.	$2,700 per annum, less the statutory deduction of 10 per cent.
4.	To act for the federal Department of Labour in all matters pertaining to unemployment relief.


CANADIAN RADIO BRO.ADCASTING COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Has the Radio Commission cancelled the licence of station VE9EK of Montmagny?
2.	If so, when and for what reasons?
3.	Were there any protests against this action by the commission, and, if so, when and to whom?
4.	Is the government aware of the fact that this station is the only means of communication with the main land by the inhabitants of l'lle aux Grues and other islands situated on the estuary of the St. Lawrence?
Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1 and 2. On the recommendation of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, whose function it is to determine the number of broadcasting stations in Canada, the Minister of Marine did not renew the licence under which station VE9EK was broadcasting when it expired on the 31st March, 1933.
3.	Yes, by a petition dated Montmagny, 19th February, 1934, addressed to the Minister of Marine.
4.	Radio communication between the mainland and the Department of Public Works wire telephone system on lie aux Grues and the adjacent islands is maintained by a radio telephone station at Montmagny which communicates with a similar station on lie aux Grues. These two stations were established by the Department of Public Works in 1932, and are operated under their jurisdiction.


CONVENTION WITH POLAND
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Has the Canadian government had' any communication with the government of Poland, or offers from the government of Poland, in connection with a commercial treaty between Poland and Canada?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	What are these communications, or what offers were made bv Poland?
4.	Will the government inform the house just how this matter stands?
Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Since the establishment of the republic of Poland at the close of the great war, a number of communications have passed between the Polish and the Canadian governments respecting the question of negotiating a convention of commerce between the two countries. Hitherto it has not been found practical to conclude such a convention. Conversations are at present being carried on between the Polish Consul General in Ottawa and officials of the departments concerned with a view to examining the bases for the conclusion of a convention of commerce between Canada and Poland. No conclusions, however, have yet been reached.
Motions for Papers


POST OFFICE BUILDINGS
Mr. YOUNG:: 1.	What is the total investment of the federal government in post office buildings throughout the dominion?
2.	What rent, if any, does the Post Office Department pay for the use of these buildings?
3.	What rent is paid by departments, other than the post office, for post office buildings not publicly owned?
4.	What amount is paid by the Department of Public Works for fuel, light, water, janitor service, and' other expenses (not including rent) on public buildings used for post office purposes ?
5.	What revenue is lost to the Post Office Department through the carrying of government or franked mail, free?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: The hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) approves of this question being dropped from the order paper.
Question dropped.


GOVERNMENT TRANSLATORS
Mr. ARSENAULT:: 1.	What are the names of the translators employed at the present time by the federal government ?
2.	What is the salary of each one of them and the place of residence of each one when the house is not in session?
3.	What is the date of appointment of each one?


Mr. CAHAN:: I think the hon. member
will find an almost complete answer to this question in the return which was brought down on February 21 last and tabled on the 2nd day of March as sessional paper 137 A. With respect to the place of residence of each one of these translators when the house is not in session, I understand that the place of residence of departmental translators is Ottawa or vicinity. I have been unable to obtain any knowledge as to the place of residence of those who are employed by the House of Commons and by the Senate.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Answered.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: 1.	The number of post offices in each of the following provinces with a revenue of less than $100 per annum: British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island.
2.	The total annual cost of these offices in each province, for (a) salaries and allowances; (b) services.
3.	The total annual revenue in each province derived from said offices?


WITCHEKAN AND CHITEK INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. McINTOSH:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between the Minister of the Interior (Department of Indian Affairs) and any person living in the Spiritwood district or elsewhere during the years 1933 and 1934 till the present time, in connection with the medical attendancs given to the Witchekon and Chitek Indian Reserves located in the North Battleford electoral district.


Mr. MURPHY:: I am not clear, from a
reading of this motion, as to exactly what information the hon. member desires, but I may say that if it refers to correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of the Interior or the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs and others, there is no correspondence. In view of that, I think that the motion might be dropped, and if the hon. member will couch it in some other terms, if there is other information he desires, it might be brought forward again.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: All I wanted was the
information asked for in this resolution, and if the minister says that the superintendent general has none, and there is no other correspondence m the department, that is satisfactory.


Charles Murphy: Speaking to the motion,
I stated that there was no correspondence with the Minister of the Interior or the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs; I did not speak for the department. If the hon. member will look at the motion he will see that it refers to the Minister of the Interior, Department of Indian Affairs, but not to the department, and I said there was no correspondence with the Minister of the Interior or the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Very well I will be more specific and amend the resolution.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Dropped.


TITLES, HONOURS AND AWARDS PROPOSAL THAT PRIME MINISTER REFRAIN FROM RECOMMENDING TITLES FOR CANADIANS
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the Prime Minister should' refrain from recommending to His Majesty the King, the granting of titles, honours and awards to British subjects resident in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, first of all let me, as a memlber of this house', say that I

Titles-Mr. Mitchell
approach this problem, if it may be termed one, in a state of apology, may I say, to the people of Canada. Had this house devoted more of its time to the important matters affecting the welfare of the nation than to the mere granting of titles, conditions confronting at least a million people in this country might 'be different to-day. It is a kind of coincidence that the resolution following mine on the order paper and moved by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) states:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Egg and Hog Grading Acts should be amended.
This shows the diversity of private members' resolutions as they appear on the order paper. One deals with the grading of agricultural products and the other, might I say, with the grading of human beings in this country. I would ask that this resolution be discussed on its merits and that the patriotic appeal should1 not be used as a smoke screen to cover up the implications of the policy of the government in this regard, because frankly I do not think any party in the house has a first mortgage on our national life, on the destiny that this country will inevitably reach in the years to come or in its admiration for the link that binds this dominion to the British commonwealth of nations.
At the end of last session, in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), I very innocently put on the order paper a resolution, an exact replica of that moved in 1919 by a Mr. 'Nickle who then represented Kingston in the house. There was no secret about it; it was known by everyone from one end of the dominion to the other, and I think, in fairness to the country and to the house, the Prime Minister might just as well have waited until the representatives of the people had expressed themselves on a policy of that character. I hope even now it is not too late at least to get in respect to this particular policy a crystallization of the viewpoint of the 'Canadian people from one end1 of the dominion to the other as expressed by their representatives in this chamber. I am not unmindful of the fact that this is the last day for private members' resolutions, and that this resolution, if it is talked out to-day, will go to the churchyard with all the other private members' resolutions on the order paper, but I would ask that the government give the house an opportunity of reflecting the viewpoint of the Canadian people on this question.


Mr. NEILL:: To-day.


Humphrey Mitchell: Yes, to-day. It has
been said to me that some objection might be made, because of the broad implications of the resolution, to its reference to honours and distinctions. If that stands in the way of the abolition of titles in this country, I am quite ready to have the resolution amended so as to give an expression of the house on the question. Frankly, I think the Prime Minister would have been on much safer ground had he taken the action he did under peace, order and good government, because, after all is said and done, this would have satisfied the hunger of some Canadian people for titles or distinctions from their fellow citizens.
This question has already been discussed from many angles in the house during the present session, but I believe one should look at all sides of the matter. Last summer I visited many countries in Europe and I have been severely criticized because I gave what I thought was the result of my observations, a broad interpretation of what I believed was the best, the worst and the medium in the countries I visited. This afternoon I intend to deal broadly with the question. One side has been given and I intend to give the other. The question of royal prerogative is not open to discussion; it has been clearly enunciated by the Prime Minister from his viewpoint, although I would like to point out that it is not generally understood by the public that the crown, of course with one or two notable exceptions, does not act on its own initiative on questions of this description. I am not going to discuss the legal aspect of the matter, because the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) disagreed entirely with the contention of the Prime Minister, and after all is said and done, legal interpretations in the house are generally decided on votes. If the party putting forward the contention has a majority of the votes, that is the policy that is carried out.
The resolution passed in 1919 was respected by Sir Robert Borden; it was respected by Mr. Arthur Meighen for two years; it was respected by the present leader of the opposition for eight years, and it was respected by the present Prime Minister for three years. In 1919, Sir Thomas White, then Acting Prime Minister, said that the question was in the hands of the members to deal with, and I would like a repetition of that policy to-day. He said:
It is perfectly open to each member here so far as the government is concerned to vote as he may see fit. The same remark applies to members of the government.
Titles-Mr. Mitchell

In his policy in connection with titles the Prime Minister dispensed with the implication of the resolution that had been in effect for fifteen years. In 1929 that resolution had been in force for ten years and at that time the House of Commons by a majority of 114 to 60 refused even consideration of a motion for the appointment of a special committee to inquire into the question of titles.
I would like to quote some observations of members of the party now in power in connection with this question. The first is the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), I can just imagine my hon. friend with that magnificent voice of his saying in this house on February 14, 1929:
This question was settled by my party in 1919, and I have heard no person in my county or in the province of Ontario express any desire to return to mediaeval times. This seems to be an innocent matter when we are asked simply to refer the question to a committee for consideration, but there may be leaders of parties who perhaps discern the psychology of the situation. In an old school book there was a verse which read like this: Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
I think the hon. member can at least be given credit for being a prophet: at any rate, in my judgment, he reflected the opinion of the majority of the party to which he belongs.
Then we have the opinion expressed by the present Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) in 1918, on May 21:
Now before I close, let me say that I wanted to make my position clear on this question before the vote is taken. I regret very much that I felt it necessary to put myself right before this house as to why I intend to vote in a certain way when this vote is taken. I wish to say that, generally speaking, I agree absolutely with the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Richardson) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) that not only hereditary titles but all knighthoods should be abolished in this country.
There may be some difference of opinion on the legal aspect of this matter, but I do not think there is any disagreement as to the application, at least in the past, of a policy such as has been set in motion by the government. I have always felt that the genius of leadership is not to domineer, the genius of leadership is to crystallize the opinions of your followers. I am frank to admit that this policy in the former democratic countries of Europe has been changed considerably in the last decade, seventeen of which are now under some form of dictatorship. In Warsaw last summer I made this statement; you have lost all the freedom

gained since the French revolution, and you will have to fight for it all over again.
There was another member of the party now in power who expressed an opinion on titles. It is true that for some reason unknown to myself he is not a member of this house at the moment. I refer to Mr. Thomas Church, who on February 13, 1929, said:
It was pointed out by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) who is now one of the leading front benchers in this parliament, that if we wanted to give titles in Canada we should give them to those who served in the trenches for $1.10 a day and to the mothers and widows of those who fought and fell in France and Flanders. Those are the people who should be honoured. How does the government honour those people? Do they get titles? Yes to the poor house.
Now there is something to be said for war decorations-I speak now of course of the three main decorations. They were democratic and there was only one way to get them; that was by going to war. I think it can fairly be said that they could not be bought, as titles have been bought in countries other than this. The recent honours list is predicated upon the fact of class distinction. To substantiate that I will read a statement by Mr. Lloyd George in the House of Commons in Great Britain on July 17, 1922. He stated:
As I have pointed out, in recent years there has been a new order, upon which a very large number of men have been put of the working and lower middle classes, who certainly could make no contribution to any party funds, but who have rendered service at one time or another to the state, mostly in connection with the war.
I take it the decoration he refers to is the Order of the British Empire. No doubt in England that order was bestowed on many members of the working classes and lower middle classes.
I have no objection to the present list on personal grounds. But there is nothing new in the strategy followed by the Prime Minister; it is as old as history itself. Most people who study history know that it was customary for some of the ancient tribes to put the women in front of the armies-


An hon. MEMBER:: Like the C.C.F.l


Humphrey Mitchell: -not so that they should be shot but for the purpose of preventing the enemy shooting at the men behind them.
As to our judges, I have often expressed the opinion to my own people that in this dominion a man appearing before a court of law on a criminal charge gets probably as fair treatment as in any country under the canopy of heaven. I believe that no honour that can be given to a man could be higher

Titles-Mr. Mitchell
than to be appointed to the bench of this country. By granting titles to two of its members I do not believe the Prime Minister has raised the status of the judiciary. Judgeships cannot be purchased as titles have been purchased. It is quite possible that in the appointment of some of the junior judges politics do enter into the question, but on no occasion within my memory has the finger of scorn been pointed at any judge because of the allegation that he was appointed on the basis of payment for his appointment.
It must be obvious to all who read the signs of the times that a revolution in thought is taking place in this country. I think it is fair to say that the direction of that thought is against the creation of class distinctions among the Canadian people. I believe the policy adopted by the Prime Minister fundamentally lends itself to trading and abuse. The revelations as to the sale of honours during the Lloyd George regime in Great Britain clearly indicated how corrupt the granting of honours had become. It made possible the accumulation of a huge campaign fund that the Liberals there, or what is left of them, have fought over ever since. In substantiation of my statement that such a condition existed I quote Lord Carson. Speaking in the House of Lords, he said:
I have had more than once in my chambers to advise on eases in which I have examined long correspondence which showed that there was a regular brokerage, however conducted, for the purpose of carrying out and obtaining honours.
If that is not sufficient I will quote another man who I believe is a good Conservative, the Duke of Northumberland, of coal fame. He said:
It has come to his knowdedge that there was a considerable number of persons in this country who wrote to other people saying they were authorized to approach them with a view to their obtaining an honour in exchange for a contribution to the party funds. He had several of these letters in his possession and he could produce them if necessary.
I think that clearly indicates one of the main objections of the Canadian people to the granting of titles. Who ever heard of a workingman or a farmer getting a title? Of course it is not done; one need not argue that point because it is so obvious. Then I should like to quote another authority, and this will be appreciated by those who have read the works of the late Lord Bryce. I am going to refer to that profound study of modern democracy, his American Commonwealth, which I think is one of the best analyses of governmental institutions ever written. This is what he says:
It may seem a paradox to observe that a millionaire has a better and easier social career open to him in England than in America. Nevertheless there is a sense in which this is true. In America, if his private character be bad, if he be mean, or openly immoral, or personally vulgar, or dishonest, the best society may keep its doors closed against him. In England great wealth, skilfully employed, will more readily force these doors to open. For in England great -wealth can, by using the appropriate methods, practically buy rank from those who bestow it; or by obliging persons whose position enables them to command fashionable society, can induce them to stand sponsors for the upstart, and force him into society, a thing which no person in America has the power of doing. To effect such a stroke in England the rich man must of course have stopped short of positive frauds, that is, of such frauds as could be proved in court. But he may be still distrusted and disliked by the elite of the commercial world, he may be vulgar and ill-educated, and indeed have nothing to recommend him except his wealth and his willingness to spend it in providing amusement for fashionable people. All this wdll not prevent him from becoming a baronet, or possibly a peer, and thereby acquiring a position of assured dignity w'hieh he can transmit to his offspring. The existence of a system of artificial rank enables a stamp to be given to base metal in Europe which cannot be given in a thoroughly republican country.
In connection with the United States might I say this: The only way an individual in that country can perpetuate his name, if he be a rich man, is by making some contribution to education or by adding to the numerous foundations that exist in that country, which I think all will agree have at least contributed something to the life of the country and to civilization. I might mention the Rockefeller foundation, the Carnegie foundation and the Russell Sage foundation, and I could go on almost indefinitely.
The Prime Minister may have his own opinions and may express them in an elaborate manner, but I should like to read a passage from Toronto Saturday Night of January 27, 1934, contained in a London letter written under the nom de plume of P. OD.
Everyone over here-everyone English, that is-seems to be very pleased at the reappearance of Canadian names in the honours list. That is natural enough, for the manufacture of titles is a conspicuous British industry, and, like every other industry, it is keen to extend its export market, and welcomes the removal of embargoes. So a great many complimentary things are being said about the courage of Premier Bennett in coming to this decision, though one is inclined to wonder how much of it is courage, and how much the natural desire of a political leader to reward distinguished henchmen in an easy and inexpensive manner. Even Mr. Mackenzie King, if and when he comes to power again, should find it very useful, in spite of his present opposition. And,
Titles-Mr. Mitchell

anyway, he can hardly reverse the decision. To refuse titles again would smack of absurdity.
As a matter of fact, we Canadians are not nearly so democratic a people as we like to fancy ourselves. There are a lot of us who long for titles-oh, just to please our wives, of course!-and a lot more who enjoy addressing their acquaintances as "Sir William"-
You will remember old Sir William.
-or "Lord Thingumbob," as the case may be. And. as for the "Lady This's" and "Lady That's," they simply revel in it, and so do their friends.	_	_
Since that is the case-and how much it is the ease anyone can easily judge by watching Canadian society in London,-
I think they would be better back here giving us a hand.
-or anywhere else for that matter

Mr. Bennett possibly did a sensible thing in recognizing the situation and meeting it. But even British newspapers express the hope that a little more care will be exercised in the future distribution of titles to Canadians than was exercised" in the past. Now that the market has been opened again, they don't want to see it spoiled.
In my judgment this puts the situation very clearly and reflects a very human point of view. I do not think any power on earth can prevent the abuse of this power of creating artificial class distinctions in this country. Perhaps I might mention a story that runs through my mind and which will be familiar to students of Dickens. At the moment I have forgotten the book in which it appears, but it refers to this very point. There was an old dhap who eventually reached his deathbed and who had bragged considerably during his lifetime with regard to his ancestors. He had two maiden daughters who were quite anxious to find out the old chap's antecedents, and as he was drawing near the end they said, "Father, who was your father?" He said, "Lord knows who," and from that time on they claimed that they descended from the aristocracy of Great Britain.
My attention was directed to a remark made by the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) during the debate on the speech from the throne. He said something about one of the French queens who, when told that her subjects had no bread, said, "Why don't they eat cake?" I think the attitude of the government in regard to this matter is somewhat akin to the attitude of that French queen. What thousands of people in this country want is to retain title to their homes, to get title to a job or an order for their next meal. About the only orders they have been granted since this government have been in power have been the orders given out by

the relief officers from one end of the country to the other. I think the time and energy of the government would have been better directed in devising ways and means of providing more and better jobs.
My time is nearly up, but I want to say this in all humility: I was born in England, and I know something about class distinction. Some in this country may boast of their forbears, but I think most of our ancestors came to this great land because they thought it offered better opportunities than the older countries in Europe. I think this might be truthfully said of most of the people who have settled in Canada, and it is nothing to be ashamed of. It takes some courage-and I have passed through it-to pull up stakes in your own land, leave your friends and go to a new country. I do not believe any man or woman should decry their humble origin;
I think anyone who does so expresses the height of snobbishness. I think I express the opinion of the Canadian people when I say that they do not desire to be graded. We pride ourselves, as I think anyone who has travelled this world will agree, on our good fellowship and democratic impulses. I want to say this about Great Britain:
Wbv should Great Britain lag behind Canada and the United States? Hereditary titles are ludicrously out of date in any modern democracy, and the sooner we sweep away all the gimcracks and gewgaws of snobbery the better.
These are the W'ords of that very able old sailor who made possible, from a naval viewpoint, the winning of the last great war. I refer to Lord Fisher, known as Jackie Fisher of the British navy. He goes on to say:
The fount of so-called honour has become a deluge, and the newspapers are hard put to it to find room for even the spray of the deluge.
The war has not begotten simplicity and austerity in this respect. On the contrary, it has made what used to be a comedy a screaming farce. There was a time when the birthday honours list could be printed on one day, but it is now a serial novel.
I hope that in this country we are not coming to that.
The first chapter of the latest birthday list was long, but the Times warned us that it was only "the first of a series which already threatens to outlast the week-quite apart from the gigantic Order of the British Empire."
I did not intend to speak so long, but I shall close with that quotation from the words of a very fine old gentleman. I could quote opinions of Conservatives and Liberals, and of newspapers from one end of the dominion to the other. I believe those opinions should represent the crystallization

Titles-Mr. Bennett
of the viewpoint of the people in their respective communities, which in my opinion is absolutely opposed to the policy which has been set in motion by the Prime Minister. I would ask that hon. members be given an opportunity this afternoon to reflect that which, in my judgment, is the viewpoint of the Canadian people on this particular matter.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker, it might be well to
direct the attention of this house to the terms of the resolution, after having listened to the speech made this afternoon. It is:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Prime Minister should refrain from recommending to His Majesty the King, the granting of titles, honours and awards to British subjects resident in Canada.
The resolution is that this house should advise the Prime Minister what he should do. The constitutional rule is that this house condemns the Prime Minister for the action he takes. It has never been the custom in this House of Commons, and I trust never will be the custom in this house under our constitution, to endeavour to direct the government of the day as to what it should do-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -by a vote of the chamber. If the government gives advice which is open to censure, the government disappears. It is defeated on a vote of want of confidence.
I pointed out the other day-and since then there seems to be no doubt as to the soundness of my suggestion, at least from a legal viewpoint-that one house of parliament is not competent to deprive the sovereign of his prerogative, and that a resolution passed by one house is not effective for that purpose, I further point out that if it was desired to instruct the Prime Minister as to what he should do, it could be done only by the method that has been followed. I also desire to point out now that a resolution such as the one now before us does not embody the constitutional method usually employed to bring either censure or, shall I say a vote of confidence, upon the action taken by the government of the day. So much for the motion.
The speech to which we have just listened might be divided into two parts. The first was the reading of a series of quotations from those who had themselves accepted honours from the crown. Lord Bryce died a member of the Order of Merit, and a viscount. Lord Fisher was a member of the House of Lords, and also of the highest Order of the Bath. The two quotations,
therefore, are not particularly relevant except as indicating that the gentlemen who used them or who made the observations were rather annoyed that the list was becoming swollen by the introduction into it of others less useful than themselves. Let us now proceed to deal with the first point that was made, that the sovereign is the fountain of honour.
In 1922, in consequence of what took place in Great Britain, a committee was set up consisting of Lord Dunedin, the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Denman, Sir Evelyn Cecil, Sir Samuel Hoare, Sir George C-roydon Marks and Arthur Henderson, the present foreign minister, to consider these matters. They made a report, to par); of which I should like to direct the attention of the house:
Before we go further, we think it is advisable to state clearly the position of the King as to the conferring of honours, a position as to which there can be no controversy, but which is perhaps scarcely appreciated by all who have been interested in the matter.
The King is the fountain of honour, and all grants are made by him, but in the selection of the recipients of these grants, as in other things, he is in practice to act not on his own initiative but on the advice of his ministers. The minister responsible for such advice is the Prime Minister except in certain special eases, e.g., in the cases of the Order of St. Michael and St. George, Naval, Military and Air Force honours. Orders of the Star of India and of the Indian empire, where the minister in charge tenders his advice direct. With these exceptions, and that of the Royal Victorian Order, which is a private order and is bestowed by the King alone and upon his own selection, no grant of honour is ever made by the King except upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister. Even in the ease in which the King might wish that an order or a peerage should be given to a member of his own household, the recommendation would appear on the Prime Minister's list.
Then the committee divided the honours into classes.
It will tend to clearness if we make a division into classes of the honours given. There are first, those given on what we may term exceptional occasions which do not often recur; such are Coronation honours and honours in connection with the war. Secondly, there are what may be termed departmental honours, e.g,, those given to civil servants in the home government departments. Thirdly, there are honours given in connection with the Foreign office, the fighting services and the India office, and honours given to persons connected with the dominions, colonies of India, as distinguished from persons connected with the United Kingdom. Lastly, there are honours given to members of the general public for service or distinction, and these may be subdivided into honours for distinction in literature, science and art, using those terms in their broadest sense, and honours given for political services.

Titles-Mr. Bennett

The motion, before the house would preclude the government of the day making any recommendations for recognition by the sovereign of services rendered by the most distinguished servants of the crown in this country. It would also preclude any recommendation being made with respect to those who might achieve great position in literature, art or the sciences. And, as a matter of fact, while it might well be denied by those who do so contend and insist that no such recommendation should be made, I desire to point out, as is indicated in the report, that the conferring of honours upon those who have thus achieved distinction is one of the oldest acts or prerogatives of which we have any record. While it may not be necessary that it should be done, it is a recognition by the state of services rendered to the state or to the world at large.
Now, there are those who say that this is something which should not be done. Why? As great a man as Nelson expressed his view upon it; as great a man as Lord Curzon, in our day, expressed his view upon it; as great a man as Napoleon, whom Gladstone described as the greatest man, with one exception, of whom there was record,-expressed his views when in 1802 he introduced the legion of honour. Just why there should be in connection with the conferring of honours and awards upon subjects of this country the accusation that we are creating class distinctions, I cannot understand. To say that all persons are equal is to say something which everyone knows is untrue. God has not given equal ability to all men and women. They are not all equipped with the same power of thought or with the same intellectual power. That is quite clear. The attainments of all people are not on a uniform level. It therefore follows that if some have rendered great services-and I use the word "great" in its relative sense-there should at least be no harm in a recognition of those services. For instance, turning to the names appearing on the recent list we find that many are the names of distinguished civil servants who have retired from the service. The honour thus conferred, usually, is that of Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. Sometimes if the service has been very long, as it was in the case of Joseph Pope, there has been a recognition by conferring the title of Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael and St. George. There are other cases which will come readily to the minds of hon. members of this house. These were servants of the crown for fifty years and over; they retired from the service; should the
tMr. Bennett, j
government of the day be precluded from deciding that such a person should have some recognition of a special character accorded to him or her by reason of the service rendered to the state? That is all that is involved. I can readily understand the contention that what are called titles of distinction may be open to a form of criticism or of censure, but that does not apply to honours and awards. I shall say something about these later on. I ask this house whether or not it believes that a man who has served Canada faithfully, honourably and well for fifty years and over, who is retiring, having earned his superannuation, should not be recognized by the conferring upon him of the honour of a C.M.G.
I have no doubt that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was a very proud man when his sovereign honoured him by conferring upon him the C.M.G. He is an entirely different man from myself if he would not be proud of it. He had earned it by distinguished service to the state. He had been Deputy Minister of Labour and had rendered very peculiar service in particular ways. The prime minister of the day recommended to the governor general of the day that he should request the sovereign to honour him with a C.M.G. Did he earn it? Was he entitled to it? Why should he not receive that honour? Why should not the prime [DOT] minister confer that recognition upon him? I could give the house countless other instances.
Take the case of women. At the end of the war there was available for distribution among the women of Canada a large number of honours and awards, but the resolution moved in this house was acted upon and they were not thus honoured. Many of them have since died. There were men whose names were on the list and who would have been honoured but who have since died without recognition. In the list to which reference has been made appeared the names of women who were upwards of seventy years of age, some of them being between seventy and eighty. For fifty long years they had continued to give leadership in their communities in social activities. They did it without reward or hope of reward. It does not hurt their position in the community to say that they should receive recognition by their sovereign conferring upon them a slight honour, making them a Commander of the Order of the British Empire or a member of the Order of the British Empire. This is a recognition for a lifetime of work for humanity. What is more, I know of not a single one of those who have

Titles-Mr. Bennett
been named who is not proud of the honour thus conferred. The communities in which they live have been proud that they have been thus honoured. Their fellow-citizens who accorded to them the positions which they held with such public esteem in this democracy are proud that these men and women have had these honours conferred upon them. Was the recognition such that there should be censure of the government of the day? The hon. member for East Hamilton referred to the occasion which arose in Great Britain in connection with alleged abuses in this regard.
Leaving this for the moment, I recall what Kipling has said in one of his stories. The fact that men and women in the public service realize that at the end of a long life of untiring effort and useful service they may have some slight recognition by the head of the state has promoted ambition among men and women in every part of the British world. This has proved a stimulant to effort, particularly in India. Hon. members will recall that Kipling refers to the men and women who are striving to serve the state, hoping that at the end of their service they may be honoured with a C.S.I. or C.I.E. They seek to attain this recognition not because they value the honour as a class distinction but because it means the seal of approval of the head of the state upon the character of the service rendered.
Take literature, for instance. I doubt if there is an hon. member who is not familiar with the story of Lord Tennyson. They will recall that Mr. Gladstone offered him a baronetcy and that he finally agreed to accept it during a long cruise in the Mediterranean. Lord Tennyson gave the reasons why he accepted this recognition.
Most hon. members will remember that distinguished scientist, Mr. Rutherford, at one time professor at McGill. He was honoured by his sovereign for the great contribution he had made to science, and he is now Lord Rutherford. Take art. What hon. member does n'ot recall Lord Leighton, the president of the Royal Academy? They will recall the joy with which the conferring of this peerage was received. Take medicine. Who does not recall the honour conferred upon Lord Dawson of Penn and upon Lord Horder. In these cases the state was giving slight approval for a long lifetime of effort in preventive medicine.
Take our own country. Who is not familiar with the life of Sir George Cartier and the recognition accorded to him and to Macdonald? They will recall the ultimate action taken in conferring a baronetcy. Who does 74726-94 J
not recall the position taken by men in days gone by with respect to honours conferred in the maritime provinces, in upper Canada, and upon members of the judiciary and of other walks of life? It was felt that they should not accept these honours for the purpose of class distinction but that they should receive recognition from the head of the state for the services they had rendered to the whole state.
For instance, take the knighthood conferred upon the head of the meteorological service in this country by the Duke of Connaught as a farewell honour. Who does not remember the circumstances? Does any hon. member for one moment recall Mr. Stupart as a man of money or as a man who made any pretence to money? He had no claim to fame other than that which came from the contribution 'he made to the welfare of his fellows through long years of service. He received a knighthood from his sovereign, a recognition of the service rendered by the man to the state.
When I hear laughing in the house, when I hear an hon. member rise in his place and compare this matter to the motion of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel) with respect to the grading of hogs, I say it does him no credit and is a reflection and an insult upon the citizenship of this country. It indicates that much midnight oil has been burned in the preparation of a speech that had to be delivered while this motion was still upon the order paper.
It 'has been said that the government of the day took action at a very inopportune time. If hon. members will take the trouble to peruse that list and consider the service which hias been rendered during the last three and a half years of this great depression by those whose names appear thereon, I think perhaps they will modify their judgment. Was there class distinction with respect to any of those names? It is true that one of them was a messenger in the governor general's office, whose faithfulness, loyalty and devotion to duty for nearly half a century-I think, for oyer thirty years-warranted in my judgment his receiving the approval of the head of the state for services thus rendered.
Take the names of women who in these days of stress, in these terrible days, have been caring for the poor, looking after those who could not care for themselves, going down into the slum sections of cities, looking after babies and mothers, engaging in prenatal work with respect to children, the feeding of them and caring for them-the recognition of such work by the state was intended to be, what in fact it is, the placing of the
Titles-Mr. Bennett


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I
do not believe the country is interested in listening to a prolonged debate on the merits of the question of t'he restoration of titles in Canada. What the country wishes to know is what this House of Commons feels on the matter, and what the country will expect of the government is that it will give the House of Commons the right to vote on this question. As no one is better aware than Your Honour, the rules of the house provide that if a debate takes place on a Wednesday afternoon on a resolution by a private member and the debate is not concluded by six o'clock, then the resolution goes to the bottom of the list of private members' resolutions that prior to that time have been discussed and in all probability will not be reached again during the session. That being the case, unless the Prime Minister is prepared to say that he will set apart a day when this resolution will be taken up again and the debate resumed upon it so that a vote may be taken in the house, I think I would ask all hon. members on this side to refrain from further participation in the discussion in order that we may come to a Vote at the earliest possible moment.
I myself will follow that course by replying simply in one or two words to whait the Prime Minister has said with respect to the matter of procedure. It will be recalled that when my right hon. friend took the step of recommending to His Majesty the restoration of the granting of titles in Canada, he did so on the ground that an address from this house to His Majesty with respect to an important matter such as that of titles was not the proper way to proceed; that suloh procedure was an indignity to His Majesty. I believe the Prime Minister was wrong in thait. I shall give just one quotation to indicate what I believe it was that actuated the House of Commons in 1019 to proceed by a resolution in the form of an address to His Majesty with respect to this matter. The quotation is from Redlich. The Procedure of the House of Commons, 1907, volume 2, page 246, as follows:
It is, of course, impossible to enumerate all cases in which an address is appropriate. There is no definite sphere of applicability; the common element is a desire on the part of the house, as representing the nation, to record its views on some events in a peculiarly impressive manner. This may be desirable as to events both of domestic and of foreign concern. There seems to be only one direction in which any limitation has been laid down; no address may be presented in relation to any bill depending in either house. .

There is no doubt that when hon. members of this house last spoke on this matter, they adopted the form of presenting an address because, as Redlich says, in their opinion that was the most impressive manner of presenting a matter which the house deemed of great concern to the country.
The Prime Minister, as I said, was opposed to that method, took exception to what had been done and proceeded with the restoration of titles on the score that that had not been the proper method for the House of Commons to follow and that a resolution of this kind applied to the parliament that passed it and that he could not be bound by what any previous House of Commons may have been bound by. He was then asked very pointedly by an hon. member on this side, the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), what was the proper method of procedure, and I purpose to give, because I think it has governed the action of the hon. member who has introduced the resolution in the form and words in which he has introduced it, the answer which the Prime Minister made to that question. I am reading from Hansard of January 30, 1934, at page 99:
Mr. Euler:	If instead of requesting the
sovereign directly not to exercise its prerogative, the House of Commons had expressed its desire that the Prime Minister himself should not make any recommendation, would the Prime Minister in that case feel himself bound ?
Mr. Bennett: The hon. member is coming to the point I was about to make. Rarely have I found an argument adduced against a position I have taken which so completely supported my position as that taken yesterday by the right hon. gentleman. He argued

That was a reference to my own remarks at the time.
-that this House of Commons is a body from which I derive authority as leader. That is true. But it was not the house of 1919 from which I derived authority; it was not the House of Commons of 1919 which permitted me to stand in this place in the house.
'Now I ask hon. members to follow closely the following sentence:
This house would be within it constitutional rights if it passed a resolution asking the Prime Minister to make no further recommendations during the life of this parliament for titular distinction of any person domiciled in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I repeated that a minute ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Having made
the statement I have just read, the Prime Minister opened the discussion this afternoon by saying that this is an entirely wrong way

Titles-Mr. Spotton
of proceeding, that the proper procedure is to censure the government that has done or is doing a wrong thing. Now, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house: What would the Prime Minister have said had the hon. member taken the course which he now suggests should be taken?	Had the hon. member
asked Your Honour to allow him to drop his resolution so that in going into supply he might move that all the words after " that" be struck out and that in their place should be inserted, " this house is of the opinion that no titles should be granted during the life of the present parliament," or other words declaratory of its opposition against the granting of titles, the Prime Minister would immediately have said, This is not the way to proceed, this is an expression of want of confidence in my government, and I ask the hon. members who are supporting me in this house to reject a motion of that kind as a motion of censure on the administration. He would, in support of that contention, immediately have said: Did I not on the 30th of January point out to the house the correct method of procedure? The Prime Minister would also ask: Did I not say, this house would be within its constitutional rights if it passed a resolution asking the Prime Minister to make no further recommendations during the life of this parliament for titular distinction of any person domiciled in Canada? The purpose of the right hon. gentle-, man is obvious. He is determined that at all costs this house shall not have an opportunity to express its view on this question, because he knows that as respects the granting of titles the view of this house is similar to the view that is held from one end of this country to the other; it is one of opposition to the bestowal of titles in Canada.
The Prime Minister in the course of his remarks took exception more particularly to the fact of the resolution containing the words " honours and awards." May I answer that in just a sentence? The hon. member who has moved the resolution has said to the house this afternoon, and to the Prime Minister directly, that he is quite prepared to have his resolution amended by striking out the words " honours and awards," that indeed he would prefer to have it so amended.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not hear him say
that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Oh, yes, he
did, and may I say now to the Prime Minister that if it will help to expedite a vote on this matter this afternoon every hon. member on this side will agree to an amendment deleting the words " honours and awards "
thereby confining the vote to the question of the granting of titles as generally understood. That is the position in a nutshell. What we believe the country is interested in is preventing the restoration of titles in Canada as that term is commonly understood, titles designated by the prefix "Sir." What may be said with respect to honours and awards is open to debate, and to different points of view, but as far as Canada to-day is concerned I believe the feeling among all classes is entirely opposed to the restoration in this country of titular distinctions of the kind I have mentioned.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in order that every opportunity may be given for this matter to come to a vote this afternoon I shall not detain the house by further remarks but will ask the Prime Minister to grant the house the opportunity for a vote on this question either this afternoon or before the session is over.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Question.


Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: I think, Mr. Speaker, considering my silence in this house for some years, that hon. gentlemen on the other side should grant me the privilege of a few remarks. They can see by the clock that it is not possible for me, nor is it my desire, to talk the motion out. But remembering 1929, and knowing as a former school teacher that the child is father to the man, and watching the faces of the leader of the official opposition and the ex-Minister of Justice to-day and in 1929, it would look as though they think they are doing a great stroke of politics in the country. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the opposition leader never fails to say "the country"; what "the country" is thinking. I shall relieve his mind right now, as well as that of the ex-Minister of Justice.


Mr. EULER:: You are almost right.


George Spotton: Watching the leader of the opposition from day to day, reading his discourses throughout the country in which he reminds everyone that he is the grandson of his grandfather-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


George Spotton: -and suggests that, by virtue of having such an illustrious ancestor, destiny has ordained him to be premier of this country-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: He certainly will be.


George Spotton: -in fact he implies that it was only by a momentary mistake of judg-
Titles-Mr. Spotton

ment on the part of the people in 1930 that he was given a well-earned rest, I observe with what confidence he turns to his followers to-day and assures this house that he speaks for every one of them in stating that there will be no delay in allowing this matter to come to a vote.
I well remember the by-election in 1927 when he came to my riding and ridiculed the idea of my attempting to gain a seat in the House of Commons, because I had no leader at the moment. I had an estimable house leader, who was an honour to the Conservative party, but the leader of the opposition ridiculed the idea of my attempting to obtain a seat; he asked whether I was going to follow the man from Fort William or from Calgary or Guelph or where; as though a man "bom in the image" should not and dare not enter this house unless he had a leader born with an illustrious historical tradition. I want to tell the leader of the opposition that there is no such slavery on this side of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Spotton: My leader is big enough to allow his followers to have convictions on this or any other question, and to vote as they please. I wish to say to the ex-Prime Minister that I made a speech in this house in 1929; it has been largely quoted, it was a short speech, and assure him that I stand to-day just where I stood then.


An hon. MEMBER:: You will not after the next election.


George Spotton: I have turned no somersault, and I assure him I am no Wobbling Willie. In his address in this house the other day the leader of the opposition told us again where he stood, but when I have finished reading the remarks made ljy the right hon. gentleman on a previous occasion I will ask hon. gentlemen on both sides to tell me where he stood then. I quote from Hansard, 1929, at page 78:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King (Prime Minister): Whatever views one may entertain with respect to titles, 1 think that the form in which the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Gahan) has presented his motion is one which ought to commend itself to the house. The hon. member has asked for a committee to reconsider a resolution which was adopted by the house some time ago. He has pointed out that notwithstanding that the resolution precludes His Majesty from conferring titular distinctions and honours upon his own subjects domiciled in Canada, nevertheless the heads of foreign countries are in a position to confer such honours, and apparently have been conferring them, and that these honours are being worn by British subjects domiciled in this country. That of itself is 
a matter which is deserving of investigation, and it might be well worth while to have a committee of the house look into that phase as well as others.
Just ponder these words, Mr. Speaker, and tell me the position taken by the right hon. gentleman when he was clothed with all the powers of prime minister:
If we are to have no titles, titular distinctions or honours in Canada, let us hold to the principle and have none, let us abolish them altogether; but if the sovereigns or heads of other countries are to be permitted to bestow honours on Canadians, for my part I think we owe it to our own sovereign to give him that prerogative before all others.
Now can anyone tell me whether the right hon. gentleman was going or coming?


Mr. YOUNG:: How did he vote?


George Spotton: He voted to have this matter go to a committee, as my leader did. My leader has been consistent, and I leave to the house the question of the consistency of the right hon. gentleman opposite. Then my right hon, friend went on, and I think this gives a true picture of him:
The committee might go into all these matters. What I wish to point out at the moment is that there are anomalies in the present situation which have arisen out of the resolution, and without expressing my own view, I at the moment should like to have the matter looked into by a committee of the house. So far as the government is concerned, we are quite prepared to have the resolution adopted.
Several other hon. gentlemen spoke; there was a hurried consultation and then they put up Bonnie Prince Charlie, who said:
I would not have spoken at this time were it not for the remarks of the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton), who endeavoured to put into the mouth of the Prime Minister words which he did not utter, and endeavoured to attribute to the Prime Minister a desire to see titles restored in this country. Not only do the Prime Minister's own words not permit of that construction, but I am in a position to say, knowing every member of the government, that not one member of the government is in favour of restoring titles in Canada, and the Prime Minister least of all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


George Spotton: It may be all right to
call " question " but I have been in company as fast as this for thirty years, and it will not perturb me a bit. Continuing, Mr. Dunning said:
My- own view is that this committee should not be appointed.
This was after the then Prime Minister-whispered to him and there had been a sudden gathering of the clan in and around the curtains. Evidently it was thought that it

Titles-Miss Macphail
would be bettor strategy to oppose the resolution. Mr. Dunning went on:
It is very evident-I am not impugning in any way the motives of my hon. friend for St. Lawrence-St. George-that an effort will be made to convey the impression in the committee. if it is appointed, just as my hon. friend from North Huron did in his address a few moments agoand so on. I am not going to pursue this matter at length-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


George Spotton: I have seen occasions
when hon. gentlemen opposite were not so anxious to have questions put, and I have assured hon. gentlemen that I am not atempting to talk out this resolution. My attitude is the same as it was in 1930; I have taken no somersault. I am going to support this resolution, but if I thought for a moment that the opposition considered that there was even a tinge of want of confidence in this government in my so doing I would gladly vote against it. Had this resolution come from the official opposition, instead of from a group in whom 1 have great confidence and for whom I have great respect-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Spotton: I hear some hon. gentlemen say " hear, hear they seem, very happy, but you never know where they are. I heard them in this house say-I think it was last session, in connection with the Sun Life bill -that they did not know a bill was coming up. They held not only one but two caucuses to discuss the matter, and then came here blandly and stated that they were absolutely taken by surprise. The former Prime Minister, while speaking in my county, wabbled as he is wabbling here to-day; I heard him state that he was in favour of the abolition of the Senate, that the appointments he had made were made with strings attached, and that he, like Bunty, could pull the strings whenever he wished. He had a living example on the platform at Exeter, in the person of the late Senator McCoig, who said that was true, that he was appointed in that way. I heard the right hon. gentleman say in 1925 that he had a great deal of beneficent legislation in the back of his head but that he had not a clear majority in parliament. "Give me a clear majority in parliament and I will produce the legislation," he said. He came back with even less of a majority, but he was still imbued with the spirit of the divine right to rule, and he hung on despite the fact that his majority had vanished.
In this matter, Mr. Speaker, I stand where I have always stood. I remember the present Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan), twitting me in those days, in his eminent legal fashion. He said he would be glad to come into my constituency and lay the case before my constituents; he said that doubtless they were highly intellectual, and they are. The hon. gentleman went on to say:
I would go on the platform . . . and point out . . . that the nurse who ffttends her diphtheria patients, the policeman who risks his life to protect the lives of others, and the boy who jumps from the wharf to save the child who has fallen into the water and is drowning, cannot in Canada receive the recognition and approval of His Majesty for the valiant deed done for the good of humanity.
If I had ever heard of a policeman, a boy or a nurse who received a title I would have been constrained to have supported titular distinctions in Canada. I can only refer my constitutents to my speech which was put in every home in 1929. That is where I stood then, and it is where I stand to-day. Big men have refused to accept titles, and little men should not be given them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey): Mr. Speaker, so that I may not too long delay the house I shall take only three or four minutes. In my opinion the doing of a good and unselfish deed is its own reward. Any one, whether a man or a woman, who does a good deed in order that he or she be rewarded by some string of letters after a name, or a group of letters before, is not worthy of recognition. It is true that all "good men and true" have the reward of being respected and admired in their own communities. That, I think, is inevitable. It is a just reward for the good they have done and the kindnesses they have shown to others. The Prime Minister strove-and I think "strove" is the right word in this instance- to show that those who had done great things were rewarded. May I point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that the greatest Man who has lived in all time, now gone from the earth some two thousand years, had the reward only of crucifixion. He was not rewarded by titles; He was not rewarded by letters after his name, but the influence of the philosophy of love which He propounded has reached even to this date. May I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister speaking in Toronto referred to the Man of whom I am speaking as the lowly Nazarene, I was shocked.
The people of Canada are opposed to titles; we hear that everywhere in every province,
Titles-Miss Macphail

and I am submitting that that is a very good reason why the sovereign should not give titles in Canada. Of course, if I thought that those twenty-three women and seven men in Canada who only lately were given letters or title were so great in fame that the king himself knew of them-well, I should be very glad indeed. My opinion is that it is not the sovereign who gives titles, except in a nominal sense; actually it is the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister gave the names of titled people whom he thought it had been well to honour. May I give three more names, for the opposite reason. The Prime Minister was very much offended that in this debate about titles hogs should have been referred to, and that calls to my mind at once the name of Sir Joseph Flavelle. And what about Sir Herbert Holt? I am not so sure that Sir Herbert Holt stands very high in the esteem and admiration of his fellows. I think he is about as good an example as I can think of at the moment of an argument against the giving of titles.


Mr. BOURASSA:: But not against selling them.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I hope if he bought it he paid a good price for it, because he has a lot of money which does not morally belong to him. Then, Lord Atholstan is another Canadian who has been given a title. These three examples have not inclined the people to look more kindly upon the conferring of titles in Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have only one
more sentence to add. The time for the restoration of titles in Canada by those who wish them could not have been more ill chosen. The Prime Minister has spoken glowingly about people living in comfortable homes and having decent salaries for themselves-although he did not elaborate too greatly on that point-having gone out into the slums having done what they could to relieve the suffering of the people there. I am not so much interested in those people, although I am thankful for their work. I am interested in the people who live in the slums. If we are going to honour any in Canada none is more deserving of it than are the mothers and fathers of families on relief who have striven to uphold the morale within their families, and have tried to keep their children looking towards a much better life.
My reason for opposing titles is that usually the wrong people get them. If the right people receive honours, those honours are given to only a few of them, because it would

not be possible nor is it necessary to give titles to all in Canada who are deserving of them. The more deserving they are the more likely they would be to resent the conferring of titles upon them.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I intend to confine my remarks to a statement made by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who is just now leaving the chamber. The right hon. gentleman has complained about the restoration of titles in Canada, after the resolution of 1919. May I say to him that when he accepted the highest titular distinction, or at least one of the highest, that can be bestowed by His Majesty on the advice of His Majesty's Privy Council in England, namely the titular distinction of " right honourable," which he accepted in 1922, he was one of the first to restore titles in Canada after 1919.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
minister knows that the resolution of 1919 distinctly excepted " honourable " and " right honourable."


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If the resolution of 1919
excepted " right honourable " this resolution does not. The resolution now before us doe3 not except even the distinction of "honourable." The title " honourable " which is given to privy councillors of Canada, to lieutenant governors and to others is given by the prerogative right of His Majesty on the advice of the government. If the resolution we are now discussing is passed in its present form, precluding the recommendation of the granting of titles to Canadians, then the titular distinction " honourable," which is a title given to privy councillors and to lieutenant governors, must go. If titles are to go, let us have no doubt as to the meaning and purpose of this resolution.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I desire simply to take a few minutes of the time of this house hoping that then we may have a vote as quickly as possible. My purpose in rising is, if possible, to clear the air in regard to this resolution. I now understand clearly that with the exception of a few hon. gentlemen on the government side of the house this House of Commons is definitely opposed to the conferring of titles. But the resolution in addition, raises the question of doing away with minor awards and honours. I therefore propose to move:
That the resolution be amended by>; striking out the words, "honours and' awards" in the third line.

Titles-Mr. Garland (Bow River)
While I am on my feet I desire to avail myself of the opportunity to refer to what I regard as a specious and passion creating speech of the Prime Minister. I think it regrettable that he adopted the tone that he did. Why should we not advise the government? As members representing the interests of our constituents is it not our duty in this House of Commons to tell the government and the Prime Minister what the will of our people is in respect of this and of other questions. I think the Prime Minister went much too far when he took the ground that it was not our right to so advise the government in matters of this kind, or to put forward a resolution in the form of the present one.
Then he used the age worn argument that God did not make all men equal. But, neither did the Son of God raise to the peerage any of his humble followers. But upon one he conferred the highest end of man and that one was the thief who repented at the last moment. Since when has the government of the Prime Minister decided to award titles to repentant thieves.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: As far as
the women about whom the Prime Minister waxed so eloquent are concerned, as the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) has said, in the final analysis it was not the king who awarded the title; it was his prerogative to confer the title or honourable degree upon those to whom the award was recommended by the ministry. The plea was specious throughout. I contend that the granting of titles creates a special and distinctive class, a Class of petty aristocrats, a class of a presumably higher quality and type than the rest of the citizens. It is quite possible that the original recipient of the title may be possessed of certain qualities which would bring to 'him the respect of his fellow citizens, but I do not think it can be said that those qualities continue on to subsequent generations. In this connection I should like to ask this question: If we have hereditary titles for general services, why not hereditary surgeons? Why not hereditary mathematicians? Why not hereditary poets? Why not have these professions honoured when the supposition is that qualities of merit are continued from generation to generation?
Then who is to be the judge of service? If it is to be the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), then I would reject his judgment. I ask the Prime Minister who would recommend
him for a peerage. Would it be himself? I suppose he knows himself better than the rest of the country, but I should like to know.
I submit that those people in Canada who beyond all others deserve awards have not received them nor would have even if it had been possible to confer them at the time. I ask the Prime Minister what man has contributed more in our own day to the health, the happiness and the very lives of human beings than Doctor Banting, the discoverer of insulin. This discovery created a preventive and even a curative for diabetes, one of the dread afflictions of the human race. Of course upon its discovery insulin was made the property of the race, but has Doctor Banting been honoured in the latest list? He has a pension-incompatible with his social contribution.


An hon. MEMBER:: He may be next
time.


Edward Joseph Garland: He is the
type of man who would least aspire to this sort of thing. His work was not done to receive such awards as these at the hands of the Prime Minister or anyone else. What man has contributed more to the material wealth of Calnada than Doctor Saunders? This gentleman receives only a pitiful pension, very little more than a member of parliament receives. Where are his honours and high awards?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He received the C.M.G.


Edward Joseph Garland: So it goes
all along. There may be a few who are justly deserving of the awards made recently, but I contend that the distribution of honours and awards constitutes a distinction and the setting up of a class. And to this I am opposed. However, since hon. members think that the granting of minor awards will not do any serious damage, I am quite prepared that this be continued rather than that the resolution be defeated. In connection with hereditary titles, I Should like to draw the attention of the Prime Minister and my fellow Celts to these words:
Princes and lords are but the breath of kings, "An honest man's the noblest work of God;" And certes, in fair virtue's heavenly road, '
The cottage leaves the palace far behind; What is a lordling's pomp? a cumbrous load, Disguising oft the wretch of human kind, Studied in arts of hell, in wickedness refin'd!


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Burns knew them.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, Burns knew his lords. Like the hon. member who introduced this resolution, I happen to come from a country in which we know much of
Titles-Mr. Lawson

the evil of lords. Burns knew them quite well when he said:
The rank is but the guinea's stamp The man's the gowd for a' that.
And again:
Yee see yon birkie ca'd "a lord,"
Who struts, an' stares, an' a' that;
Tho hundreds worship at his word,
He's but a eoof for a' that:
For a' that, an' a' that,
His ribband', star, an' a' that;
The man o' independent mind He looks an' laughs at a' that.
The people of Canada look and laugh at a' that. If there is anything that will bring down upon the head of this ministry not only ridicule but loud and contemptuous laughter, it is the government's opposition to this resolution. Democracy was introduced into the world on the wings of those glorious words, "Liberty, equality, and fraternity." The government denies the idealistic principles of democracy when it deliberately opposes a resolution of this kind and attempts to press upon the people of Canada titular distinctions which will have the inevitable effect of wiping out fraternity, demolishing equality and making light of liberty.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Edward Joseph Garland: I have only a few moments left, and I cannot give an answer now.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Can you deny-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Edward Joseph Garland: It was asked of Christ who would be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven. He did not answer then but washed the feet of his disciples. Who among the lords would wash the feet of their disciples? Later on Christ said: "He that is greatest among you shall be your servant." In the words of the preacher, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
The government now proposes to reintroduce into Canada through this means a reservoir of campaign funds such as that which caused a stigma and stench in the political life of Great Britain. After all, is it not an attempt of capital to bedeck itself in gaudy baubles and glittering gauds? We are to have knights, lords, dukes and earls thrust upon us. We will have none of it. The people of this great country are not going to go back to the dark ages whence this wretched form of feudalism came.


Mr. J. E. LAWSON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, although I have great difficulty in appreciating the analogy between, the

scriptural references of the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) I think I could, if I so desired, show how ludicrous are certain of their comparisons.


Mr. IRVINE:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
point of order. I understood that the hon. member who preceded the hon. member now speaking moved an amendment, and you have not put it.


An hon. MEMBER:: It has not been
seconded.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes, it was seconded. I have written on the amendment that it is seconded by Mr. Spencer.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Garland moves,
seconded by Mr. Spencer, that the words " honours and awards " in the third line be deleted from the resolution.


James Earl Lawson: Continuing from the point at which I was interrupted, I am always averse to treating scriptural references either with facetiousness or with humour; hence 1 shall not deign to reply to that part of the statement of the hon. member. When the hon. gentleman, apparently in support of the argument which he is making, uses such general terms as " liberty, equality, and fraternity," a mere grouping of words, I cannot help but pause to point out how inapplicable they are. What is liberty? Not the right of licentiousness, not the right to do, each man as he may please, but the right of every man to exercise his own free will within certain well-defined limits prescribed by the state. And so, Mr. Speaker, I am completely at a loss to understand in what way the conferring of titles or honours or awards can have anything on earth to do with the question of liberty; and if it were not that I do not wish to delay the house I should likewise discuss equality and fraternity.
Now I hope that my hon. friends of the official opposition will not interrupt me with their calls for votes, because I assure them that if they do I shall postpone the time of that vote as long as possible, and if they do not I think I can express my views in ten minutes. I must confess that I am beginning to be a little fed up, if I may use the vernacular, with the attitude of some of my hon. friends opposite. When we had a bilingual currency resolution before the house,, as soon as a few of us on this side desired: to express some views, hon. gentlemen opposite-were howling for a vote. When we had an. unemployment insurance resolution before the house, a matter in which I and many others-

Titles-Mr. Manion
on. this side of the house are vitally interested, the former Minister of Labour got upon his feet and twitted us on this side with not speaking to the question; but he went ahead and spoke the full forty minutes, which took up until six o'clock and prevented the rest of us from expressing our views.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) takes out of the question honours and awards, and I say without hesitation that I am favourable to the conferring of honours and awards. He still leaves us titles, and then he appeared to discuss the question as though titles meant solely hereditary titles. To my mind a title is anything which gives a man a right to have a prefix to his name other than the ordinarily accepted one of every gentleman, that of Mister, and with the possible exception of degrees conferred by universities signifying scholastic standing or something of that kind. I am one of those who are of the opinion that it is not well to create social distinctions among our people. Human nature of itself will create sufficient social distinctions; those of high education will probably not be fraternizing with those of little education. Those distinctions in social status which human nature creates we cannot avoid, I presume, but I am of the opinion that it is not well artificially to create social distinctions. On the other hand, I have a conviction which far supersedes the opinion I have just expressed. We are part and parcel of the British Empire. I have no hesitation in saying that I am an imperialist. I have always stood, and I trust I always will stand, for the maintenance of this empire. When hon. gentlemen in the past, since I have been sitting in this house, have come back from imperial conferences, and with eloquent words, sometimes with much enthusiastic desk pounding by their supporters, told us of all the increases in status which this dominion had gained, I never felt any great burst of enthusiasm, any lump in my throat, or any thrill running down my spine. If some hon. gentleman, a leader in this house, gets up on his feet and tells me what Canada has done to increase its stature in the British Empire by making, by some practical means, a contribution to the maintenance of this empire, I promise you I shall applaud him most enthusiastically.
Throughout this empire the king has a royal prerogative. He has the prerogative of conferring titles. Ordinarily that prerogative is exercised on the recommendation of the Prime Minister who, I assume, does so after consultation with his council. One of the
great difficulties that we are facing in this country and in this house to-day is that so many people stand up and point out that in this, that or the other thing we have had some abuse, and instead of remedying the abuse they say, "Let us throw over the whole system, lock, stock and barrel." So far as I am concerned, if abuse there has been in the conferring of titles, then I say let us take adequate and proper means to remedy the abuse. But so long as this country is to remain part and parcel of the British Empire, so long as there is a tendency to reduce the links that bind us, I for one will not vote to destroy another link, and therefore I shall vote against the resolution and the amendment.
Hon. R. J. MAiNJQN (Minister of Railways) : I wish to make just one or two observations on this question. The hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) in introducing his resolution quoted from a speech which I made in parliament in 1918 when the house sat in the Victoria museum building. I have no criticism to offer with respect to my hon. friend's quotation from my speech on this question delivered at that time. I had very strong opinions sixteen years ago on this subject. Of course, opinions change as time moves, and though I do not intend to express to-day any different opinion from that which I expressed at that time, I do wish to point out that had my hon. friend gone further in the quotation which he read to the house he would have observed that in that speech I also made this point, that in critical times such as those through which we were then passing I did not consider it wise to vote against a government which was attempting to carry on the affairs of the country. Therefore, I voted with the government and I intend to do the same to-day, exactly on the same grounds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have one word to say about the amendment. If the amendment carries, lieutenant governors hereafter appointed are not to be called honourable. If the amendment carries, senators are not to be called honourable. If the amendment carries, members of the privy council are not hereafter to be called honourable.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Is that the amendment itself or the amendment as amended?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amendment as it reads strikes out honours and awards. There is no amendment to the amendment; there is only one amendment. The official table issued
Titles-Division

twenty years ago gives the table of titles to be used in Canada. The table of titles commences with His Excellency and Her Excellency. Every lieutenant governor, who at that time was addressed as His Honour, was thereafter to be called honourable; members of the privy council were to be styled honourable; senators were to be styled honourable, and so forth.
Just one other question that arises out of the amendment. Are we to understand that foreign principalities and powers may confer titles upon Canadians when their own sovereign may not? That is the other issue and it is a real one.


William Daum Euler: It is not a real one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That issue is a real one
and everything I said with respect to the right of my sovereign to exercise his prerogative on the advice of this government is applicable to what I have just stated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to say just a word with reference to what the Prime Minister has said. I cannot agree with him when he says that if the amendment carries, the result will be what he has stated. The resolution states:
That, in the opinion of this house, the Prime Minister should refrain from recommending to His Majesty the King, the granting of titles, honours and awards to British subjects resident in Canada.
The titles to which my right hon. friend has referred, he, the Prime Minister, does not recommend at all. Those are titles that appertain to an office, that belong to the office as such. What the Prime Minister or the government recommends is the appointment of a person to an office and the title appertaining to it goes with it without any recommendation whatever. The only case in which this resolution as amended would apply is where the Prime Minister might wish to recommend that someone be given a title of knighthood carrying with it the prefix of "sir" before the name of the person receiving the title and carrying with it the right of his wife, if he has one, to assume the title of " lady." That is the meaning of the resolution as it is proposed to amend it, the Prime Minister's words to the contrary notwithstanding.
Amendment (Mr. Garland, Bow River) negatived.


Mr. GOTT:: I have a general sessional pair with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario, (Mr. Rutherford) and I have refused to break my pair. Had I voted, I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: I was paired with the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the resolution.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted, I would have voted against the resolution.


Mr. BRADETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). Had I voted I would have voted for the resolution.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask the Prime Minister a question before we leave this matter? According to his interpretation of a private member's resolution the resolution applies only for the one parliament; it would not have been effective beyond the present parliament had it carried?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think that might be the construction placed upon it. I have
not considered this resolution from that point of view, but a resolution of instructions given to the Prime Minister by this house, I should say, would have no force beyond the life of the parliament in which it was given, although it has been contended by hon. gentlemen opposite that that view is not correct. My view is that it does not extend beyond.


PUBLIC AND PRIVATE DEBT
Mr. JOSEPH JEAN (Maisonneuve) moved:: Whereas, the steady increase of the public debt and private debts in Canada constitutes one of the most serious obstacles to the economical restoration of the country,
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the government should take immediate steps to reduce the public debt and limit the expansion of private credit.
Hon.E.N.RHOD'ES (Minister of Finance): I have not had an opportunity to look into this, but I think, Mr. Speaker, upon examination you will find that this motion covers a subject which has already been dealt with by way of an amendment moved by the hon. member far Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) to the address in reply to the speech from the throne. Having been debated once during the session, under the rules the subject may not be debated again.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Has the hon. gentleman the amendment to which he draws attention?


Mr. RHODES:: I am trying to find it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I will examine the motion referred to; in the meantime if there is no objection the debate may proceed.


Joseph Jean: Mr. Speaker,
the aim I have in mind in introducing this resolution is twofold:
1.	To respond to the desire often expressed by the public that concrete and forcible measures of economic and social re-establishment be enacted and
2.	To contribute, in my humble way, to the research and carrying out of such measures.
Times are hard. Our social structure is battered on all sides. However, the crisis which has been of a very severe character, for over five years, has had the good effect of making people think. In the research of the causes which brought it on and the means to be taken to escape from its blows, the flaws of our economic system and the defects in our social structure, have been revealed to us. Knowing now these defects the people clamour for immediate redress.
Debts-Speaker's Ruling

Unfortunately the wheels of government do not revolve as rapidly as events. In the mind of our legislators, economic and social solutions are not clearly drawn, consequently, the measures to be taken are not definite.
A number of countries, such as Russia, Italy, Germany and the United States are, at present, separately experimenting on a system which may have practical results in their own field of activities; however, in Canada, we have not reached that stage of evolution. Hitherto, we simply resorted to expedients and urgent remedies most of which proved inefficient. The people realize the powerlessness of the methods followed hitherto, and that is why they clamour, not without clause, for the enforcement of new, and well defined measures, applicable to our national problems.
I do not intend to submit, to-day, a flawless scheme of a nature to entirely satisfy public opinion and redress the whole economic system of this country, were it adopted. I simply wish to, make a psychological and summary analysis of the economic doctrines which prevail throughout Canada; prove that we are, on the whole, following a policy which is contrary to the interests and requirements of the country and suggest some remedies, the future discussion of which will, perhaps, contribute to direct researches towards the realization of a national program of financial redress.
We have in Canada, at present, three well defined schools of thought on economic and social questions.
The first proclaims the efficiency of the capitalist system such as in practice for half a century and whose main objective is concentration of capital aiming at mass production, with a forced and unlimited consumption. It admits the present crisis but seeing that it is world wide, it believes that it was inevitable in Canada. Its motto is optimism and reliance in an improvement of conditions. It believes that, with its vast resources and wealth, our country will be one of the first to readjust itself, as soon as providence thinks proper to check the ills from which the world has been suffering for the last five years.
According to the teachings of this school, we have but to await events, without making any changes or correcting the defects in our social structure, although, at times, resorting to urgent remedies to calm the first symptoms of the crisis.
The second school proclaims the necessity of a radical change in the capitalistic system whose failure has become evident. It places all its hopes of salvation in a fuller interven-

tion of the central authority which should assume all functions and responsibilities.
The means which it suggests consist mainly in the socialization of capital, industry, trade and agriculture. It does not state how all this will work out; however, the hopes of happiness which it visionizes facinates the masses, because with our democratic system, we must make some allowance for the doctrines wffiich flatter these violent impulses of the masses even if they are known to be ill-founded.
Finally a third school contends that that the present capitalist system is not in itself wrong, but that it has become tainted, that the economic conditions have greatly changed owing to the progressive industrialization of the world; that capital abuses of its power and has set aside order by exploiting at will and for its own profit, industry, finance and the entire economic system; that reforms are needed without, however, upsetting the whole social order and that these reforms must aim at protecting the weak and the poor rather than the wealthy classes, which have less need of the public's protection than the other classes of society.
The large majority of the people-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have no desire to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has raised a point of order as to whether or not this resolution, as worded, can be considered by the house. The resolution reads:
Whereas, the steady increase of the public debt and private debts in Canada constitutes one of the most serious Obstacles to the economical restoration of the country,
Therefore be it resolved that, in the opinion of this house, the government should take immediate steps to reduce the public debt and' limit the expansion of private credit.
I find that on February 13 Mr. Woodsworth, seconded by Mr. Gardiner, moved as follows:
We respectfully regret that Your Excellency's present advisers have not taken such steps as are necessary to deal adequately with unemployment, to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt, and to put the agricultural industry on a basis that will ensure to the farmer a decent standard of living.
A full discussion was had on that resolution, which contains the words "to reduce the burden imposed by the public debt" and, since the hon. gentleman's resolution has this reference to the public debt I cannot find that his resolution is in order. The question has been discussed by this house this session, and I therefore hold that the resolution now offered by the hon. gentleman is not in order and cannot be discussed.

Medical Relief-Mr. Howden


MEDICAL EXAMINATION AND RELIEF
Mr. J. P. HOWDEN (St. Boniface) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration steps which would (a) provide for periodic medrea 1 examination of the Canadian people; (b) afford medical relief for those suffering from disease.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the third time this resolution has come before the house, and I see that even now it does not express the exact thought that was in the mind of the mover. I should like to insert the word "free" before the word "periodic" in the third line, so that the resolution will read:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration steps which would (a) provide for free periodic medical examination of the Canadian peopleand so on. It has often occurred to me that there is need for a medium of approach between the medical profession and a large number of the citizens of this country. The expense of sickness holds no great terror for those who have money, for they are able to pay the costs. Similarly, sir, those who are indigent and simply canot afford to pay the cost of medical services are provided for by the open wards of the hospitals and by the free outdoor clinics, and it has always been a point of honour with medical men generally to see that the needy were provided with attention in times of sickness. But there is a very large class of citizens in Canada-and this matter has been mentioned before-who have been in the habit of meeting their obligations and maintaining their self-respect. These people prefer to employ their own medical men and pay for their services. Upon this class of people, one which embraces the vast majority of Canadian citizenship, the cost of medical services in times of long protracted sickness is a very serious consideration. There was a time when members of the medical profession designed not to name a fee. Possibly at this time doctors were supposed to possess superior intelligence and almost supernatural powers. For their services they received gifts and gratuities. Those were the early days of medicine, at a time when the field of medicine was limited outside of injuries and maternity cases, to fevers, humors and tumors. The therapeutic application consisted largely in blistering, bleeding and purging. Those therapeutic measures have survived to the present day, and are still effectual. However, since that time the medical profession has made very definite and rapid strides until to-day it has become a definite and intricate
science. To acquire knowledge of medical learning long years of study are required and to keep abreast of the times, continuous study from day to day is necessary. I would express the belief that very few medical men of to-day could afford to take a chance on earning a livelihood through receipts of gratuities and gifts. On the other hand, it is necessary for them to charge fees, and we understand that medical fees have always been fairly high. Speaking of high medical fees I am not referring to those men who charge $25 or $50 for advice. I consider that, like the lawyer who may charge $1,000 for advice, they are parasites of society and one of the fertile causes of communism and revolution.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where are they?


John Power Howden: I have heard of them.
At this time, however, I am talking about ordinary medical fees running from $2 to $5 for office consultations, and about S3 for household calls. These are the fees commonly charged. I say to hon. members that in a family, the breadwinner of which earns only $2 a day and who is called upon to pay $3 a day for medical services over a considerable period of time, a hardship exists. For that reason I dare say in a great many instances sickness is, at least to some extent, neglected and is allowed to gain considerable headway before a medical man is called in. That, as hon. members will realize, is a very undesirable state of affairs.
I should like to approach the subject from another angle, namely, that sickness is always with us. Of those of us born into this life unfortunately some are born as imbeciles and morons. At the present time I am not giving special consideration to this class. There is however a class scarcely less fortunate, one born into this world with an inferior constitution and subnormal vital resistance, people who go through life as invalids. Then' we have those people who do not know they are invalids, and who have had very little to cause them to suspect any physical abnormality; I refer to those amongst others affected with tubercular trouble. It is estimated that about 80 per cent of humanity is either actively affected with tuberculosis, or have the disease lying latent in their systems.
I fancy it would be safe to say there are many dozens or even hundreds of cases of incipient heart trouble and liver trouble which are not suspected and are not known. The number of people who give positive reaction to the Was-sermann test for syphilis is appalling. That is the only word which could properly be used.
With these considerations in mind I was prompted in the year 1931 to bring before this



Medical Relief-Mr. Howden
house a resolution along similar lines. Although not in exactly the same wording as the present resolution, it had very much the same meaning, and was as follows.
That, in the opinion of this house, a measure of federal state medicine would be m the best interests of the Canadian people.
On that occasion it was my endeavour to point out that the wealth of the world had been gained not by gold but by labour, and that labour could produce only with the aid of sound bodies and sound minds. I indicated that since Canada is a land of stem realities, it required men of sound physical and mental health. It was pointed out that a large share of the population was suffering from illnesses which cost our people many millions of dollars yearly. Through unsuspected illnesses constantly among us the health of many of our numbers was constantly being undermined.
The resolution was discussed at some length by sixteen or seventeen hon. members, most of whom, I believe, seemed favourably impressed with the resolution. On that occasion the Minister of Pensions and National Health said this:
But with respect to the general question, I have sympathy with the idea of medical treatment being provided in some organized way for those who require it. I do not suggest that it come under the dominion government.
I am supporting and I am sympathetic with the idea that there should be a system of medical treatment in this country for those who need it. Whether it shall be provided by the provincial government, or by the federal government, or by a combination of the two, is a different matter.
So that even the Minister of Pensions and National Health realized at that time, as I believe he does to-day that it would be desirable if we could get medical treatment for those desiring and requiring it, who are unable to pay for it but who through personal selfrespect are prevented from asking for it freely.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw) believed that such a condition would come about in time, but that if conditions were left as they then existed we would, in time, reach the desired haven. The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett), however, took decided exception to the resolution and, if I remember correctly, pointed out that if adopted it would entail the entire disorganization of the medical profession, and that there would be trouble between the provinces and the dominion in connection with the control of medical services. I think possibly the

right hon. gentleman thought that the cost would be rather excessive. At the time I was inclined to think, although I may have been wrong, that he believed that many of his supporters were ready to give this measure their favourable consideration. However, he gave directions as to what should be done and the resolution was voted down by the government. The following year the matter came up in a rather different form, the same form as it appears to-day, namely:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into immediate consideration steps which would (a) provide for periodic medical examination of the Canadian people; (b) afford medical relief for those suffering from disease.
On that occasion the resolution came up well on in the evening, and there was only time for the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MaoLaren), the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley) and the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Ross) to respond. I pause to say that the hon. members for East Calgary and Kingston made very excellent addresses. I think I am right in stating that they both agreed with me in that they felt that the services already given the Canadian people could be correlated under federal control and that if that could be done and the provinces brought together in a common standard, it would be a desirable condition. I must not say that the hon. gentlemen agreed with me further. The position taken by the minister was similar to that taken the year before, except that he pointed out there had not been any great demand for periodic medical examination. He stated that those who could afford such examinations or had them available made little use of them. As I said, the motion came on well in the evening and did not receive very much consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I might say that no
direction was given to the party to the right except such as they may have taken from the observations I made.


John Power Howden: We will leave it at that.
I should like to appeal to the Prime Minister to afford if possible an opportunity of completing this discussion. We have not had an opportunity either this year or last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The motion was called
once and passed. I can give no further assurance to the hon. gentleman.


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

Questions
Thursday, March 15, 1934