Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: With the permission of
the house, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call attention to something I said in the course of the debate yesterday, which might have created an entirely erroneous impression and which, if it were not corrected at the earliest possible moment, might also occasion some embarrassment in the relations of Canada with other countries.
Speaking on the question of the government's policy with respect to entering into reciprocal agreements with other countries, I stated that our policy was to enter into reciprocal agreements with any countries that were prepared to enter into similar agreements with Canada, and I made that position quite clear in the following words:
Canada, then, on both political and economic grounds, is committed to a policy of peace and good will, and of freer exchange with countries which will meet us half way.

Then I mentioned the countries to which we feel more especially committed, and I went on to say:
So far as greater freedom of trade is concerned, we are always willing to add to these countries, other countries prepared to trade with us on a reciprocal basis. . . .
And I continued:
. . . guided by the same democratic ideas, such as France, the Scandinavian countries, Holland and Belgium. . . .
I had intended after mentioning these countries also to say that we were prepared to enter into reciprocal agreements with other countries that did not necessarily have the same domestic policies as we have, but I omitted to do so. I thought the matter was so important that in looking over the transcription of the reporter's notes last night I immediately made the necessary revision so that my second statement would be in complete accord with the first and would read:
. . . we are always willing to add to these countries, other countries prepared to trade with us on a reciprocal basis, whether they be countries whose policies are guided by the same democratic ideas, such as France, the Scandinavian countries, Holland and Belgium, or countries with domestic policies differing from our own.
That was what I intended to say, but in the haste of speaking I omitted to make clear the fact that the policy of the government is, as first stated, to make reciprocal trade agreements with any country, but not to regard the domestic policies of particular countries as a bar to entering into these agreements.
I make this statement because Hansard had reported me correctly and the press has reported correctly what appeared in Hansard.
I felt however, that unless this change were made immediately it might occasion embarrassment in some other parts of the world as well as here. The house will appreciate why I felt it necessary to make the correction at the earliest possible moment.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Was a reduction made on the listed price of farm implements and tractors during the year 1938?
2.	If so, what companies effected a reduction in their prices?
3.	At what time of the year were such reductions made?
4.	What is the amount of the price reductions on tractors, open gear-binders, closed gear-binders, ploughs, seed-drills and every other farm implement?

Questions


Mr. GARDINER:: The information which would constitute an answer to this question is not available in a form which we could guarantee as being correct, and I suggest that the question be dropped.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Dropped.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT-CONSTRUCTION OF DUG-OUTS AND DAMS IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	What is the total number of dug-outs, and the total number of dams constructed in the province of Saskatchewan under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act since its coming into force?
2.	How many dug-outs and dams were constructed in the said province during the year 1938, and what were the total costs of: (a) dug-outs, and (b) dams, during the said year?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Total number of dug-outs, 2,048; total number of dams, individual and community, 1,424; total number of dams, large projects, 34.
2.	(a) 1,290 dug-outs, $95,719,54; (b) 790 dams, individual and community, $89,141.50; 19 dams, large projects, $231,501.91.


JAMES COYNE
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Was Mr. James Coyne, of Winnipeg, counsel or assistant counsel on any of the royal commissions which have been appointed?
2. If so, how much per day did he receive?
3. What total amount has he received as counsel or assistant counsel on any commission or commissions?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Assistant counsel, royal grain inquiry commission.
2.	$10 per day living allowance, $50 per day legal fees.
3.	Living allowance, $2,470; legal fees, $18,475; travel, $1,308.74. Total amount paid, $22,253.74.


ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT-SPECIAL PERMITS
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many special permits each year have
been granted by the veterinary director general under section 93 of the quarantine regulations pursuant to the Animal Contagious Diseases Act:	(a) in the township of Toronto, county
of Peel; (b) in Ontario; (c) in Canada?
2.	Before such special permits were granted, were the local municipal council or local board of health consulted in each instance?
3.	If so, did the said municipal council or local boards of health approve the issuance of such permits?
4.	What are the names and addresses of persons or corporations operating "piggeries" in the township of Toronto, pursuant to the aforementioned quarantine regulations?

5.	Has the veterinary director general received any complaints or objections in writing or otherwise from neighbouring residents with respect to any of the said "piggeries" in the said township of Toronto?
6.	What applications, if any, for further special permits in the said township of Toronto, are now under consideration?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	(a)	(b)	(c)1921-22	94	2231922-23	40	1381923-24	70	1721924-25	.. 1	20	611925-26	.. 2	57	1441926-27	65	1591927-28	66	1401928-29	1	65	1501929-30	74	1761930-31	48	1191931-32	64	1531932-33	46	1271933-34	45	1291934-35	44	1431935-36	58	1531936-37	1	43	1201937-38	.. 1	55	1601938-39 to date.. ..	.. 1	38	907	922	2.557
(Figures for previous years not available).
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	J. Heck, Cooksville; R. McKay, Cooks-ville; J. A. Todd, Cooksville; R. Walton, Malton.
5.	Yes.
6.	None.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION EMPLOYEES
Mr. HARRIS:: 1.	What are the names of the paid employees, including the general manager and all others, of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation throughout the dominion?
2.	What salary does each receive?
3.	What living, travelling or expense allowance was each paid in the year 1938?


Mr. HOWE:: This question refers to a
matter of the internal management of an autonomous corporation. Inasmuch as a committee of this house has been appointed to investigate all matters affecting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I think we should take the same position as is taken in connection with the Canadian National Railways and decline to answer a question of this type.


Mr. MANION:: I wish to protest against that attitude, without going any further into the question at the moment.
Questions


GORDON RESERVE, SASKATCHEWAN, WATER LINE
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Is a water line being built on the Gordon reserve in Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what is the name of the contractor?
3.	What is the amount of the contract?
4.	Does the contract contain a fair wage clause?
5.	If so, what amounts per hour should be paid to single men and married men by the contractor?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	W. H. McDiarmid.
3.	Approximately $2,800.
4 and 5. The contract was on a cost plus basis and the schedule of wage rates applicable to the work was as follows:
Cents per hour
General foreman	 80
Carpenter	 70
Tractor operator	 50
Motor truck driver	 40
Labourers	 40
Indian labour	20 to 25


SUPREME COURT BUILDING
Mr. GREEN:: 1.	Has a contract been let for the erection of a new supreme court building in the city of Ottawa?
2.	If so, to what company?
3.	What is the estimated total cost of the erection and furnishing of this building?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Anglin-Norcross Ontario Limited, of Montreal, the lowest tenderers.
3.	$3,360,000, including surrounding terraces and underground garages.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS - FINANCIAL STATISTICS
Mr. WALSH:: 1.	What were the passenger revenues, passenger operating expenses, net revenues, and passenger operating ratios of the Canadian National for the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938 respectively?
2.	What were the receipts from ticket sales at each of the stations of the Canadian National Railways in the city of Montreal which it is proposed to consolidate under the proposed tunnel development for the years 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, and 1938 respectively?
3.	What was the amount expended on the Montreal terminals development under S.C. chapter 12, 1929, up to December 31, 1938?
[Mr. Speaker.!
Mr. HOWrE:
1.	Passenger revenue:	1934,	$16,331,229;1935, $16,644,700;	1936, $17,021,746;	1937,
$18,944,767; 1938, $18,096,849. These amounts do not include sleeping and chair car, mail, express and other passenger train service revenue.
No figures are available which correctly reflect the segregation of passenger operating expenses and passenger operating ratios.
2.	It is not considered in the interests of the Canadian National Railways to give the information requested.
3.	$16,651,345.


AUTOMOBILES ENTERING AND LEAVING CANADA THROUGH ST. LAWRENCE RIVER PORTS
Mr. CASSELMAN:: How many automobiles entered and left the country respectively, through the ports of Cornwall, Morrisburg, Prescott, Brockville, Gananoque and Kingston, during each of the calendar years 1936, 1937 and 1938?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Cornwall, Ont.			
	1936	1937	1938
Canadian automobiles:			
Inwards	18,927	21.816	20.874Outwards	19,039	21,509	20,693Foreign automobiles:	Inwards	18,558	24,012	20,325Outwards	19,486	25,643	21,946Morrisburg, Ont.	Canadian automobiles:	Inwards	3,195	3.030	3,252Outwards	3,322	3,023	3,270Foreign automobiles:	Inwards	4,601	5,514	4,929Outwards	5,167	6,119	5,663Prescott,	, Ont.	Canadian automobiles:	Inwards	8,972	10,207	10,033Outwards	9,058	9,921	9,789Foreign automobiles:	Inwards	16,062	17.130	13,408Outwards	'.	15,442	16,696	13,949Brockville, Ont.	Canadian automobiles:	Inwards	3,593	3.721	3,110Outwards	3,541	3,730	2,976Foreign automobiles:	Inwards	10,508	11,687	8,426Outwards	10,601	11,815	8358
Questions
Gananoque,	, Ont		
	1936	1937	1938
Canadian automobiles:			
Inwards	1,031	1,046	698Outwards	1,040	1,184	790Foreign automobiles:	Inwards	6,540	8,928	4.709Outwards	7,629	8,727	6,034Kingston,	Ont	Canadian automobiles:	Inwards	4	2Outwards	4	8	3Foreign automobiles:	Inwards	223	100	105Outwards	93	136	132IMPORTATIONS OF	CEREAL	GRASS


Mr. STEWART:: 1.	What is the total quantity of cereal grass imported during the year 1938?
2.	From what country or countries were such imports made?
3.	What is the rate of duty on such imports?
4.	Is cereal grass used in the preparation of balanced rations for live stock and poultry?
5.	What are the names and addresses of such importers?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	and 2. Imports of cereal grass not separately recorded. 3. Dehydrated cereal grass not further processed than ground or sifted has been rated free of customs duty under tariff item 535.
4.	Yes.
5.	Information not available.


IMMIGRATION FROM GERMANY AND AUSTRIA
Mr. HEAPS:: 1.	What was the total number of immigrants who came to Canada during the calendar year 1938 from Germany, including Austria?
2.	How many were heads of families?
3.	What are the occupations of those who arrived in the dominion?


Mr. CRERAR:: The question in its present form cannot be answered, for the reason that the department classifies and keeps its statistics regarding immigration on the basis of racial origin. .


Walter Edward Foster: Answered.


DOMINION HOUSING ACT-LOANS
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	How many loans were made^ in each year under the provisions of the Dominion Housing Act, 1935, in: (a) Peel county; (b) Canada as a whole?
2.	What is the total amount so loaned in each year under the provisions of the said act in:
(a)	Peel county; (b) Canada as a whole?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	(a) Four loans, all for single family housing units, were made in Peel county under the Dominion Housing Act, as follows: 1936, 1; 1937, 1; 1938, 2.
(b)	Loans made and family housing units provided under the Dominion Housing Act in each year were as follows:
1935	1936	1937	1938Loans.. .	. . 75	650	1,426	1,220Units.. .	. . 99	934	1,961	2,3012.	(a) Amount of loans made in each year in Peel county was as follows: 1936, 83,000; 1937, $3,500; 1938. $6,788.(b)	Amount of loans made in Canada in each year was as follows: 1935, $525,070; 1936, $4,444,788; 1937, $8,066,195; 1938, $8,119,602.


Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	Under the provisions of the National Housing Act, 1938, how many loans have been made in accordance with: (a) part one; (b) part two; (c) part three of the said act, (1) in the dominion, (2) in the county of Peel?
2.	What is the total amount so loaned in each instance ?


Mr. DUNNING:: (a)	(1) In the five months of operation under the National Housing Act, 1938, part I, from August to December inclusive, 1938, 1304 loans providing for 1837 family housing units were approved in the amount of $6,522,347.
(2) In the same period approval was given to four National Housing Act loans providing for four family housing units and amounting to $16,956 in Peel county.
(b)	No loans have as yet been made under part II of the National Housing Act.
(c)	Loans are not made under part III of the National Housing Act. This part provides for the payment of taxes on new low cost homes on certain conditions as set out in the act.


NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION
Mr. GRAYDON:: 1.	What persons constituted the Canadian employment commission?
2.	What was the total amount paid to each of the commission members for salaries, living allowances, travelling and other expenses?
3.	What recommendations, if any, made by the reports of the said commission have been put into effect by the government?
4.	What was the total cost to Canada of the said employment commission?

Questions


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Arthur B. Purvis, Montreal, Quebec; A. N. McLean, Black's Harbour, New Brunswick; Alfred Marois, Quebec, P.Q.; Tom Moore,
Ottawa, Ontario; Mrs. Mary M. Sutherland, Wells, British Columbia; W. A. Mackintosh, Kingston, Ontario; E. J. Young, Dummer, Saskatchewan.
(c)	Travelling
Per diem (b) Living and other
2.	(a) Salaries allowance allowances expenses Total
A. B. Purvis	
Nil	Nil Nil	Nil	NilA. N. McLean	
Nil	Nil	Nil	$2,858	55	$2,858	55A. Marois	
Nil	$3,529	Nil	1,611	46	5,140	46Tom Moore	
$7,425	Nil	Nil	609	95	8,034	95Mrs. M. M. Sutherland	
Nil	9,445	Nil	5.117	80	14,562	80W. A. Mackintosh	
Nil	3,066	Nil	1,281	95	4,347	95E. J. Young	
Nil	4,895	Nil	2,518	80	7,413	80
Note.-P.C. 1140 of May 13, 1936, provided for remuneration at the rate of $20 per day and actual expenses, while engaged on the work of the commission, except Mr. Tom Moore, who was in receipt of a salary of $9,000, less 5 per cent, as a member of the employment and social insurance commission to February 29, 1937, and then received a salary of $675 per month from March 1, 1937, from the national employment commission. (P.C. 492 of March 30, 1937.)
3.	Action has been taken to date by the government toward the implementation of the following recommendations of the national employment commission:
(a)	a national registration and classification of all persons receiving aid to which the dominion government contributes;
(b)	a farm employment plan and supplementary plans designed to provide winter employment for homeless adults;
(c)	a home improvement plan involving a limited government guarantee to lend-
[DOT] ing institutions in connection with small
loans for home repair and improvement work made under terms laid down by the dominion government;
(d)	appointment of a youth employment committee and a women's employment committee;
(e)	a dominion-provincial program of youth training and rehabilitation of the unemployed ;
(f)	invitation to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec to confer with dominion officials on agricultural relief (invitation not accepted);
(g)	a current audit of unemployment relief expenditures at the seats of the governments of the provinces.
In addition, the government has been guided in the determination of its policy by the recommendations of the commission with respect to modernization of the employment service of Canada, low rental housing, public works and coordination of aid.
4.	$325,549.26 divided as follows:
Commissioners
Per diem remuneration and travelling expenses.. .. Youth Employment Committee
Living allowance and travelling expenses	
Women's Advisory Committee
Living allowance and travelling expenses	
Other expenses	
National Employment Commission S 42,358 51	Registration Branch
14,401 68	
13,149 92 103,413 06	$152,226 09
$173,323 17	$152,226 09
CMr. Graydon.]

Questions


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT- SASKATCHEWAN CONTRACTS
Mr. PERLEY:: How many contracts of any nature whatsoever were let by the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in the province of Saskatchewan for the period of January, 1938, to January, 1939?


James Garfield Gardiner: 32.


SASKATCHEWAN RELIEF SEED
Mr. DOUGLAS (Weyburn):: 1.	Has the Saskatchewan government made application _ to the federal government for assistance in financing relief seed for the farmers this spring?
2.	If so, on what date was application made?
. 3. What other bodies have made representations of this nature?


James Garfield Gardiner: I answered this question last night, in addressing the house, as far as it is possible to answer it at the moment.


BROADVIEW, SASK., LANDING FIELD
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	Was a landing field constructed by the Department of Transport at or near the town of Broadview, Saskatchewan, during the year 1938?
2.	If so: (a) what was the total cost; (b) who were the contractors; (c) what was the amount of each contract?
3.	Was labour used, or employed, from the Broadview district?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	The Department of Transport started the construction of an intermediate aerodrome near the town of Broadview, Saskatchewan, latter part of the year 1937. Completed May 15, 1938.
2.	(a) Purchase of land (1937-38), $1,486.50. Civil aviation (1937-38), $17,891.91. Civil aviation (1938-39), as at November 30, 1938, $22,336.25. Total to November 30, 1938, $41,714.66.
(b) and (c).
Contract No. 30582-Contractor, William R. Webb & W. G. Wellbelove, Broadview, Saskatchewan. Consideration, $3,419.85. Description, erection of a radio meteorological building at Broadview (Ekapo), Sask., on the route of the Trans-Canada Airways.
Contract No. 30590-Contractor, William R. Webb & W. G. Wellbelove, Broadview, Saskatchewan. Consideration, $3,867.60. Description, erection of a radio beacon station, including the construction of four antenna tower foundations at Broadview (Ekapo), Sask., on the route of the Trans-Canada Airways.
Contract No. 30604-Contractor, Dorosz Brothers and Ross, Regina, Sask. Consideration, $16,902. Description, development of the intermediate aerodrome site at Broadview (Ekapo), Sask., on the route of the Trans-Canada Airways.
Contract No. 30835-Contractor, P. W. Graham & Sons, Limited, Moose Jaw, Sask. Consideration, $11,822. Description, erection of living quarters for the radio staff of air services, including two residences and a double garage at the intermediate aerodrome, Broadview (Ekapo), Saskatchewan, (using wood bevel siding).
3.	Yes. All unskilled labour obtained from Broadview district; skilled labour required for certain contracts was obtained from outside points.


WEYMOUTH N.S., WHARF
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Did the government purchase from Gilbert Belliveau a wharf at Weymouth, Nova Scotia?
2.	If so, what was the purchase price?
3.	What area adjacent to the wharf, and used with it, is available for piling space?
4.	What are the dimensions of the wharf?
5.	From whom, and when, did Gilbert Belliveau acquire title to said wharf, and for what amount?
6.	Was said wharf under lease to one Taylor when purchased by the government?
7.	If so, has the lease to Taylor been continued or renewed?
8.	What is the rental and duration of the lease, if any?
9.	What amount has been expended on repairs to this wharf since its purchase by the dominion government?
10.	Was consideration given to the purchase of a wharf in the same locality, known as the Dunbar wharf, and were there any negotiations by the government for its purchase?
11.	Why did the government purchase the said wharf instead of the Dunbar wharf?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Yes, by expropriation.
2.	$2,500.
3.	None.
4.	266 feet long by 20 to 79 feet wide.
5.	No information.
6.	7 and 8. Under lease to Weymouth Shipping Company. Lease not renewed.
9.	None.
10.	Yes, Dunbar wharf also known as Han-kinson wharf.
11.	Wharf purchased affords greater advantages to shipping and represents less maintenance costs.
Questions


RETIREMENT OP NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. LANDERYOU:: 1.	Will a plan be considered which, if pur* sued, would substantially reduce and eventually wipe off Canada's national debt? If so, in what manner will this plan differ from the policies pursued during the past thirty years.
2.	Would the present financial policies now pursued by the present government, if continued for thirty, fifty or one hundred years, result in a complete retirement of Canada s national debt?


Walter Edward Foster: I think this question is not in order, because it raises a question of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question. In Campion's "An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons", at page 128, paragraph 4 gives among examples of questions that are out of order, those-
4.	Raising questions of policy too large to be dealt with in the limits of an answer to a question.
I think the question should be dropped.


MR. JUSTICE MITCHELL
Mr. LANDERYOU:: 1.	Has Mr. Justice Mitchell, of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Alberta, sat on any trial since he was appointed Chief Justice?
2.	If so, when?
3.	Does Mr. Justice Mitchell hold a position of administrator under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act?
4.	If so, at what salary per diem?
5.	Does Mr. Justice Mitchell also draw salary as Chief Justice of the trial division of the Supreme Court of Alberta?
6.	If so, what salary does he receive?
7.	How many judges have been employed on the trial division of the Supreme Court of Alberta during each of the past twenty years?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No information.
2.	No information.
3.	No. He is chief commissioner of the Alberta board of review appointed under the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.
4.	No remuneration is payable the chief commissioner but he is granted an allowance of $25 per diem and transportation while engaged on the work of the board of review, except when the board is sitting in Edmonton.
5.	Yes.
6.	$10,000 per annum.
7. 1918-19-20-None. 1921 to date-Six including chief justice.
(Note: Trial division of supreme court of Alberta established in 1921.)


THREE PER CENT EXCISE TAX-REVENUE FOR
Mr. STEWART:: 1. What is the total amount of revenue derived from the 3 per cent excise tax in each of the calendar years, 1936, 1937 and 1938?
2.	What is the total amount of such excise tax in each of said years upon the articles mentioned in schedule one of the Canada-United States trade agreement, signed at Washington on November 17, 1938?
3. What is the total amount of revenue derived from said tax from all commodities free of duty in each of said years?


Mr. ILSLEY:: 1.	Calendar year 1936,	$14,502,260.04;
Calendar year 1937, $18,854,202.49; Calendar year 1938, $16,055,880.75.
2 and 3. Statistics are not kept relative to the amount of taxes collected on goods entered under the various tariff items.


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT-PURCHASE OF FENCE POSTS
Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Were bluestone-treated poplar fence posts procured under the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act at the stations of Porcupine Plains, Shelan, Steen or Bjorkdale, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, were said posts supplied under contract ?
3.	Who was the contractor or person who supplied them?
4.	How many posts were supplied by this contractor or vendor?
5.	How much did he receive for these posts at shipping points?
6.	Was any material or equipment supplied or paid for by the government for the treatment of said posts?
7.	Where were posts used?
8.	What transportation costs, if any, were paid on these posts?
9.	Were British Columbia cedar posts used in building a community pasture north of Gallivan, Saskatchewan?
10.	What was the cost of said cedar posts at point of delivery for use at this pasture?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Yes-Chelan.
2.	Yes.
3.	William Tomchuk.
4.	79,080 posts.
5.	$7,626.60.
6.	Yes.
7.	Reserve community pasture, quarantine reserve grazing area, Govenlock, Sask. R. M. of Coalfields No. 4, community pasture, Bienfait, Sask. R. M. of Laurier No. 38, community pasture, Radville, Sask. L.ID.'s 17 and 47, community pasture, Val Marie, Sask. R. M. of Wreford No. 280, community

Questions
pasture, Nokomis, Sask. R. M. of Oakdale No. 320, community pasture, Coleville, Sask. Battle Creek diversion canal, Consul, Sask. Battle Creek west outlet canal, Consul, Sask. Davis Creek diversion canal, Robsart, Sask. East end of Cypress lake canal, Robsart, Sask. Downie & Gap Creek canal, Maple Creek, Sask., Caron canal, Riverhurst and Central Butte, Sask.
8.	810,698.98.
9.	Yes.
10.	83,290.08.



TESSIER, SASK., MAIL CONTRACT

Mr. COLD WELL:: 1.	Who carried the mail from Tessier post office, Saskatchewan, to station, up to November 1, 1938?
2.	What was his remuneration?
3.	Were there any complaints regarding this service ?
4.	If so, by whom?
5.	Who carries the mail now?
6.	What is his remuneration?
7.	Upon whose recommendation was this appointment made?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Mrs. L. J. Hamilton.
2.	$249.60 per annum.
3.	No.
4.	See answer to No. 3.
5.	George G. Saunders.
6.	$195 per annum.
7.	Mr. W. Richardson of Rosetown.



DOMINION EXPERIMENTAL FARM DRIVEWAY

Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	What was the total cost of constructing the new driveway through the dominion experimental farm?
2.	What was the cost of the stone used in such construction, and from whom was it purchased?
3.	What was the cost of the surfacing on this roadway?
4.	Were tenders called for this construction?
5.	If so, what are the names of those who tendered, and the amount of their respective tenders?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	$159,784.81.
2.	$5,135.48-R. R. Foster and Sons; Fraser Duntile Co.; Laurentian Stone Co.; Wright Bros. Supply; T. S. Kirby and Co.
3.	$25,500.48.
4.	Yes, for surfacing material; the work of laying was done by commission's own forces.
5.	O'Leary's Limited, $5.55 per ton; Standard Paving Company, $5.80 per ton; Dib-blee Construction Company, $5.80 per ton.



OTTAWA DRIVEWAY -ST. PATRICK - HURDMAN BRIDGES SECTION

Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	What was the cost of the new driveway between St. Patrick and Hurdman bridges along the east side of the Rideau river?
2.	From whom did the government obtain the land which makes up the parkway in the above location?
3.	What price was paid for the property?
4.	What was the total cost of such park and driveway?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	$33,742.95 (between St. Patrick and Cummings bridges).
2.	Arthur Jolicoeur, Georges Roy, Rideau View Realty Company, and Town of East-view.
3.	$30,101.00.
4.	$58,742.95.



GRANTS-IN-AID TO PROVINCES

Mr. LENNARD:: What were the total amounts of grants in aid furnished the different provinces during 1938 by the federal government?


Mr. ROGERS:: Agreements entered into with the provinces under the provisions of The Unemployment and Agricultural Assistance Act, 1938, provide for contribution by the dominion of the following percentages of the material aid expenditures of the province and municipalities for the fiscal year 1938-39 or the maximum amounts indicated whichever is the lesser: Prince Edward Island-30 per cent or $48,000; Nova Scotia-30 per cent or $210,000; Quebec -30 per cent or $4,800,000; Ontario-30 per cent or $5,580,000; Manitoba-35 per cent or $1,980,000; Saskatchewan-35 per cent or $2,430,000; Alberta-35 per cent or $1,500,000; British Columbia-30 per cent or $1,380,000.
Material aid is not being distributed in the province of New Brunswick and in lieu of a grant-in-aid for material aid purposes a special grant-in-aid agreement has been entered into with that province providing for a dominion contribution of $225,000 towards expenditures incurred by the province during the fiscal year 1938-39 in carrying on or assisting in carrying on certain projects and works, or 50 per cent of said expenditures whichever is the lesser.



TOURIST TRAFFIC STATISTICS

Frank Exton Lennard: How many tourists entered Canada during 1937 and 1938, respectively?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 1937, 18,263,400; 1938, 17,106,987.
Questions



ASSISTANCE TO WESTERN DROUGHT VICTIMS TO LOCATE IN EASTERN CANADA

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Has the government assisted families from the western burnt out areas to locate in eastern Canada?
2.	If so, how many families were affected, aDd to what extent was aid given?


James Garfield Gardiner: The answer is no.



MUENSTER, SASK., MAIL CONTRACTORS

Mr. COLDWELL:: 1.	Who are the contractors for carrying the mail on routes Nos. 1 and 2, Muenster, Saskatchewan ?
2.	What were the dates upon which these contracts were made or renewed?
3.	What are the salaries paid to the said couriers?
4.	Were tenders called last year for the position of mail courier on route No. 3, Muenster?
5.	How many tenders were received?
6.	By whom were they submitted, and for what amount?
7.	Who was the successful tenderer, route No. 3?
8.	What is his present salary?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	No. 1, Joseph Storch; No. 2, Henry Wash-kosky.
2.	No. 1, renewed October 1, 1938. No. 2, renewed October 1, 1938.
3.	No. 1, $400 per annum. No. 2, $350 per annum.
4.	Yes.
5.	Eight.
6.	Martin Weber, Muenster, $235; Joseph H. Korte, Muenster, $240; Edward Loehr, Muenster, $244; Ervin Steffen, Muenster, $248; Gesa Szautner, Muenster, $260; Theodore Torborg, Muenster, $349; Peter Weber, Muenster, $350; Raymond Hilgers, Muenster, $365.
7.	Martin Weber.
8.	$235 per annum.



GRAINGER-CARBON, ALTA., MAIL CARRIER

Mr. JOHNSTON (Bow River):: 1.	Who is the present carrier of mail between Grainger and Carbon, Alberta?
2.	What is the salary paid?
3.	On what date does the present contract expire?
4.	What is the mileage of this route?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Alex. Hay.
2.	$898.56 per annum.
3.	30th June, 1939.
4.	12 miles each way.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT-LOANS TO MUNICIPALITIES IN QUEBEC

Mr. BRUNELLE:: 1.	What municipalities, in the province of Quebec, took advantage of the National Housing Act, 1938?
2.	How many applications for loans under the said act were granted in each such municipality, and what was the amount of each loan?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1 and 2. The National Housing Act, 1938, which repealed and reenacted the Dominion Housing Act with important amendments, was passed on July 1, 1938, but lending operations under the new Act did not begin until about August 1, 1938. The details of loans approved from August 1, 1938, to December 31, 1938, in the province of Quebec, are as follows:
Location	No. of loans	No. of family housing units provided	Amount of loanArvida	4	5	$ 15,920Baie Comeau..	49	51	226,671Beauport.. ..	1	1	3,000Beauharnois...	1	1	4,000Bromptonville.	1	1	4,000Cap de la Madeleine...	3	6	11,040Chicoutimi. ..	1	1	8,000Cote St. Luc..	6	6	24,000Dolbeau	1	1	2,000Dorval	1	1	3,300Drummondville	1	1	2,160Giffard	2	2	7,200Granby	2	2	4,370Grandes Bergeronnes.	5	5	9,800Hampstead. ..	12	40	170,030Hudson Heights..	1	1	4,700Hull	1	2	6,200Hull Twp.. ..	2	2	9,500Joliette	1	1	3,800Jonquiere.. ..	1	1	2,400Lachine	9	9	27,680Lachute	1	8	12,000Longueuil.. ..	4	4	14,040Magog	1	1	3,500Montreal.. ..	31	159	511,280Montreal West.	1	1	3,900Mont Laurier.	1	2	3,000Mount Royal.	30	36	211,700Outremont. ..	5	72	236,720Plessisville.. ..	4	4	12,400Pointe Claire.	5	5	19,960Pointe aux Trembles. ..	1	1	3,000
Questions
Location	No. of loans	No. of family housing units provided	Amount of loanQuebec	.. 7	36	8 127,540Rosemere.. ..	.. 1	1	5,500Saraguay	. 1	1	9,000Senneville.. ..	.. 1	1	8,000Shawinigan Falls.. 2	4	11,500Sherbrooke.. ..	.. 3	5	18,900Sillery	.. 22	25	139,858St. Bruno.. ..	.. 1	1	4.000Ste. Foy.. ..	.. 1	1	4,540Ste. Genevieve	. . 1	1	8,000St. Georges de Beauce..	.. 2	2	4.000St. Hyacinth..	.. 4	10	17,000St. Jerome.. ..	.. 1	2	5,000St. Joseph de Grantham. . .	.. 1	1	2,250St Lambert..	.. 2	2	8,000St. Laurent..	.. 2	2	7.000Strathmore....	.. 1	1	3,800Three Rivers..	.. 2	2	8,000Vaudreuil.. ..	.. 1	1	4,000Verdun	.. 3	3	10,880Ville St. Pierre	.. 6	6	23,500Westmount.. ..	. 1	1	15,000Windsor	.. 1	2	3,000256	544	$ 2,029,539
The details of loans approved in the province of Quebec to December 31, 1938, under the National Housing Act, 1938, and its predecessor act, are as follows:
Location	No. of loans	No. of family housing units provided	Amount of loanArvida	.. 5	6	$ 20,420Baie Comeau..	..104	106	417,180Baie D'Urfe..	.. 2	2	9.150Beauport	.. 1	1	3,000Beauharnois ..	.. 1	1	4.000Bromptonville.	. 1	1	4,000Cap de la Madeliene. . .	.. 3	6	11,040Chicoutimi.. ..	..[DOT] 1	2	8,000Cote St. Luc ..	.. 20	37	158,050Dolbeau	.. 1	1	2,000Dorval	.. 5	5	21,000Drummond ville.	. . 1	1	2,160Giffard	.. 2	2	7,200Granby	.. 2	2	4,370Grandes Bergeronnes. .	. 5	5	9,800Location	No. of loans	No. of family housing units provided	Amount of loanHampstead	61	137	$ 669,316Hudson	1	1	3,500Hudson Heights.	3	3	12,700Hull	1	2	6,200Hull Twp	2	2	9,500Iberville	1	1	7,700Joliette	1	1	3,800Jonquiere	1	1	2,400Lachine	20	20	71,630Lachute	2	14	24,000Longueuil .. ..	5	5	17,040Magog	1	1	3,500Montreal	242	664	2,599,032Montreal East ..	1	1	4,000Montreal West ..	4	20	70,600Mont Laurier ..	1	2	3,000Mount Royal ..	148	219	1,223,881Noranda	1	2	4,800North Hatley ..	1	1	2,750Outremont .. ..	57	221	956.960Plessisville .. ..	4	4	12,400Pointe Claire ..	21	22	79,276Pointe Aux Trembles .. ..	1	1	3,000Quebec	12	52	196,370Rosemere .. ..	1	1	5,500Saraguay 	1	1	9,000Senneville .. ..	3	3	22,250Shawinigan Falls	3	5	19,000Sherbrooke .. ..	8	18	65.028Sillery	62	66	368,356St. Bruno .. ..	1	1	4,000Ste. Foy	3	3	19,757Ste. Genevieve..	1	1	8,000St. Georges de Beauce	2	2	4,000St Hilaire .. ..	1	1	5,000St. Hyacinthe ..	4	10	17,000St. Jerome .. ..	1	2	5,000St. Johns	2	2	9,200St. Joseph de Grantham.. ..	1	1	2,250St. Lambert.. ..	4	4	16,000St. Laurent .. ..	9	10	44,000Ste. Rose	1	1	3,500Strathmore .. ..	1	1	3,800Three Rivers ..	2	2	8,000Valois	6	6	22,440Vaudreuil .. ..	1	1	4,000Verdun	6	7	28.580Ville St. Pierre..	7	7	27.350Westmount .. ..	11	11	128,725Windsor	1	2	3,000889	1,744	$7,521,461
95S
Questions



GRADING OF HOGS

Mr. HYNDMAN:: 1.	How many official grades of live hogs are marketed in the abattoirs and stockyards of Canada?
2.	What are the customary or official differential given or deducted for each grade?
3.	From which grade of live hogs is each grade of Canadian Wiltshire sides as marketed in Great Britain manufactured?


Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Nine.
2.	An official differential applies as between the bacon and the select grades, a $1 per head premium being paid on the latter. Differentials betwen grades other than selects and bacons are not official; they may be subject to change when the relative volume -and percentage of such grades show substantial increases or decreases, and such differentials differ as between one market and another. The present differentials at Toronto are: butchers, $1.25 per head; lights, open; heavies, $2.50 per head; extra heavies, $1.50 to $2 per hundred pounds. These prices from the basic "bacon" grade.
3.	Selects and bacons.



GRADING OF HAMS AND BACON

Mr. SENN:: 1.	How many grades or classifications of Canadian Wiltshire sides are shipped to the British market?
2.	What percentage of our total shipments to Great Britain fell within each of the above grades or classifications?
3.	What was the average price per pound realized for each grade or classification in the year 1938?
4.	How many pounds of Canadian hams were shipped to Great Britain in 1938?
5.	What was the average price per pound in the said year?


Mr. GARDINER:: 

CHURCHILL HARBOUR-IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE

George Halsey Perley: Was any portion of the vote passed in the estimates for improvements and maintenance of the harbour at the port of Churchill for the years 1937-38 not allocated? If not, why?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The following information furnished by the National Harbours Board:
Amount voted for Churchill harbour in estimates for 1937-38: (a) Capital, $10,000;
(b)	Deficit, $242,000. Work provided under item (a) Carried out; (b) Actual deficit realized $140,889. Difference between latter figure and amount voted represents expenditures not required or deferred in view of restricted operations owing to short crop.



BESSBOROUGH HOTEL, SASKATOON

Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):: What was the total cost of the Bessborough hotel in the city of Saskatoon, including: (a) the cost of the site; (b) the cost of constructing the building; (c) the cost of the furnishings and equipment?
2.	What were the gross receipts of the said hotel for the year 1937, and the year 1938, and what were the gross expenditures for operation, including salaries for the manager, assistants and staff?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	As at December 31, 1938: (a) $130,188.76; (b) $3,036,304.93; (c) $400,965.93. Total, $3,567,459.62.
2.	Gross receipts, 1937, $226,819.83; gross receipts, 1938, $224,206.88. Gross operating expenses, 1937, $244,951.11; gross operating expenses. 1938, $246,970.60. Operating deficit, 1937, $18,131.28; operating deficit, 1938, $22,763.72.
. CANADIAN NATIONALS-PARTICIPATION IN SPANISH WAR


Mr. HURTUBISE:: 1.	Is the government aware of the fact that Canadian nationals have participated in the Spanish war?
2.	Did the said Canadian nationals need permission from the Canadian government to enlist for said war?
3.	If so, was any permission given to said Canadian nationals by the Canadian government to enlist for the said war?
4.	If so, on what basis was permission granted ?
5.	If not, on what basis was permission refused ?
6.	How many joined:	(a) with the Negrin
forces; (b) with the Franco forces?
7. What help, if any, was given by the Canadian government to facilitate the movement of the said nationals to Spanish territory?
8. What help, if any, was given by the Canadian government to facilitate the movement of the said nationals back to Canada?

Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In July, 1937, the Foreign Enlistment Act, making it unlawful for Canadian nationals to enlist in the service of foreign countries, under certain conditions, was made applicable to Spain.
3.	No permission was given.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Answered by No. 2.
6.	No definite information.
7.	None.
8.	Following upon the decision of the Spanish government to return all foreign volunteers in its ranks, under supervision of a League of Nations committee, the Canadian government was asked by the non-intervention committee, through the British foreign office, to join with the European members of that committee in assisting repatriation. In order to determine promptly in each case the question of readmissibility of volunteers to Canada as nonimmigrants under the Canadian Immigration Act, the Canadian government through officials of the immigration department, undertook the examination in Spain and France of all volunteers who presented themselves for examination before sailing, but they declined to join members of the non-intervention committee in furnishing financial assistance for transportation or other purposes.



NON-IMMIGRANTS-PASSAGE OF THROUGH CANADA

Mr. PARENT (Quebec West and South):: 1.	How many emigrants of Hebrew, or other racial origins, landed at Halifax on their way to Australia during 1937, 1938, and 1939, to date?
2.	How many of such emigrants sailed from Vancouver harbour on the way to Australia?
3.	Was there a difference in number between those who landed at Halifax and those who sailed from Vancouver?
4.	If so, were any searches undertaken to locate such missing emigrants?
5.	Did the government confiscate the cash guarantee covering the passage of each such missing emigrant through Canada?
6.	If such confiscation was made, what was the amount?


Thomas Alexander Crerar: 1,	2, 3, 4. Immigration statistics are not kept in such a way as to provide answers to these questions. For many years non-immigrants, to which class transit passengers belong, have passed through Canada in transit to the United States, Australia, New Zealand, India, Japan, China and other parts of the Far East. We have no reason to suspect that any of the immigrants mentioned in Question 1 have remained in Canada. Care
has always been taken to see that these have transportation and documents which will ensure their being able to reach their destinations. Whenever circumstances have arisen that might indicate an attempt to use the transit privilege as a means of remaining in Canada, steps have been taken to prevent that occurring. In 1924 an attempt was made by some Southern Europeans to effect illegal entry to Canada by declaring themselves to be en route to Australia. This movement was discovered in its early stages and those guilty were deported.
5.	Cash guarantees or bonds are not taken in the case of persons in transit.
6.	Answered by No. 5.



ROLLING HILLS IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ALTA.

Mr. QUELCH:: How many families: (a) from Alberta; (b) from Saskatchewan, have been selected for settlement in the Rolling Hills area of the eastern irrigation district, in southern Alberta?


James Garfield Gardiner: (a) None; (b) 35.



MR. JUSTICE TILLEY

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Has the government taken cognizance of the following news item in the Toronto evening Telegram, of December 1, referring to Justice Tilley who, speaking at a St. Andrew's banquet, said: "Are we satisfied to let Great Britain and the United States protect us in case of trouble? I say we're not. Let us cut out politics altogether and be nationalists and imperialists and Scot, Irishman and Englishman, all stand on guard for the British empire!
. . . We would form a labour battalion and set the young Canadians at work building fortifications on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts! "
2.	Is a judge allowed to participate in a discussion of controversial political issues?
3.	What action does the government intend to take in the matter?


Mr. LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I answer this verbally. To the first question the answer is yes; to the second the answer is no, and to the third the answer is that the Department of Justice will bring the remarks attributed to Mr. Justice Tilley to his attention and ask him for an expression of his views as to the propriety of his making such remarks, having regard to the judicial position he occupies.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-COMPETITIVE BIDS FOR MACHINERY

Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: What means were used to obtain competitive bids in the purchase of machinery, parts aDd material by the Department of National Defence during the past three years?
Questions


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: For many years, the departmental practice has been to invite bids direct from prospective tenderers. To this practice, there has been introduced during the last three years, the advertising in the public press of invitations to tender on the more important requirements of the department.



ROYAL VISIT TO CANADA-COMMEMORATIVE STAMPS

Mr. REID:: 1.	Will the Post Office Department issue special stamps commemorating the visit of their majesties to Canada?
2.	If so, what denomination of issue are being considered ?
3.	When is it expected that the stamps will be available to the general public?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1-cent, 2-cents, and 3-cents.
3.	At the time of the royal visit, the exact date to be announced later.



VANCOUVER, B.C., POST OFFICE-EMPLOYMENT OF RETURNED SOLDIERS DURING CHRISTMAS SEASON

Mr. GREEN:: 1.	How many returned soldiers were employed by the Vancouver post office for special work during the Christmas season, 1938?
2.	What number of the soldiers so employed served with the Canadian forces during the great war?
3.	What number served with the imperial forces?
4.	How many of such returned soldiers were employed through the Vancouver honorary committee of the veterans' assistance commission ?


Mr. McLARTY:: 1.	337.
2 and 3. No information.
4.	201.



IMMIGRATION, 1938-RACIAL ORIGINS

Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the total immigration into Canada during the calendar year 1938, with regard to: (a) the countries; (b) the nationalities of all immigrants so entering during the said year?
2.	Were any representations made to allow refugees from European countries to enter Canada without the said refugees having to comply with the regulations of the Immigration Act?


Mr. CRERAR:: 1. Statement attached. Information not available in form desired.
[Mr. H. G. Clarks.l
2.	Many applications have been received in the immigration branch for the admission of refugees unable to comply with the immigration regulations.
Immigration to Canada, by racial origin, for the calendar year 1938;
Albanian.. ..	Via Ocean Ports 10	From U.S.A.	Totals 10Arabian	3	2	5Armenian	4	2	6Belgian	177	22	199Bohemian	10	10British- English.. ..	2,257	1,906	4.163Irish	398	732	1,130Scotch	659	706	1,365Welsh	75	55	130Bulgarian.. ..	25	1	26Croatian.. ..	283	4	287Czech	170	2	172Dalmatian.. ..	1	1Dutch	200	136	336East Indian.. ..	9	9Esthonian.. ..	9	9Finnish	67	14	81French	139	910	1,049German	588	514	1,102Greek	121	9	130Hebrew	456	292	748Italian	367	61	428Japanese	57	. .	57Jugo-Slav.. ..	221	4	225Lettish	6	, .	6Lithuanian.. ..	39	8	47Magyar	596	21	617Maltese	1	5	6Mexican	2	2Montenegrin..	8	. .	8Moravian.. ..	9	9Negro	5	22	27North American Indian	9	9Polish	570	63	633Portugese.. ..	1	2	3Roumanian. .	109	4	113Russian	151	14	165Ruthenian.. ..	1,880	25	1,905Scandinavian- Danish....	45	35	80Icelandic.. .	10	10Norwegian..	28	91	119Swedish.. ..	18	98	116Serbian	63	8	71Slovak	1,505	18	1,523Spanish	7	2	9Swiss	50	8	58Syrian	22	8	30Total	11,411	5,833	17,244
Questions



BAYFIELD, ONT., RADIO RECEPTION

Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	Have any complaints been received by the Department of Transport, and/or the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation^ regarding radio reception in the village of Bayfield, Ontario?
2.	If so, what steps have been taken to rectify the difficulties?


Mr. HOWE:: 1.	No complaints of interference have been received by the Department of Transport from the village of Bayfield, Ontario, since May, 1938.
2.	Investigation showed that complaint to be due to a fault in the broadcast listener's receiver, which was repaired by owner.



AIR DEFENCE EQUIPMENT

Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: 1.	What is the number of modern fighting planes equipped with the latest fighting equipment and with a cruising speed of 250 miles per hour or more in Canada?
2.	What anti-aircraft equipment of the latest type have we in Canada?
3.	What anti-aircraft equipment of the latest device is on order, if any?
4.	What steps are proposed to be taken, if any, to equip strategic points in Canada with anti-aircraft defences ?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is the considered judgment of the government that it is not in the public interest to answer the question as asked.



PRINTING OF SPEECHES OF PRIME MINISTER AND MEMBERS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. RINFRET:: Mr. Speaker, a question put by the hon. member for York East (Mr. McGregor) was incompletely answered on February 3, 1939, and appears in Hansard No. 17 at page 687. This additional information from the Department of Mines and Resources completes the answer to the question.


Mr. McGREGOR:: 1.	Did the king's printer print and/or distribute copies of speeches delivered by the Prime Minister: (a) on July 19, 1937, on his return from his majesty's coronation, entitled "Crown and Commonwealth"; (b) on July 30, 1938, at the Canadian Corps reunion in Toronto, entitled "The Struggle for Enduring Peace"?
2.	If so, what was the cost of printing each of these speeches?
3.	Were any copies of these speeches ordered
from the king's printer by:	(a) the Prime
Minister; (b) the National Liberal Federation;
(c)	Senator Norman Lambert, or any other official of the National Liberal Federation?
4.	If so, how many copies were ordered, and how much was paid to the king's printer or the receiver general for them?
5.	Have any other speeches delivered by the Prime Minister or by any member of the government outside the House of Commons been printed by the king's printer?
Department of Mines and Resources:
1, 2, 3 and 4. No information.
5.	Yes.
The addresses delivered by the Minister of Mines and Resources through the facilities of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation dealt with the present and potential value and development of Canada's mineral, forest, recreational, water power, and other resources; also with the Indians of Canada.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
Canada's trade for 1938

Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has the government given its consent to the proposed completion of the new Montreal terminal of the Canadian National railway? If so, at what cost, and on whose recommendation was the work asked for and started?
2.	Will any plan of the said work be tabled together with the reports relating thereto?
3.	Was parliament asked to sanction said work, and, if so, when?
4.	Is the work to aid relief and relief unemployment ?
5.	Did the government meet the corporation of the city of Montreal, or others, on the subject ?
6 Does the province of Quebec contribute anything to the cost of the work, or were they asked under relief and municipal assistance legislation to sanction or aid said work?



Questions as Orders for Returns
7.	What sums have already been spent on this work, and by whose authority?
8.	Has the Board of Transport for Canada
been asked to sanction such expenditures or report on them or their necessity as recommended by:	(a) Drayton Ackworth; (b) the
Duff report on railways?
9.	Will the cost of said work be raised by taxation from income or capital, or will it be raised from income from sales or income tax, or will part of it be raised for relief works by the government?
10.	What efforts were made at coordination or to eliminate deficits before such work was started ?
11.	Have any objections to such work been received, and, if so, from whom?
12.	Will any reports on relief or the necessity of relief works of this kind be tabled, and will other cities receive similar aid of unemployment relief works and be heard direct by the government instead of being directed to the provinces under the municipal assistance relief legislation?
13.	What reports are in existence as to the financial, economic and engineering features of the work?
14.	Will preference be given to Canadian labour and Canadian industries in its construction ?
15.	What other purely municipal relief undertakings and works in Montreal have been undertaken by the government either alone or in conjunction with the province for the last three years of record?
16.	Does the action taken, or to be undertaken, now supplement the provisions made by the honourable the Ministers of Public Works and Secretary of State during the winter of 1938 in Montreal ?


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT-COMMUNITY PASTURES IN SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. LOCKHART:: Under the provisions of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act-1. Have any community pastures been established in the vicinity of Govenloek, Saskatchewan?
2.	If so, what is the total acreage?
3.	If lands were acquired which were held under lease, what were: (a) the name or names of the leaseholders; (b) the dates the leases expired; (c) the dates when these leased properties were taken over?
4.	Were any of the fences erected on the leased property by the leaseholders removed before the expiration date of the lease?
5.	Has any compensation for the fencing removed been paid to any leaseholder?
6.	If not, why?
7.	Was any of the original fencing used to refence the property?
8.	If not, why?
9.	Was the refencing done by contract?
10.	If so, what were: (a) the names of the contractors; (b) the amount of each contract; (c) the cost per mile for the refencing?
[Mr. Ch


PRAIRIE RELIEF-PURCHASES OF FEED IN MONTANA AND OTHER STATES
George Halsey Perley: What amount of money, if any, was spent by the federal government for food, fodder and hay in Montana or other states of the union, for relief of stock in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta during the years 1937 and 1938?


HON J. L. RALSTON
Mr. BROOKS:: 1.	Has the Honourable J. L. Ralston been employed as counsel for the federal government on any commission or commissions since 1935.
2.	If so, on what commission or commissions?
3.	WTiat remuneration did he receive in each
case:	(a) fee per day; (b) expenses and
allowances; (c) total?
4.	Is any amount still due him from the government ?
5.	If so, how much?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Return tabled.


INSURANCE STATISTICS
Mr. LANDERYOU:: 1.	What amount of insurance was in force in Canada in each of the last ten years under the following categories: (a) accident, including personal accident, employers' and property liability and accidental damage to personal property; (b) sickness; (c) falling aircraft;
(d)	earthquake; (e) aviation; (f) burglary; (g) explosion; (h) forgery; (i) fraud; (j) credit; (k) guarantee; (1) hail; (m) inland transportation; (n) live stock; (o) machinery; (p) personal property; (q) plate glass; (r) property; (s) sprinkler leakage; (t) steam boiler; (u) title; (v) tornado; (w) weather insurance; (x) any others?
2.	What amount of this insurance for each of these categories was written by: (a) British companies; (b) foreign companies; (c) Canadian companies, for each of the last ten years?
3.	What was the total amount of premiums in respect to the above insurances collected by each of these companies (British, foreign, Canadian) during each of the past ten years?
4.	WTiat was the total amount of net losses, including adjustment expenses in respect to the above insurances, sustained respectively in each of these categories by British, foreign and Canadian companies during each of the past ten years?
5.	Can complete information on the above questions be obtained in any reports or publications prepared by the superintendent of insurance for the Dominion of Canada? If not, why is such information not available?
6.	What was the total amount of taxes, licence fees, or other fees collected by the government of Canada or the provinces of Canada from the above companies during each of the past ten years?

Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. LANDERYOU:: 1.	How many Canadian, British and foreign companies have been doing fire, life and automobile insurance in Canada under dominion licence during each of the past ten years?
2.	What was the total amount of deposit by each of these companies held by the Dominion government and applicable to fire, life and automobile insurance, respectively, during the past ten years?
3.	What was the total income to Canadian,-British and foreign companies, respectively, from securities on deposit for each of the past ten years?
the Canadian National railway; (b) the Canadian Pacific railway, for transportation, including sleeping car accommodation, parlour cars and special cars?
2. What was the total amount paid by each department during the last fiscal year to: (a) Canadian National telegraphs; (b) Canadian Pacific telegraphs?


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION ACT-PURCHASES OF CRESTED WHEAT GRASS SEED
Mr. COLD WELL:: 
FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-REAL ESTATE PURCHASES
Mr. HYNDMAN:: .1- From whom did the federal district commission purchase lauds for park purposes since its inception, and what prices were paid for same ?
2.	Have the federal district commission taken steps to secure the property of the Good shepherd s convent, St. Andrew street, facing the river and adjacent to the park east of the Minto bridges?
3.	What became of the lumber or building material from the buildings in Rockcliffe when the old buildings were demolished, and what price was paid for same?
4.	Who secured the contract for demolishing these buildings, and when was this work completed ?
o.	is the contractor still on the payroll of the government ? If not, when was he relieved ot his duties?
14. What was the total amount of taxi licence fees or other fees collected by i government of Canada, or the provinces Canada, from each of these groups of insuran companies during the past ten years?
,, I5-,W>lat were the actual salaries paid the chief agents and other executives of the
years3?1*IGS ln Canada for each of the Past i
16. Is it possible to obtain the above infc mation in any reports or publications prepan by the superintendent of insurance for tl Dominion of Canada?
available ?n0t'	18 SUCh information d


GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO RAILWAY AND TELEGRAPH COMPANIES
Mr. COLD WELL:: 
CANADIAN FARM LOAN BO.ARD STATISTICS
Mr. REID:: 1.	What were the number of applications made e??h Province during 1938 for loans under the Canadian farm loan board?
2.	How many applications for loans were granted in each province for the year 1938, and what was the total amount of the loans granted m each province for 1938?
* 3'	*s t5ie total number of loans now
in ettect m each province, and what are the total amounts of loans outstanding in each province?
4.	What amounts of money were collected in each province by the various branch offices of the Canadian farm loan board during 1938?
5.	What are the numbers of employees engaged in each^ of the branch offices, and what remuneration is paid to each branch manager?


Charles Avery Dunning: Return tabled.

Questions as Orders for Returns


UNEMPLOYMENT IN RECOGNIZED TRADES
Frank Exton Lennard: What effort was put forward by the Department of Labour to lessen unemployment in the different recognized trades during 1938?


Norman McLeod Rogers: Return tabled.


ADVERTISING AGENCIES EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. CASSELMAN:: 1.	How many advertising agencies were employed by the different departments of the government during the year 1938?
2.	What are the names of such advertising agencies?
3.	What amounts have been paid to each?


DROUGHT RELIEF-SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. QUELCH:: 1.	How many municipalities in Saskatchewan are getting federal drought relief?
2.	What are their names?
3.	What has the average yield and grade of wheat been in each of these municipalities during each of the past five years?


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-PURCHASES OF MACHINERY
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	What was the value of machinery, parts and material purchased by the Department of National Defence directly from manufacturers in Canada during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938 respectively?
2.	What was the value of machinery, parts and material purchased by the Department of National Defence from agents and jobbers during the same period?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This will be an order for return, but I point out that it will take a long time. There are thousands of orders to be investigated. I would be very grateful to the hon. member who asked the question if he would indicate what he means by the word "machinery." With this reservation I shall be glad to have the order passed.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE-IMPORTATIONS OF MACHINERY
Mr. LENNARD:: 1.	What was the value of machinery, parts and material imported by the Department of National Defence from the United States during the years 1936, 1937, and 1938 respectively?
2.	What was the value of machinery, parts and material imported by the Department of National Defence from other countries during the same period?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order for return, with the reservation indicated in regard to the previous question about purchases of machinery.
{Mr. Dunning.]


TORONTO POST OFFICE-TEMPORARY CHRISTMAS EMPLOYEES
Mr. CLARKE (Rosedale):: 1.	How many temporary post office employees were engaged by the Post Office Department during the 1938 Christmas season in the city of Toronto?
2.	What are the names and addresses of all such employees?
3.	How many were returned soldiers?


EXTERNAL TRADE OF CANADA
Mr. VIEN:: 1.	What was the amount of external trade of Canada for each year from 1908 to 1938 inclusive, giving: (a) imports from each country; (b) exports to each country; (c) total trade with all countries; (d) balance of trade with each country; (e) total balance of trade with all countries?
2.	What was, during the same period, at the end of each fiscal year, the amount of the gross and net national debt?
3.	What was, during the same period, the total amount of revenues and expenditures, ordinary and extraordinary, giving amount of surplus or deficit?


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. FLEMING:: For a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams, specifications and other documents in the possession of the government with respect to the building of a broadcasting station at Manitou beach, Saskatchewan.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I may say that the documents asked for are very voluminous indeed. The broadcasting corporation have no objection to bringing them down as soon as they can be typed, but it will be a very long process.


CANADA-UNITED STATES-GREAT BRITAIN TRADE AGREEMENT-CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: For a copy of all correspondence, papers, letters and telegrams exchanged during the years 1937 and 1938, between the honourable the Minister of Finance or his department, or any officer thereof, and all industries or commercial companies or organizations or labour organizations, in respect to requests for hearings in connection with the trade treaties between Canada, the United States of America and Great Britain.


Charles Avery Dunning: I had a word with the hon. member in respect to this matter. In its present form the question will involve searching through possibly some five or six thousand documents and copying them all. He can get the information from the department, and if he finds in attempting to do so

Motions for Papers
that he does not get just what he requires I would ask him to consider putting the resolution on the order paper again in another form which may be more easily complied with. I think the motion should be dropped.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- MONTREAL TERMINAL
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CHURCH.
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and other documents exchanged between the dominion government and the Canadian National railway and the city of Montreal and any other person or persons relating to the proposed $12,600,000 new Canadian National railway terminal, and also copy of list of contracts already awarded in relation thereto.

Mr. BROOKS:: For a return showing, in detail, all moneys expended at Apple Tree cove, Lunenburg county, Nova Scotia, during the calendar years 1937 and 1938, including therein the names of foremen and workmen employed and the respective amounts paid to each, and the names of all persons from whom materials were purchased and the respective amounts paid to each.


EATONSVILLE, N.S., DAM
Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all payrolls in connection with the construction of dam,' etc., at Eatonsville, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, under the foremanship of Arthur McWharter.


WEST ADVOCATE, N.S., BEACH PROTECTION
Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a copy of all payrolls and accounts in connection with work to protect beach at West Advocate, Cumberland county, Nova Scotia, under the foremanship of Carl Knowlton, during the year 1938.


HIGHLAND NATIONAL PARK, NOVA SCOTIA
Alfred Johnson Brooks: For a return showing all contracts in connection with the Highland national park, Nova Scotia, giving particulars:	(a) to whom
awarded; (b) amount of tenders; (c) expenditures in 1937; (d) expenditures in 1938.
DOMINION LOANS, 1938 Mr. ELLIOTT (Kindersley):
For a return showing, in detail:
1.	How many loans were redeemed, and how many refunded during the year 1938 in: (a) New York; (b) London.
2.	Whether there was a forty million dollar refunding loan obtained in New York during November, 1938.
3.	Whether this liquidated an internal or external debt.
4.	Where the debt was held, and by whom.
5.	Why the loan was not floated in Canada.
6.	Whether it was offered in Canada.
7.	What the total cost was for: (a) discount and commissions; (b) travelling expenses; (c) printing and stationery; (d) engraving; (e) fee for listing issue on the New York stock exchange; (f) postage and insurance; (g) exchange fees; (h) service of armoured car; (i) service of signagraph; (j) printing of listing application; (k) express and sundries; (1) interest yield; (m) gross percentage cost.
8.	What the gross amount paid by us will be when the loan reaches maturity in thirty years.
9.	What the net credit available was at the time of refunding for application on the issue liquidated.


ALBERTA DROUGHT AREAS-RELIEF
Victor Quelch: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams exchanged during the months of September, October, November and December, 1938, and January, 1939, between the honourable the Minister of Agriculture, or his deputy, and the Minister of Health, of Alberta, in respect to the responsibility for relief in the drought areas of Alberta.



MILITARY DISTRICT NO. 10-SUPPLY OF BEEF,

['I propose to give the house the statements of a number of outstanding men throughout this dominion. First I mention Mr. N. C. Poison of N. C. Poison and Company, who said:\nI think this move is just one step further away from the imperialism that should animate all of us.\nThen Mr. A. O. Dawson, president of Canadian Cottons, said:\nIt doesn\'t appeal to me. The union jack is a good emblem. Good enough for me. This seems to me to be a dividing, rather than a unifying move.\n\nClinton Henderson, of Henderson, King and Charland, Limited, exporters, had this to say: I think the old flag will do for me. It is good enough for me, for as long as I live.\nThen we have that outstanding Canadian, Sir Edward Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific railway, who said:\nWhile I do not think anyone will charge me with being anything but Canadian, I am not one of those who have a feeling of restiveness, nor is my inferiority complex heightened by reason of the fact that I live under the union jack. For a long time it has stood for some of the best things the world has witnessed, and it is likely to continue doing so.\nThe Hon. Gordon Scott, president of the Royal Empire Society, said:\nI prefer to stick to the old union jack. It is symbolic of all that is good in the world and that will be good enough for Canadians.\nThe next is Doctor A. Bercovitch, one of the outstanding medical authorities in the city of Montreal, if not in the Dominion of Canada. He had this to say:\nThe union jack is good enough for me as long as I live. I don\'t see any reason for a change. We can be proud of the union jack.\nSir Charles Gordon, president of the Bank of Montreal, said:\nThe union jack is good enough for me. Colonel Philip Abbey, former officer commanding, second field brigade, royal Canadian artillery, stated:\nThe flag we have is O.K. with me.\nMr. C. E. Gravel, a French Canadian business man, said:\nAt the present time, I am not in favour of a change in Canada\'s flag as I am of the opinion that public officials should spend more time in the solution of the country\'s financial problems and difficulties.\nNext we have an outstanding minister of the United church of Canada. Doctor F. W. Kerr of St. Andrew\'s church in West-mount, had this to say:\nI am perfectly satisfied with things as they are. Any change at the present moment which would suggest disunity in the empire is to be deplored.\nMr. J. S. Rigby, a flag manufacturer, said: We should keep the union jack.\nF. Winfield Hackett, K.C., said:\nWe are a part of the British empire and that flag has taken care of all our needs to date. Too many flags may lead to too much confusion, the %vay we are at present organized.\nThen Major W. W. Gear, of William I. Gear and Son, shipping and travel agents, had this to say:\nThe government has more important things to do than think about flags, and the union jack should be retained.\n\nA Canadian Flag-Mr. Hyndman\nColonel Royal Ewing, one of the greatest marksmen in Canada, who has been to Bisley year after year, says:\nI think the union jack is still all right.\nB. W. P. Coghlin, president of the Montreal board of trade says:\nIf we try to work out another design it will divide Canada even worse than it is at present.\nAnd finally I quote John A. Charron, president of the building trades council:\nThe flag we fly has always suited me.\nThere you have, Mr. Speaker, the opinions of prominent men from all over Canada, and I think their opinions are entitled to respect. The mover of the resolution (Mr. McIntosh) is far astray when he says that Canada is unanimously in favour of changing the flag. I submit that there should be such a unanimous desire throughout the country before the change is made, and I claim that there is no such universal desire. National unity is at stake in Canada at the present time, and surely, Mr. Speaker, this is no time, as I suggested in the debate on the address, to throw another controversial question into the arena. We have enough disunity as it is. So far as I am concerned no representations have been made to me to change the flag- not one. I think our time could be better spent in trying to reduce relief costs and the present high taxation, because these really are burning questions throughout the country to-day.\nI listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mac. kenzie King) last night, and I certainly agreed with him when he said that one month of this session had gone by and absolutely no government business had been done. But I agree also with the leader of my group (Mr. Manion) that we were doing public business when we considered the Bren gun contract. This is what the Prime Minister said last night:\nWhat I wish to make perfectly plain at this moment is that the government have been sent here by the people of Canada to carry on the business of the country, and the first duty of parliament is to get on with that business, no matter what anyone may say or wish. When private members, whether through resolutions or any other circumstances whatever, occupy the entire time of parliament so that it is impossible for the government to get on with a single measure, then I say the time has come for the government to take such action as is necessary and imperative to see that it can get ahead with the public business.\nI suggested in the early part of this session that the hon. member for North Battleford withdraw this resolution, because it undoubtedly is contentious, and if he had withdrawn it at that time we should not be having this discussion to-day.\nWhen the house is asked to consider changing the flag, we must remember that in Canada we have not only English, French, Irish and Scotch, but, in addition, quite a mixed population. I looked up the Canada Year Book for 1938, with respect to the origins of our people, and I found that in 1921 our English, Irish and Scottish population numbered 4.868-, 738, and in 1931, 5,381,071, and our total population in 1931 was roughly ten millions. So half the population of Canada is not made up of English, Irish and Scottish. The Freneh-Canadian population in Canada in 1931 was 2,927,990, and surely they have a right to say: Let us have a flag emblematic of the Freneh-Canadian. Then there are Austrian, Belgian, Bulgarian, Roumanian, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, Finnish, German, Greek, Hebrew. Hungarian, Indian, Eskimo, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Russian, Scandinavian, Ukrainian, Jugoslavic and various other people. We should have a lovely flag if it was going to represent them all!\nI repeat, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this country is advocating a change in the flag. If it was a burning question, I would say all right, let us consider it. So far as a distinctive Canadian flag is concerned, the idea is perfectly all right, and if the hon. member for North Battleford would bring down a flag to the house and say, "This is the flag that I propose Canada should adopt as its distinctive national flag," I would not oppose it if it met with my approval, but I am certainly opposed to sending this question to a committee of the house.\nWe must also consider the number of different religions there are in Canada. We have for example, Adventists, Anglicans, Baptists Buddhists, Christians, Christian Scientists, Church of Christ Disciples, Confucians, Con-gregationalists, Doukhobours, the Evangelical Association, Friends (Quaker), the Greek Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Holiness Movement, International Bible School, Lutherans, Mennonites, Methodists, no religion, pagans, the Pentecostal Church, the Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, Protestants, Roman Catholics, the Salvation Army, the Unitarian Church, the United Church, and various other religions. These are the religions of the people of Canada as classified at the decennial census, so I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have in this country so many different races and so many different religions that we had better leave a question of this kind alone at the present time, and not stir up strife when we have so much already in this country.']
Mr. STEVENS:: For a statement showing the names of the firms requested to tender for the supply of beef to military district No. 10 during the years 1930 to 1938 inclusive and a statement showing what firm or firms received the contract and how much was the total amount paid in each year to the successful bidder or bidders.



Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of the order in council and regulations of the agriculture department dealing with the experimental shipments of chilled beef to Great Britain; also a statement showing a list of meat packers making shipments and a copy of the contract or agreement between the government of Canada and such packers. Also a statement showing the quantity of chilled beef shipped, the date of shipment, the port of shipment, the price paid for the beef to the shipper and the price realized and the proportion paid by the government, if any, on each shipment.


WASHABUCK CENTRE, N.S., WHARF
Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return showing the total amount expended on repairs to the government wharf at Washabuck Centre, Victoria county, North Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, during the year 1938 and up to the 1st of February, 1939, and more particularly showing the amount paid for labour remuneration of the foreman in charge and the cost of the materials used.

A Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh


A CANADIAN FLAG
[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a resolution advocating or sponsoring a distinctive flag for Canada, our dominion of "The North," our homeland, the senior equality partner in the British commonwealth of nations. The resolution speaks for itself and should appeal to every red-blooded Canadian and Britisher sitting in this national forum. Structurally the resolution is but a single sentence, so simple, so plain, so concrete and so positive that he who runs may read and understand.
This resolution may be looked at from two angles of reality: first, the thought or subject matter of the resolution; second, the external form which that thought should take. In other words the resolution has two sides, the one the thought or subjective side and the other the language or objective side. That has been the case all through the centuries with regard to any branch of art. Throughout the years, the great problem with regard to art has been to muster into the realm of time and space some great thought and then to objectify or clothe that thought in some simple, beautiful and enduring form. That is the problem before this house, in a heraldic way, in regard to a distinctive national flag. First, we must satisfy ourselves with regard to the subject matter or thought of the resolution and the principle behind it; then we must objectify that thought in such a way that we will evolve a distinctive flag that will be an honour to Canada at home, on the continent and beyond the seven seas.
It will be noticed, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution is in the singular number. That means that it deals only with a flag ashore, a flag on land that will symbolize Canada from ocean to ocean, from the great lakes and the St. Lawrence to the Arctic seas. The flag will have to symbolize the oneness of Canada, the integrity of this country in a territorial way, rather than any particular part or portion of it. It should not be a flag symbolic of the

maritimes, the central provinces, western Canada or British Columbia but rather a flag that will express the sovereignty of the Canadian people.
In that connection may I also direct attention to the fact that the resolution does not deal with design. That matter was debated and discussed in this house last year and I would think it was practically settled that the question of design should be taken up in committee where time could be devoted to it and, as I believe, the problem could be quite readily solved.	.
It will be seen that the resolution points in clear and definite directions. First, the opinion of the house should be obtained on this important question. Second, this opinion should be obtained by a special select committee. Third, that committee should consider the advisability of adopting a distinctive flag. Fourth, that flag when evolved should represent all Canada; and fifth, that flag should also symbolize the equality partnership between Canada and the motherland.
Last year in the debate one hon. member who took part put forth the argument that the last two parts of the resolution were surplus material. I would say the last two parts of the resolution are not surplusage, and that they point in definite directions, first, as I have indicated, that the flag should symbolize all Canada, not only a part of it, and, second, that it should symbolize the equality of partnership between Canada and the motherland.
That, to my mind, Mr. Speaker, is important, because it clarifies the resolution and deals also with the thought that the two most important things to be symbolized are, first, the sovereignty of Canada as a nation and second, the fact that that sovereignty rests within the ambit of the British empire.
We have those who, taking their stand on the resolution, really and sincerely accept it. They accept it as the basis of any discussion dealing with a distinctive national flag. In my humble opinion, then, they who unreservedly endorse the resolution take the pathway leading to national hope, national faith, national cooperation, national unity, complete self-government, national vision, national equality, national cordiality and national light. But we have a group who say, "We are not going to accept that resolution. We are not going to take that pathway to nationhood. We are not going to take that pathway to the sovereignty of the Canadian people. We are not going to have our nationhood symbolized at home, on this continent or before the world." Therefore, for

A Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh
those who take that stand we would have to have the resolution rewritten. We would have to have it paraphrased in a negative sense. Then the resolution would read:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be not set up to consider the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, these oppositionists do not take the pathway to national hope, the pathway which leads to national faith, national cooperation or national unity- not to self-government or to national sovereignty, but a pathway along which Canadian destiny must assume a position of national inferiority, national suppression, national subordination of imperial ascendancy, that is a pathway of fear, despair, defeatism and darkness-yes, darkness. That is the position exactly.
But we have another group who say, "Well, we are not quite ready for a national flag yet. We are not opposed to it, in reality, but we belong to a group who say 'Now is not the proper time to deal with this question. Leave it off to a more propitious season.' " The viewpoint of that group would have to be epitomized before parliament and the country by adding another paragraph to the resolution before the house, reading something like this:
And be it further resolved that in the opinion of this house the present is not the opportune time to consider the advisability of a distinctive Canadian flag, but that the matter should be left to a more favourable season, considering the serious conditions nationally and internationally prevailing.
There we have the three groups. But I have no hesitation in saying that the last group belongs to the second group, is within that category, and that, therefore, in reality we have only two groups with regard to this national question,-No. 1, those who are for it, and No. 2, those who are opposed to it. The words of the great poet Lowell come to my mind when I consider those two viewpoints :
Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side;
Some great cause, the new Messiah, offering each the bloom or blight,
Parts the goats upon the left hand, and the sheep upon the right,
And the choice goes on forever 'twixt that darkness and that light.
May I ask then, Mr. Speaker, on which pathway of nationhood do hon. members take their stand? Are they going to take the stand along the pathway that leads straight to national sovereignty, to a full and free
national life, or are they going to follow the opposite pathway, namely the road to national defeatism, sixteenth century colonialism and national darkness? That is the position in a nutshell.
Now, may I proceed from that point. It might be asked: For what does a distinctive flag for Canada stand? Well, the answer would be along the following lines: A distinctive flag for Canada would stand for individual freedom, national freedom, empire fellowship, consolidation of empire bonds, national unity, the rallying force in the defence of the nation in times of emergency, the common sentiment of the Canadian people, our past history, our past resolutions, our past achievements, the ideals that have made us national in the past, and ideals which will lead us to overcoming all that is ignoble, untrue, and all which is of a defeatist nature in the days to come. It would also exemplify the coronation oath which in 1937 was taken by his majesty, as king of Canada. That coronation oath was in harmony with the laws and customs of Canada. It is as follows:
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the peoples of Great Britain, Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa, of your possessions and the other territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, and of your empire of India, according to their respective laws and customs?
The answer was, yes.
Our national flag would stand for that epoch making event in the history of Canada and the empire. Further it would stand for equality of Canada with the motherland, and the upbuilding of the commonwealth of nations. Next it would stand for the statute of Westminster of 1931 by which Canada was designated not as a colony but as a sovereign nation within the ambit of the British empire. It would stand also for our devotion to Canada, our national advancement, our national pride, honour and glory.
Further, it would stand for the vicissitudes and upheavals from which we as a people have emerged prior to and subsequent to confederation in 1867. It would stand for the stirring history of centuries when early Canada was under the influence and sovereignty of imperial France, and when in navigation, exploration, discovery and colonization the foundation work of the Canada-to-be was grappled with in a spirit of unparalleled courage and devotion.
It would stand for the institutions of representative and responsible government, as factors in the democratic development of the country internally, imperially and internationally. It would stand for the Canadian people, their aspirations and visions of continental
[Stage Direction]
A Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh
and world greatness. It would stand for the crown and the laws that bind us by golden chains in allegiance to the throne of Britain. It would stand for that spirit of sacrifice and service which in the late great war brought so many of our men to national consciousness and manhood, and caused so many of them to express a sincere desire for a nationally distinctive emblem.
Lastly, it will stand for the further sacrifices comparable with anything in the way of sacrifice in the history of pioneers; sacrifices of the intrepid missionaries and martyrs of Canadian history, the mutual sacrifice, courage, cooperation, service, forbearance, devotion and Canadian and British comradeship which must characterize us as a people if we are to aspire to and attain the great objectives placed within our reach by a thoughtful and beneficent providence.
Those are some of the things for which a national flag would stand. And I am sure that when we look at any one of them we will see an argument which should lead the Canadian people resolutely to take up this question and have it solved in the interests of one and all. May I go on from that point to the story concerning the movement for a distinctive flag, from the time of confederation to the present time? In 1S67 we launched a young dominion upon the tempestuous seas of national life. In 1870, three years after confederation, the Macdonald government authorized a government service flag for government ships. The authorization was given on July 16, 1870. That flag consisted of a blue ensign, with the old coat of arms of Canada on the fly. In 1871 the people longed for a flag ashore. And what did they do? They had to do the best they could. They took the red ensign and flew that flag on shore. And so, back as far as 1870 and 1871, the Canadian people figured they had a distinctive flag of their own, although they have not one to-day.
On April 14, 1886, the blue ensign with the old coat of arms of Canada on the fly was authorized for government ships in territorial waters doing police duty. On February 2, 1892 the red ensign was authorized as the mercantile flag of Canada. In 1904 the merchant marine flag was flying on the old parliament buildings and across Canada from ocean to ocean. Canadian people looked upon it as their distinctive flag. But what happened in 1904? A minister of the crown, the minister of public works of that day, was taken into camp by a civil servant and the red ensign was insolently hauled down and the union jack put up. Why? Because at that time there was a movement of subordination 
and imperialism in this country from ocean to ocean. The effort was to keep Canada a colony, to keep her forever from being a sovereign nation. That idea still prevails. So down came what we considered as our national flag, and up went the flag of our motherland-not of Canada.
It was not the flag of empire, because the union jack is not the flag of empire. The union jack is the flag of the motherland and the colonies, that is all. But to-day it is the so-called official flag of Canada. It is not distinctive and it can never be a distinctive Canadian flag. Consequently action on this flag problem must be taken by parliament in order that it may be solved in the interests of the people. In 1911, after the union jack had been flying for seven years, it was made the official flag for Canada by authority of the secretary of state in London, and it has been the official flag of Canada ever since. In 1922 the old coat of arms was changed to the new coat of arms. The change took effect March 31, 1924. On our' red ensign, our merchant marine flag, the new coat of arms took the place of the old. On January 26. 1924, the red ensign was authorized to be flown on the legation buildings of Canada. That is, it was to be flown on government owned and government occupied buildings beyond the shores of the dominion. That is the situation to-day.
The anomaly to which I drew attention last year when I was debating this question still exists. We have one official flag in Canada, the union jack, which is not a distinctive flag and which can never be a distinctive Canadian flag because it belongs to the motherland and to no other nation, and then we have another official flag flying outside of Canada. Why? Because the union jack cannot be flown outside of Canada; it is not distinctive enough. Therefore, the red ensign with the new coat of arms on the fly is flown on government buildings beyond the shores of the dominion, at Tokyo, Paris, London and Washington.
May I go on to show what took place in parliament? Parliament face to face with this situation had to do something. I felt that I, as an hon. member of this house face to face with this historical situation, should do something. In 1929, therefore, I placed a resolution on the order paper. That was not taken up and was found in the file of unfinished business at the end of the session. In 1930 another similar resolution was not reached, but was again found in the file of unfinished business at the end of the session. The question was debated in 1931, at which time I placed before the house the Canadian and British sides of our flag problem. This is all on record. In

A Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh
1932 no action was taken. In 1933 the resolution was not pressed. In 1934 and 1935 the Conservative party took up the question in the house. However, there was no unity among the Conservative party on this question and the result was that in 1934 an adjournment of the debate took place and nothing further was done. In 1935 there was still consternation and confusion in the Conservative party with regard to the question. The result was that an amendment was moved. After a brief debate the amendment and the main motion were both withdrawn and the question was left undetermined. That is the story of the Conservative party with respect to a distinctive Canadian flag.
Last year I placed a resolution on the order paper. We had a debate thereon, but the resolution is before us again this year at the masthead of all other resolutions on the order paper. That is the place where it ought to be. I should like to see a distinctive flag flying at the masthead all over this country from one ocean to the other. That flag should symbolize the unity of this country at home and abroad.
That is the national and parliamentary story in connection with our flag problem. Let me go on now to tell what the weekly and daily press of Canada think about this important problem. Last year I placed on Hansard editorial opinions from ocean to ocean on this important question. I should like to supplement those opinions on this occasion. In the London Free Press of February 16, 1938, the following appeared:
How by any stretch of the imagination such a flag could be interpreted as disloyalty or a movement towards separation is beyond our understanding.
It is beyond the understanding, too, of the average Canadian citizen. Then in the London Free Press of February 19, 1938, there appeared an editorial opposing the Hon. Howard Ferguson for the stand he had taken on this question. It reads:
It may be that this is not the time to make such a change and that it might be interpreted in Europe among the enemies of the empire as a move towards separation, as Mr. Ferguson suggested. But we doubt whether either Hitler or Mussolini are bothering much about the character of a Canadian flag.
And a little farther on:
We believe that Canada should fall in line with Australia, New Zealand and South Africa and have a flag that is distinctive, yet retaining the union jack. Much as we like Mr. Ferguson, we confess his argument did not impress us.
Then another editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of February 17, 1938, reads in part:
Parliament has been excessively cautious and deliberate about the matter. The special com-71492-62
mittee will also give it thorough consideration, no doubt. It should be a very excellent flag.
Fortunately, there is little of the old opposition left. And there is less indifference and more positive desire and recognition of the expediency, on all national grounds, of Canadians having an emblem of their own.
May the committee soon be appointed and its work crowned with success!
And in the Ottawa Citizen of February 18, 1938:
The McIntosh motion asks no more than the appointment of a committee to report on the advisability of a Canadian flag. Its duties will not embrace consideration of a design, which is a sensible limitation. But once the committee reports in favour-as it is almost certain to do, when at last it is named-the path will be open for the ending of an absurdity and the adoption of a flag which can be clearly distinguished among the flags of other nations.
The flag question is discussed again by H. B. Charlton, writing in the London Free Press of February 15, 1938. He said:
The change in the constitutional position of Canada from a crown colony to a sovereign, independent nation, has been an orderly one, brought about by evolution, and not by revolution. The coronation of his majesty as King of Canada has emphasized the fact that Canada is the only nation in the world which does not possess or fly a distinctive national flag.
The need of a Canadian flag is evident to all thinking Canadians. A country without a flag is like a man without a name.
The Kingston Whig-Standard of February 15, 1938, contained the following:
It is absurd to argue, as its opponents do, that a national flag would mean a weakening of the ties of empire. If that were so, then the other dominions would have to be charged with a species of disloyalty. We need a national flag to serve as an emblem of our country, and we should have it for the sake of national respect at home as well as abroad. The union jack would then remain for us as the emblem of empire. There is no real and valid argument against it. The only question upon which there should be any reasonable ground for difference is as to its design.
In the Huntsville Forester an editorial appeared headed "Mr. McIntosh's fight for Canadian flag," and reading:
A distinctive Canadian flag will make firmer the basis of our patriotism to both Canada and the mother country. It will ultimately emerge through the welter of irrelevant and misapplied reasoning, which have for too long a time delayed its achievement, and when finally an accomplished reality, Canada will owe much to the steady and intelligent persistence of Mr. McIntosh.
An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Yes, a little lauding now and then is relished by the best of men.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Give some to those who oppose it.



A Canadian Flag-Mr. McIntosh


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Here we have another statement entitled " Re Canada's Flag." Mr. Wendell Clarke, of Ottawa, had been sent as a trade commissioner to Milan, Italy, and on his return to Canada he was presented with an Italian silken flag by the Ottawa Rotary Club. On that occasion Mr. Ainslie Greene -now Mr. Justice Greene-spoke as follows:
I would move that we return the compliment and send to our fellow-Rotarians in Milan a beautiful Canadian flag if we had such a flag -but we haven't! We could send them a union jack, but what sense would there be in that? They already have a union jack-sent to them by the London club. Is it not time that a movement was started for the selection of a Canadian flag?
The Brockville Recorder and Times, of February 17, 1938, makes this statement:
One of the strangest things about the opposition to a distinctive Canadian flag for use on land is that an equally distinctive Canadian flag for use on water has been officially in use for years without the slightest objection being made to it. If it is an act savouring of disloyalty for Canada to have a land flag, it must also be an act savouring of disloyalty for Canada to have a marine flag. But no person has ever made such a suggestion or proposed abolition of the marine emblem established to distinguish Canadian vessels from the vessels of other parts of the empire.
And a little further on:
Those countries-
That is, New Zealand, South Africa and Australia.
Those countries found no difficulty in selecting their flags.
Nor should there be greater difficulty in Canada, a part of the British Empire just as loyal as the sister dominions and just as devoted as they are to British connection, especially when it is generally agreed that the Union Jack should be a basic part of the new design.
The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, in an editorial of February 16, 1938, says:
Inasmuch as coronation ceremonies showed clearly enough that the people of the United Kingdom would prefer that Canada have its own flag, it is difficult to see where anything in the way of cleavage would be indicated. It may be too, that to think, as these opponents evidently thought, adopting a flag would give encouragement to possible foreign enemy nations is a form of self flattery, an assumption that certain great nations are keeping a mighty close eye on Canada lest this young giant of the west rise up and fight wars that Britain shrinks from. That is decidedly silly.
Mr. Hugh Savage, long an advocate of a distinctive Canadian flag, speaking at Duncan, British Columbia, in January, 1928, said:
The establishment of a distinctive flag for Canada-


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask if it is in order for an hon. member to read from editorials in this house.


Walter Edward Foster: I did not understand that the hon. member was reading from editorials, but rather referring to articles that have appeared in the newspapers.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is well for hon. members to realize that objection can be taken to reading from editorials only when they refer to a debate at present before the house. My hon. friend, I think, is reading from editorials of previous years.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: To proceed with the quotation, Mr. Savage spoke as follows:
The establishment of a distinctive flag for Canada was in line with the Kinsmen's aim "to foster and stimulate a spirit of true Canadian nationalism and patriotism as a nation within the British Empire and to establish unity of thought and purpose in the dominion."
Further on he says:
Lord Byng had said. "The one big thing for Canada is unity." In no better way could one work to this end than by urging the adoption of a flag for Canada, not to supplant but to supplement the Union Jack.
The Ottawa Journal of February, 1938, says this:
The question of *whether we should retain the Union Jack as our national flag or have one distinctively our own has nothing to do with our British allegiance, or with our loyalty to the empire. Actually it is a practical matter, concerned chiefly with what is most convenient and sensible.
To discuss the matter on grounds of high patriotism or on grounds of a lack of it, with flamboyant talk about the "Union Jack being good enough for us," is just childish. The question of the Union Jack being good enough for us or not good enough for us doesn't enter into the matter at all.
The Ottawa Citizen of February 8, 1938,
says:
The McIntosh motion asks no more than the appointment of a committee to report on the advisability of a Canadian flag. Its duties will not embrace consideration of a design, which is a sensible limitation. But once the committee reports in favour-as it is almost certain to do, when at last it is named-the path will be open for the ending of an absurdity and the adoption of a flag which can be clearly distinguished among the flags of other nations.
Then Eileen La Berge, writing to the Citizen on February 18, 1938, said:
In times like these, with democracy threatened from even' side, it is very necessary to have our idealism clearly symbolized.
In these critical times clear-cut loyalties are essential, so let us hope that Mr. McIntosh, after ten years' great effort for a distinctive Canadian flag, will get the support he needs to help place our emblem proudly among the flags of the empire.
Here is another statement from the province of Quebec, from the Montreal Witness,

A Canadian Flag-Mr. MacNicol
which hits the point very well. The article
says:
What is Canada's flag? We see this matter is again being discussed. It is high time. The neglect or shyness of this truly national matter by successive governments and parliaments shows how difficult it is amid the vicissitudes of ceaseless and absorbing party strife to get attention to a matter of real spiritual significance-we are not overstating the matter. It is high time, too, in view of the ignorant confusion and contempt for authority that prevail on this matter.
And further on, in the same article:
With what voice do Canadians shout: "The Maple Leaf Forever!" Thus to men in spite of themselves the most meaningless emblems go powerfully to the making of peoples, and he is no statesman who neglects them.
Here is a quotation from a flag day address by the late President Wilson, as reported in the National Geographic in 1917-I will read it although my time is limited:
This flag, which we honour and under which we serve, is the emblem of our unity, our power, our thought and purpose as a nation. It has no other character than that which we give it from generation to generation. The choices are ours. It floats in majestic silence above the hosts that execute those choices, whether in peace or in war. And yet, though silent, it speaks to us-speaks to us of the past, of the men and women who went before us and of the records they wrote upon it.
We celebrate the day of its birth; and from its birth until now it has witnessed a great history, has floated on high the symbol of great events, of a great plan of life worked out by a great people. We are about to carry it into battle, to lift it -where it will draw the fire of our enemies. We are about to bid thousands, hundreds of thousands, it may be millions, of our men-the young, the strong, the capable men of the nation-to go forth and die beneath it on fields of blood far away. . . .
Woe be to the man, or group of men, that seeks to stand in our way in this day of high resolution, when every principle we hold dearest is to be vindicated and made secure for the salvation of the nations. We are ready to plead at the bar of history, and our flag shall wear a new lustre. Once more -we shall make good with our lives and fortunes the great faith to which we were born, and a new glory shall shine in the face of our people.
The Paisley Advocate of November 4, 1937, his this to say:
So far as we can fathom, a flock of honorary colonels and superloyal imperialists, menially minded, have denounced the suggestion that Canada should have a flag. No real Canadian who loves his or her country and takes pride in being a member of the British commonwealth of dominions, should oppose the adoption of a purely Canadian flag.
My time is about up, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to say just a few closing words in connection with my appeal for a distinctive Canadian flag.
May I ask, sir, that the debate be carried on, on a high plane as was done last year?
71492-62J
The manner in which the debate was conducted on that occasion was an honour to the members of this chamber. The tone was moderate, cool, calculated, and very many splendid thoughts were mustered into action on that occasion. May I anticipate a similar debate on this resolution.
The resolution before the house in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, ought to be sent to a special committee, and the quicker that is done the better. The anomaly which exists in this country with respect to a Canadian flag cannot exist very much longer. South Africa, Australia and New Zealand have all faced this question, and why cannot Canada forthwith face it like every other self-governing dominion? If we do, I am satisfied that the committee will report in favour of the resolution, and after it reports to this house I believe there will be no difficulty in having a committee set up that will evolve a national symbol that will symbolize our sovereignty as a people, the great past and the great future of our dominion, and the aspirations and ideals that will guide us in the years to come. Then, and only then, shall we be able to say, in the words of two verses of my own that I am going to quote, that we have lived up to the high ideals of Canada, past, present and future. The first verse of this poem tells about Canada's vast territory, a territory of world-wide fame, and the products of which have made us the fourth trading nation of the world:
My country has her acres vast,
Her wheat, and oil, and gold,
Her mountains rising to the stars, Resources rich untold;
Her rivers, lakes and gurgling streams From out "The North" they flow,
But, no distinctive flag has she,
Her nationhood to show.
And then the last verse:
And Canada, her faith has kept In Empire, hearth and sky;
Her children too have scaled the heights And writ her name on high;
So raise our own Dominion flag;
It hoist from shore to shore To float at home and seas beyond Till Time shall be no more.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In commencing his speech the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) said something to this effect, that the resolution would appeal to every red-blooded Canadian and every red-blooded Britisher. I have risen to oppose the resolution, and I want to tell the hon. member that I am a Canadian of the fourth generation, I am red-blooded, and I am a Britisher by conviction.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Ydu will survive all right.

A Canadian Flag-Mr. MacNicol


John Ritchie MacNicol: If all the hon. gentleman has said is true, and if he has as I believe to be the case, the support of the government members in his argument, why does not the government, if it is not satisfied with the flag that is flying over Canada now take courage and introduce a resolution proposing a certain flag to be flown in this country? Why is it left to a private member to bring up a question of such vital importance? The government is used to shirking its responsibility and in this instance it is running true to form.
The hon. member said that the red ensign which formerly flew over these buildings for a short time was hauled down in obedience to some civil servant's orders. It was hauled down for the reason that it was not a land flag but a water flag. It should never have been flown over these buildings and was rightly hauled down. He also said that the union jack was not the flag of empire but the flag of Great Britain. Later on he read one or two editorials stating that the union jack was the flag of empire.
Now let me address myself to the resolution itself. I am going to give the opinion of the man on the street as I come in contact with him, and I met a number of them at home on Saturday last. What is he thinking about to-day? He is thinking about a job, an opportunity to earn a livelihood. There are over 400,000 Canadian workmen who are now unemployed, only too anxious to get work, if it can be obtained; yet in the face of their necessity, here we are discussing this matter for the next three hours, because the debate will not be concluded at six o'clock-


An hon. MEMBER:: Private members'
resolution.


John Ritchie MacNicol: It will be discussed until six o'clock.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Is the hon. member against private members' resolutions?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. gentleman can speak after I have finished my remarks.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: And I will answer the hon. member all right.


John Ritchie MacNicol: There are 400.000 unemployed who are looking to this house for an opportunity to work, and yet we are compelled to waste three hours this afternoon in discussing a resolution that could come up under more favourable circumstances.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us vote now.
(Mr. McIntosh.]


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should have thought that this year, at least, in view of what is to take place this summer the hon. member would have refrained from introducing this resolution. I had hoped that when we are looking forward to a visit from the sovereigns of this dominion, such a resolution would not appear on the order paper.
The hon. member has been speaking lately in different parts of the country and recently appeared in the border city of Windsor where I believe he was howled down-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -in his advocacy of a distinctive flag for Canada. He was howled down perhaps by the unemployed, because Windsor is full of unemployed.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I rise to a point of order-


Mr. MARTIN:: There are not as many unemployed now as there were when the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) was in power.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Speaker-


John Ritchie MacNicol: I wish to quote-


Walter Edward Foster: The hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) wishes to state a point of order.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The statement of the hon. member about my being howled down in Windsor, is an absolute falsehood, wherever he got it.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Well, the hon. member has been reading a great deal of stuff a year old. I am going to read something which is fresh.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Read the truth.
Mr. MaeNICOL:	This appears in the
Toronto Telegram of January 31.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.
Mr. MaeNICOL: Hon. gentlemen can laugh when I get through reading it. It is a dispatch dated Windsor, January 31. It reads:
Cameron R. McIntosh. Liberal member of the House of Commons for North Battleford, Sask.. found opposition last night to his statement the union jack cannot serve as a distinctive national flag for Canada.
Speaking to a Windsor service club, he ran into opposition at the conclusion of his speech.
"This is no time to be bothered with such a trifling matter," said Lieut.-Col. A. S. Pearson. Lieut.-Col. Pearson said the time was inopportune as "foreign observers, not understanding, might interpret such action to indicate Canada would not stand with the empire in event of war."


Cameron Ross McIntosh: On a point of order. If the hon. member is through with that statement, I think it is necessary for him to accept

A Canadian Flag-Mr. MacNicol
my denial. There was some opposition in the meeting, but as to my being howled down, that is absolutely false whether the statement is made in the Telegram, or the Globe or any other paper.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member was not howled down he might have been. This motion has been introduced in the House of Commons for the eighth time; the sixth, I believe, by the hon. member who has brought it in to-day, and twice by the former member for Nanaimo, Mr. Dickie. I think it would be well to read the resolution we have before us to-day, and put beside it the resolution that was introduced by Mr. Dickie. The present resolution reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations.
When Mr. Dickie introduced his resolution I opposed it for .different reasons from those that compel me to oppose the resolution now before us. Mr. Dickie's resolution read:
That in the opinion of this house a national flag representing the Dominion of Canada should be adopted, and that in any design for a Canadian flag the union jack must be conspicuous.
The resolution of the former hon. member for Nanaimo was at least positive; it stated what should be on the flag, but the resolution of the hon. member for North Battleford states little except that the flag should be representative of Canada as a whole. Perhaps a potato might do for Prince Edward Island, a fish for New Brunswick, a lobster or a tree for Nova Scotia, for Quebec a fleur-de-lis, and for Ontario something representative of a gold mine-


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Toronto?


John Ritchie MacNicol: For Manitoba a buffalo, for Saskatchewan a sheaf of wheat, for Alberta an oil well, and for British Columbia-


An hon. MEMBER:: A Bren gun.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes, some hon. member says a Bren gun, but maybe a fir tree. The former hon. member for Nanaimo was positive; he did ask for something pertaining to the union jack, or at least that the union jack should be conspicuous in the flag.
I will now state one of the main reasons why I am opposed to this resolution; it is because the government-and by the government I mean the Prime Minister, I at least
give him credit that he does run his government-took this attitude. During the last debate on this matter, on February 14, 1938, he stated, as reported on page 438 of Hansard:
I would conclude this part of what I have to say with the observation that the continued use of the union jack gives a false impression abroad, and particularly in the country immediately adjoining. The use of the union jack on anything that is distinctively Canadian in the United States does not help to emphasize the individuality of this country or its distinct nationality; it helps to submerge them altogether.
Therefore, if I interpret the words of the Prime Minister correctly, he does not want on any flag of this country any representation of the union jack-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Ritchie MacNicol: -because it might offend the people in the republic to the south.


Ernest Lapointe: He never said that.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is the same sentiment which has been agitated outside this house by a strong and vigorous group of good citizens; I have no complaint to make about their integrity or sincerity any more than I have in regard to the hon. member who proposes this resolution. I believe the hon. member was sincere in everything he said and I respect his views. Mine are opposite, but I do not want to be censured because my views are opposed to his.
The Native Sons of Canada-and I am a native son of the fourth generation, and proud of it-sent out a catechism consisting of many clauses, No. 22 of which reads:
As Canada now has no national flag, should it, when adopted contain the union jack as a part of its design? No.
And the president or secretary of that organization, speaking in Winnipeg, later on said this in reference to the union jack being part of any Canadian flag:
It (the union jack) cannot form any part of our design.
That is one reason why I am opposed to this resolution. I do not know what a committee of this house might bring back to the house; I know what a committee in South Africa brought back. Read the debates that took place before that committee. There was a very bitter debate and stirring up of strife all over South Africa. And what did it result in? It resulted in two official flags, not one as the hon. member would have us believe; or if he did not say so, those who advocate a separate flag for Canada delight in saying that the great dominion of South

A Canadian Flag-Mr. MacNicol
Africa has its national flag. In South Africa two national flags fly side by side, the union jack on one flag pole and on the other flag the union jack forms about one-eightieth part.
The Prime Minister's statement, if I understood it correctly, is exactly in line with what the Native Sons of Canada advocate. To that I am unalterably opposed. I am ready to listen to reason in connection with a flag design, but I am wholly opposed to any flag flying over this country that has not the union jack as a large part of it. The Prime Minister dominates the government and every member of it; when he snaps the whip, every one of his 180 followers step up and vote as they are told, and so it would be in connection with this flag resolution if it came to a vote. If he is in earnest let him bring in a flag; it will not have on it any part of the union jack, if he meant what he said last year. That is one of the reasons I am opposed to this resolution and opposed to its going to a committee; I want the government to take the responsibility. If they bring in such a flag, then we shall have a real debate that will last not only for an afternoon but as long as we can stand on this floor to oppose it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: What about the unemployed?


John Ritchie MacNicol: I shall have a good deal to say about the unemployed. I have been associated with business and employment a great deal longer than the hon. member. It gives me a pain in the foot to hear men who have little knowledge concerning employment talking about unemployment. Leave that to men who know something about it. I was associated with the employment of a great number of men for many years.
What would go before a committee? I have had a sample flag sent to me for every line of pickles made by Heinz; fifty-seven of them. I am going to deal with several of them. Some have a good deal of merit; some I am not so strongly opposed to-I recognize ability. Others I am opposed to.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Australia had thirty
thousand designs to choose from. Sixty-five is not many.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We shall have to get
another line of pickles if we are to have sixty-five.
The first of these is the union jack defaced with a maple leaf in a white shield. The second has three bars with a maple leaf in the centre and a union jack in the upper main canton. The third is the red ensign with a white diamond on the field and a green leaf over the diamond. The fourth is again the
red ensign, with a white circle on which there is a green leaf. Another has the fleur-de-lis round the outside-I am particularly fond of the fleur-de-lis myself and have no objection to it-and in the centre a union jack and a circle of maple leaves round the centre with a beaver in the centre of that. So we have a great many fine varieties sent to us. Another is a union jack defaced with the fleur-de-lis in the centre on a white or red spot. Another is a union jack defaced with a maple leaf in the centre, and another has the Canadian shield in the centre. Then there is one very beautiful design by a gentleman in Quebec on which the maple leaf is predominant together with the fleur-de-lis and some triangles of red and blue. Another design has "Canada" on the maple leaf on the field, and another, "Canada" on the union jack In short, there is a host of designs. What would come back from a committee of the house it is not for me to say; it would depend altogether on the composition of the committee; but I know what came back from the committee in South Africa, which caused so much bitterness in that country. That is another reason why I am opposed to this resolution, I want to avoid anything which would bring in this country the bitterness that developed in South Africa.	[DOT]
Something was said about the merchant marine flag. The design of merchant marine flags throughout the empire is identical, apart from what is placed on the fly or field of the flag. All the merchant and government marine flags of the empire conform in design to the merchant and government marine flags of the homeland, which are the red and blue ensigns with nothing on the field. AVhen you go to India, you have the red ensign with the star of India on the field. When you pass to New Zealand, again you have the red ensign with the New Zealand conception of the southern cross on the field. When you go to Australia, again you have the red ensign with the Australian conception of the southern cross on the field, and when you go to South Africa, the red ensign has the shield of that country on the field. So there is uniformity throughout the empire as far as the merchant marine flags are concerned, and there is the same uniformity with regard to government marine flags, which are those with the blue field. On land, however, there is not uniformity, and I am going to oppose any resolution such as this until such time as uniformity can be arrived at in some manner.
As I said a few moments ago, in South Africa they had a very bitter discussion on this question and wound up with two official flags. In New Zealand and Australia they

A Canadian Flag-Mr. MacNicol
have not the same difficulty that existed in South Africa or that we have in Canada, because the people of New Zealand and Australia are practically all of one race, so there is nothing to cause friction between them. In Canada-fortunately, I will say, because I am an admirer of all races-we have quite a number of nationalities represented by substantial portions of our population, people from Europe who have brought their wealth, background and strength to help build up this country. In New Zealand and Australia, as I see it, they have not land flag designs at all; there they fly the blue ensign, a marine flag design, as a land flag. Of course it is none of my business if they choose to do that, but the blue ensign is not a land flag. In Australia and New Zealand they fly the blue ensign defaced on the field by their respective conceptions of the southern cross. In India they follow another design altogether, and if I had to choose from all the designs I would select a design similar to that adopted in India, where since 1863 they have had as their governor general's flag the union jack defaced by the star of India and surmounted by the Tudor crown. Since 1900, I believe, that has been what they term their official land flag, but it is not one hundred per cent official. I have here a letter from the Indian office describing their flag, which states that the union jack is flown over high courts, chief courts and judicial commissioners' courts. Generally speaking, however, I believe they accept as their official land flag the union jack defaced by the star of India.
A year ago I believe the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), speaking on this subject, referred to Newfoundland. I do not take anybody's say-so for things; I find out for myself, and I went to Newfoundland. There, I may tell the hon. member for Cochrane, the union jack is the official flag on land, while on water they fly exactly the same design of flags that we use; that is, their marine flags are the red and blue ensigns defaced by their shield, just as the Canadian marine flags are defaced by what I believe is the most beautiful shield flown throughout the empire.
I am sorry to say that my French-Cana-dian friends to whom I have spoken are generally in favour of a change in our flag. For a moment or two I should like particularly to direct my remarks to my compatriots, for whom I have the greatest regard and warmest feeling as the oldest Canadians of all. In a word or two I should like to outline to them the suggestion that if anyone in Canada to-day should object to the union jack, it is the Anglo-Saxons. Every part of
the union jack come from France, The three crosses were all brought to England by the French conquerors following 1066, or by what we call the Norman kings who reigned after that time.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Would the hon. member tell us how the St. Andrew's cross came from France in 1066?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If my hon. friend does not mind, I shall make my own speech. Many folks forget that England was conquered by the French and ruled by French kings for several centuries. Those French kings and their supporters implanted in England the culture of which we are all proud, and in addition gave us much of our flag. The three lions on our shield representing England; the one lion representing Scotland, the fleur-de-lis representing the French and the harp representing Ireland, all came from France. The maple leaves represent Canada; I suppose they are Canadian, but at least four-fifths of the shield came from France. The insignia of the single lion was brought over in 1189 and placed on the British flag of that date by one of the Norman kings. Then in 1198, I believe, it was changed to three lions, and later the single lion was given over to Scotland and the English kept the three lions for themselves. The fleur-de-lis was brought over by one of the Norman kings or a successor to the Norman Icings, who had the good judgment to marry a French princess, or one whose mother was French. The only thing coming from Canada is the three leaves, while the Englishman and the Scotsman have nothing that did not come from France originally. So, if any members of this house should stand four-square for the union jack and our marine flags, it is the Freneh-Cana-dian members, and I hope that when the vote is taken this resolution will be defeated.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When the hon. gentleman who said "hear, hear" makes his speech he can say what he likes, and perhaps I shall have the pleasure of saying "hear, hear" to him.
Before this house discusses the question of a flag at all I think the government should assume its responsibility. That it will not do. In the second place, I certainly should like to see some uniformity throughout the empire. There is little now as to land flags. Canada flies the union jack; that applies also to Newfoundland. In India they have the union jack defaced by the Star of India.

A Canadian Flag-Mr. MacNicol
In New Zealand and Australia they fly on land a marine flag defaced on the field. In South Africa they fly two flags. There is not much uniformity in that. But there is uniformity when it comes to the two marine flags, which are uniform throughout the empire. I dislike to say this, but I fancy that if the resolution went to a committee of the house we might get back a flag something like the one they have in South Africa, of which the union jack occupies only a small part.
Speaking last session the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) gave three or four reasons why he was opposed to our present design of flag. First, he referred to the legations. I said then, and I repeat to-day, that when any person is going to the legation in London, Paris, Brussels, Berlin, or wherever it may be-and I have been to a number of them-he does not go round looking for a flag, to find what flag is flying over the building. On the contrary, he takes a taxicab to go about his business at the legation.
I must recall to the hon. member who moved the resolution some facts concerning Canada House. I must inform him that the union jack flies on Canada House; I have seen it there. I saw it there throughout most of the coronation period.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member did
at the time of the coronation, but that is all.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, I am glad the gentlemen in control of Canada House had the good sense to stamp Canada as part of the British empire during the coronation period.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The official flag of Canada on Canada House is the red ensign.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member has
delivered his speech; I want to finish mine. I remember well the empire games which took place at Hamilton. I am not sure whether the whole world was represented, but perhaps an hon. member from that city could tell. I do know, however, that at those games, which I believe were world-wide in extent, the winners marched past the grandstand, and various flags passed by. There was little acclaim for any of those flags, with the exception of the one carried by the Scottish representatives. They carried the union jack, and received tremendous acclaim. I said to myself at the time-


An hon. MEMBER:: Different from Australia.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Both the Australian and the New Zealand flags were there, but they did not receive the acclaim received by the

union jack at the head of the Scots. The objective in those games was to be a winner. No matter where that winner may come from, his reputation and that of his country are known everywhere. His winning is of more importance than the fact that he might be carrying a flag.
Something has been said about a lack of distinction, but I believe I have exploded that suggestion. The union jack and our coat of arms are distinctive of Canada. Something was said about cathedrals. So far as I have observed, battalion flags are shown in the cathedrals, although there may be some others. So far as I am concerned, the suggestion that we should fly flags in European cathedrals is not sufficient reason for changing the flag of this country.
Finally, I repeat my main objection, namely my objection to the statement made last session by the Prime Minister. I quoted it before, and I shall do so again:
The use of the union jack on anything that is distinctively Canadian in the United States does not help to emphasize the individuality of this country or its distinct nationality; it helps to submerge them altogether.
In conclusion, let me say that if a committee were set up and the Indians, the first settlers of this country, were invited to take part in the debate before that committee, or to take part in a conference concerning the flag, I am convinced they would take the same stand as our brother black men in South Africa took. During the time of the debates in South Africa between the Anglo-Saxon Afrikanders and the Dutch Afrikanders, both of whom are equal and deserve unlimited respect, when the debate was hottest and little accord could be arrived at, the six million blacks of South Africa sent their chiefs to make their representations and demands. It is for that reason that the union jack does appear, even on the Afrikander flag. They demanded that the union jack be made part of the flag because they said they knew it stood for liberty and fair play, and without its appearance on their flag they would not know whether they would receive proper treatment.
If ever the time comes when there is any discussion before a committee in Canada concerning the flag, I hope our noble red men may be invited to give their opinions. I should like the successors to Brant and Tecumseh to present their opinions. I should like to hear the opinions of the successors of those Chiefs who left their beautiful homelands in New York and Indiana to come to the north side of the lakes and the river St. Lawrence so that they might obtain the protection of the union

A Canadian Flag-Mr. White
jack. I am satisfied that if they were asked their position they would take the same stand as was taken by their black brothers in South Africa, namely that the union jack should have a prominent place in this country.
I am opposed to the resolution going to a committee. If the government has the courage to discuss the matter, or if it wishes to have a new flag, let it present that new Hag to the House of Commons.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (St. Antoine-West-mount):: Mr. Speaker, on two occasions in
the last parliament I spoke in favour of the adoption of a national flag for Canada, that flag to be the union jack, with the emblem of Canada on the fly. I have seen no reason for altering that opinion. But I am convinced that in view of the present state of world affairs it is inopportune and inadvisable to proceed further with this matter.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in the debate, but certain remarks of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) compel me to do so. I may say immediately that I am in favour of the resolution before the house, and I am also in favour of the adoption by Canada of a distinctive flag.
I would invite hon. members to read the resolution carefully. It recites merely that in the opinion of the house a special committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag. I agree entirely with the former leader of the opposition, whom we may now call the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, as he is no longer a member of the house. Taking part in a similar debate last year he said the following, as reported at page 4S8 of Hansard:
It seems to me almost monstrous-
I am afraid the hon. member for Davenport will not like the word; it is not my word, however, but that of his former leader.
-that the House of Commons should deny the right of a committee to consider the advisability of our taking any step in the world.
And further on Mr. Bennett said:
After all, however, it does seem that we should have some method by which to identify ourselves in the eyes of those who look upon our bunting as it floats in the wind.
I visited Australia and New Zealand^ some months ago, and it would be a brave man indeed who would say that New Zealand was lacking in loyalty to the British crown. Yet New Zealand has a distinctive flag which they have adopted for a definite purpose. Australia, too, has a distinctive flag, and I do not think the casual observer would state that there is less devotion and loyalty to the British crown in Australia than in Canada.
I respect the other opinions that have been expressed, but for the life of me I cannot see how the adoption of the proposal of the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) could affect our relations with the mother country or the part we are playing in the British commonwealth of nations. I think it would be quite to the contrary. It would be merely symbolizing our position in the British empire. Instead of being an agency for disunion or disintegration a distinctive flag would show that Canada, which is a distinct entity with international rights and duties, is a member of the British commonwealth and wants to remain so.
Let me tell my hon. friend that he has misinterpreted the remarks made last year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) when he infers that the Prime Minister said he would be opposed to the union jack being a part of the Canadian flag. That is another back-of-the-head view that my hon. friend has had; it is some more picture language. I know that the idea of the Prime Minister is, and this is my view also, that when and if a flag is accepted and adopted for Canada, the union jack will be a part of that flag. Our flag will be like the flags of other members of the commonwealth. I cannot understand this obstinate opposition; it will create disunion and lead to division in Canada. I ask the hon. member for Davenport to take my word for it that we will have a Canadian flag sooner or later. Like all the other steps which have been taken in our progress toward nationhood, this step must be taken in spite of the strenuous opposition of those who think we are giving up our connection with the commonwealth. It is just the contrary.
The British commonwealth is based on freedom, and I cannot see why we in Canada should act differently from the other countries in the British commonwealth of nations. The hon. member spoke of the empire games. I have attended many international and imperial gatherings. As late as last September I attended the meeting of the League of Nations at Geneva. The Canadian delegation was on the same floor of a hotel as the Australian delegation. It is the practice to put up the flag of each nation whose delegates are located in a particular hotel. Delegates from India were also there, and the different flags were flown. At the imperial conference all the other dominions had their own flags. I do not think anyone will question the loyalty of New Zealand. I know whereof I speak when I say that when there has been a conflict of view as to certain steps to be taken at the imperial conferences. New Zealand has always been very firm and has
978	COMMONS
A Canadian Flag-Mr. Lapointe (Quebec East)
refused to accept innovations until she was convinced that they should be accepted for the sake of unity. New Zealand has her flag. Australia has her flag.
Some reference has been made to the fact that his majesty will visit Canada. The present king was in Australia in 1927 to inaugurate the new capital city of Canberra. I had the honour of representing Canada at that time. The king did not seem at all scandalized when the Australian flag was flown. I think a Canadian flag, with the union jack forming part, flying side by side with the union jack which will always represent the whole of the commonwealth, would make for the majesty and add to the greatness of the British commonwealth of nations. I was in Berlin in 1936 at the opening of the Olympic games. After the unveiling of the monument at Vimy I had three days before I had to catch my boat, and I attended this great event. There again all the nations of the world paraded with their flags.
Of course, we have our commercial ensign, but as my hon. friend has said, it had to be pulled down from the top of this parliament building because it was not a land flag. We had to take the union jack, the flag of the empire. I repeat that I cannot see the validity of the objections to this resolution. I tell my hon. friend that if he thinks this would be a sign of disloyalty or division, he is very far wrong as far as I am concerned.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I never mentioned disloyalty or division; I never used those words.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe in Canada remaining a part of the British commonwealth of nations, and I shall always defend that view. I believe the future of our country is linked up with that institution, but I believe that for the sake of common sense we should show that we are a distinct part of the British commonwealth. What will my hon. friends on the other side who are so strong for a large navy have to show that the different units are Canadian unless those units are flying a distinctive Canadian standard?
Again, with respect to the objections of my friends opposite, I agree with Mr. Bennett, that it is-I will not say monstrous, but I will say it is not fair to prevent examination and consideration of this question by a committee, where, if the house will agree to such a committee being appointed, all the objections to the proposal may be thoroughly considered. I think it is a step which this house should take.
I cannot help remembering what took place yesterday, especially in view of the 
words of my good friend from Davenport that we are wasting three hours this afternoon in discussing this question. Yesterday I believe he was one of those who protested vehemently when the government wanted to take Wednesday for government business. If that had been done, and we had been allowed to do what we proposed yesterday, the time would not have been wasted this afternoon.


John Ritchie MacNicol: May I correct the minister, and say I was one of those yesterday who hoped that the government would adhere to the terms of its resolution on the order paper to take to-day as a government day.


Ernest Lapointe: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I see that he is often right, even if he is wrong in the present
instance.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there would be nothing lost and nothing objectionable in allowing this resolution to go to a committee of the house for a report upon it. I am therefore strongly in favour of the resolution.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, after the speeches of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), I do not think we will ever let the old flag fall.
The question before the house has been introduced by the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh). Toronto knows something about North Battleford because that city sent three or four regiments, the Battleford column, out there in the Northwest rebellion. They carried the union jack, and it was good enough for them in those days.
The motion of the hon. member reads:
That, in the opinion of this house-
And that is as far as he is going to get. It is only an opinion, and whether this house passes the resolution or not, I believe that the province of Ontario will never change the union jack. It should be our flag, as it has been in the past ever since this country has been a country. It is our flag and the flag of the empire.
The minister (Mr. Lapointe) wants a select committee of the house to examine this question. I have been a member of some of these committees. They are appointed and they meet, and when they are ready to conclude their business we generally find that it is the majority, representing the government of the day, whichever government happens to be in power, that writes the committee's report.

A Canadian Flag-Mr. Church
The resolution goes on to say that the committee should consider "the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag." Well, Mr. Speaker, rve have a distinctive Canadian flag at the present time, the union jack. We have, in addition, two or three other distinctive flags.
The resolution, after all is said and done, largely resolves itself into a question of sentiment, and you cannot go against the sentiment in this dominion in favour of the flag which has protected our shores all these years since we have been a country.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, we have other distinctive flags. I saw two or three of them last week-end in the city of Toronto. First, there is the black flag of unemployment, representing people in want and all that. The unemployed are carrying the black flag and we should get rid of that first. Then we have the red flag of the bailiff-and we heard something about that last night-that red flag which dispossesses people of their house and property and puts then- goods and chattels out on the street, on account of the depression and unemployment. Let us rid ourselves of that also before we change the union jack. Then we have the flag of separatism, and this resolution is about the wind-up in spreading separatism in this country.
The resolution goes on to say that it is advisable to have a distinctive Canadian flag "representing Canada as a whole." This proposed makeshift flag, because so many different designs have been suggested, might be called a crazy quilt. It might be all right to haul up on hallowe'en night, but as representing the whole Canadian nation, no, Mr. Speaker.
The resolution goes on to say that a distinctive Canadian flag would symbolize "the dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations." Well, we may liave equality of status, but certainly we have not equality of stature because we are depending on the mother country to preserve the civilization and liberty we enjoy. Let us pay for a fleet to protect our shores and trade routes. There is a difference between status and stature.
Resolutions similar to this have often been debated in the house, and the house has always failed to pass the resolution. I would point out that we have no mandate from the people of Canada to change the flag that has protected us for so long. No one proposed such a thing in the last election. And furthermore this resolution is introduced by a private member. Why do not the Minister of Justice and the cabinet take the responsibility for changing the flag? Then we would have
a real union jack election all over this country. Why does not some member of the government rise up and say: We as a government are ready to change the flag. The government do not seem prepared to do anything about anything. Only yesterday, when they were asked that something be done about something or other, they were going to read Edmund Burke. That is twenty-four hours ago, and they are still reading it, and by the time we get a new flag they will still be doubting what their policy is. In my opinion, before any change in the flag is made, a member of the government should introduce the necessary resolution.
The hon. member who introduced this private resolution based it upon four or five principles. The first principle was to get the opinion of parliament. Now for this government to get the opinion of parliament seems to be a relic of the past. They got no opinion from parliament on their various treaties and on their annual estimates. We just conduct post mortems here. But now they propose to change all that practice and get the opinion of parliament about changing the flag. It would be far better if they sought the opinion of the electors of this country. They should decide this question if anybody should.
The next principle of my hon. friend was that this question should be considered by a special committee. I do not know what he wants a special committee for. A committee might well be appointed to get jobs for Canadians in Canada and do something practical. That would be better than a committee to change the flag.
The next principle was that a distinctive Canadian flag should be adopted to represent Canada as a whole. But we have always had a flag to represent Canada as a whole, and in my opinion it is the only one flag for Canada and the empire. We should have in this empire, one throne, one king, and we do not want half a dozen flags.
The next principle was that the flag should symbolize the dominion's equality of status in the commonwealth of British nations, and in a few moments I shall deal with that further.
The mover of the resolution gave a short account of the discussion of this question in the house last year. It also came up in 1929, and a committee was appointed consisting of seven departmental officials, but that was all that was done. The question has come up three or four times since I have been a member of the house, but nothing has been done.
We are apt to forget in all this discussion that our very existence depends upon our remaining in the British empire and having the
9S0
A Canadian Flag-Mr. Church

protection of Britain and of the other members of the commonwealth. After all the eloquent remarks that we have had from the hon. member for North Battleford and others, Canada will not be talked out of the British empire by any change in status or in flag. She will have to be fought out of the empire. That is the only way of getting Canada out of the British empire, so far as Canadians in nine provinces are concerned. If Canada could have been talked out of the British empire, she would have been long ago.
I am opposed to any change of flag for any reason whatever. The union jack to-day represents equal rights to all and special privileges to none. It stands for freedom, justice, liberty, righteousness, honour and protection. It has a history and a tradition which are sacred to the people of Ontario, and so long as we remain part of the British empire we shall have all the military and naval forces on land and sea and air to defend our shores and safeguard our rights.
If Canada is to become a united people from coast to coast we must have greater loyalty to Britain, the British empire and the union jack in the future; and the best way to ensure all this is for us to retain the union jack as we have it. This matter has been discussed in our schools. In my opinion, in the schools to-day too much stress is placed on mere book-learning and not enough on education in patriotism, duty, discipline, sacrifice, and service to one's country-qualities which are indispensable in the present state of the world, and more important than book-learning. In the schools in Toronto the use of the flag has been extended to various activities, and that is something in the right direction. The flag is used on many occasions to mark the commemoration of important events in our history.
We should rejoice that we live under the union jack and enjoy the peace and security that we do. The flag has made us respected the world over. In view of certain opinions that have been expressed in the house, I think it would be interesting for me to quote a letter I have here from Mr. T. A. Beacock of Regina, Saskatchewan. He wrote to me from 1225 King street, Regina, on October 17 last, enclosing a copy of a letter he had received from the acting under-secretary of state, Mr. W. P. J. O'Meara, in answer to a question regarding an official flag for Canada. In his reply to Mr. Beacock the acting undersecretary of state, under date of October 13, wrote:
I acknowledge the receipt of your letter of October 10th and its enclosures.
In so far as this department is concerned there are no civil regulations governing the

flying of flags in Canada. The union jack, however, is recognized as the flag to be properly and officially flown on land in Canada.
As regards the Canadian red ensign there is no law prohibiting the flying of this ensign on land in Canada. The only regulation of which I am aware respecting the flying of the Canadian red ensign on land is a special order in council which permits the flying of the ensign oyer Canada House in London, and the Canadian legations at Paris, Washington and Tokyo. It is also flown on vessels of Canadian registry.
Something has been said by the mover of the resolution about the status of Canada. The trouble to-day is that we are tending more and more in this dominion to separatism. In fact, we have gone almost the full length of the road that leads to complete separation from the motherland. For example, as I said in the house a few years ago, in 1919 Canada signed the treaty of Versailles as a separate nation, and then a separate seat for Canada was demanded and secured at the assembly of the League of Nations. In March, 1923, the halibut treaty, was signed at Washington by Canada as a separate nation. The imperial conference of 1923 affirmed the right of Canada to sign separate treaties. In 1924 Canada acted separately on the Dawes plan, and in that year Canada urged that the Colonial Laws Validity Act be repealed. In 1926 there was another imperial conference and the right was affirmed of each dominion to make separate and independent treaties not binding on any other country. We were given sovereign powers, and we saw the results in the Kellogg note. Separatism has gone far enough in this country. Some would abolish appeals to the privy council; others would abolish the office of lieutenant governor. Many innovations have been made during the last few years, with the result that we have nothing but a policy of separatism in this country, and this resolution, Mr. Speaker, practically says that Canada is a separate country from the mother country, like Spain or Ireland. We are bound to the mother country by ties of loyalty and affection. The governor general is also now merely a viceroy and removed from getting any advice from Downing street, and must get all his advice in Canada from our own cabinet. Ties of sentiment and appeals to the privy council now alone remain, and the latter is being attacked.
In this matter of status it would be well for us to see how far the tendency has gone in South Africa and the south of Ireland. The south of Ireland is a separate country the same as Mexico. They have abolished the office of governor general; they have abolished appeals to the privy council; they have removed the king's head from coinage and postage stamps;.

A Canadian Flag-Mr. Church
they have rid the country of British soldiers, and now they want to annex the six counties in northern Ireland. The statute of Westminster, in my opinion, has led to the desire for separate flags. It was passed over the people's heads to please southern Ireland and South Africa. Instead of having a separate flag; instead of taking up time discussing that question, it seems to me it would be far better for Canada to close up the embassies altogether. This division between the dominions and the motherland on embassies is extremely dangerous in time of peace and it would be more disastrous in war. Separatism is responsible for the pact made at Munich a few months ago, and with the pacificism in Canada it is not surprising that in England they are wondering whither Canada is going.
So far as South Africa is concerned, I should like to quote briefly from an article that appeared in the National Review of August, 1938. They have hauled down the union jack in South Africa. President Hertzog will not even take the privy councillor's oath. The National Review says:	.
A correspondent sends us a photograph from the Daily Express (Johannesburg) of the hauling down of the union jack just before a parade at which General Hertzog took the salute. The Daily Express, -whose permission we have for reproduction, is a paper supporting General Hertzog, and their photographer caught a picture of the descent of the union jack just as it occurred. The caption under the photograph is as follows: "Just before General Hertzog arrived at Sw'artkop aerodrome to take the salute at to-day's union day parade, officers discovered that the union jack, instead of the union flag, was flying at the saluting base. Hastily they had the union jack hauled down."
We are asked to copy southern Ireland and South Africa, these other parts of the empire, in the request for a distinctive flag, but is anybody in favour of our following South Africa? They have gone even further than merely hauling down the flag; they have gone as far as southern Ireland has and have complete separatism. They w-ant to be outside the empire and yet appear to be within it. They wish to be a separate country, not' belonging to the empire, but they desire to have non-alien status accorded them, in order to keep the protection of the British fleet which is their salvation from dictators. That is all they want to be in the empire for. They want to elect one of their own people as governor general. In addition we have a wave of separatism all along the line. I have been very much alarmed over this state of affairs as to where Canada stands and where she is going. They are asking now for a separate flag to fly over these legations, the cost of which just goes into a sink-hole, and when that cost
is paid, before they are through with all these ambassadors on the seven seas, instead of filling the farmers' barns in Canada it is going to empty their pockets. We are a nice dominion, asking to change the flag! Let me say to the mover of this resolution, who talks about the status of Canada and all that kind of thing, that they are about having a separate nationality'. As I said in a debate in the house in May, 1928, in reference to the storms on the great lakes in the season of 1927 in which many brave sailors on grain trade ships carrying Canada's flag were drowned in lake Superior, and in connection with this change of flag and change of status which have been mentioned in this debate:
The sense of Canada's nationalism increases and multiplies through our love of British unity. The true Canadian nationalist will not want to see this country a deadbeat on the taxpayers of the British isles for the upkeep of battle cruisers and a navy to maintain the safety of Canadian shores and for the protection of Canada's commerce on the high seas. The true Canadian nationalist will not want to see Canada a nation only in the advertising pages of American journals. As a nation we are a pauper so far as the actual reality goes.
The closing days and nights of navigation on the great lakes in the season of 1927 recorded a great story of unbroken fortitude and of unshaken endurance which proved that our countrymen, the sailors on the decks of those doomed vessels, ivere blood brothers of the soldiers who brought glory to Canada at St. Julien, the soldiers who could not be blown off the ground they gained at Passchendaele, who climbed the heights of Yimy Ridge, who gained the victory at Amiens and many another field of glory, men whose names will forever thrill every true Canadian. These sailors struggled or waited hour after hour; help came to them, it was help organized by the valiant hearts and strong bodies of their own country, or if help came it was help bought and paid for by the taxes of the people of the United States. That is Canadian nationality for you. The struggle was a story of glory for Canada's sailors. The struggle was a story of shame for Canada's politicians. The tragedies of t.he great lakes in the closing hours of navigation last season showed in its true colours the stuff that Canadian nationalism is made of. We have those who write and talk and chatter at banquets and refuse to pay under the terms of that nationality.
Canada is a proud and haughty nation. It sends its merchant ships into the winter storms with nothing to do but whistle for a United States service tug when the ship is in danger and to fill the air -with the distress signals of a siren with the hope that a United States life saving vessel will put to sea and save the lives of Canadian sailors. Canada, a nation, and in trouble, has a navy maintained at the expense of the old country taxpayer to guard the safety of Canada's shores in war.
That was in a debate back in May, 1928. I do not know what is coming in Canada, with all this Anglophobia which has been going on. We have from the press of the United States
9S2
A Canadian Flag-Mr. Church

and international radio broadcasts attacks on Britain and the Munich pact. We prefer discussing this academic question of the flag to that of needy workers who are to be forgotten. It seems that we are exerting every effort to get out of the empire, by every separatist movement we make. It puzzles me to know what Britain has done to Canada to cause this organized campaign of disparagement. As I have said on other occasions in this house, what does the union jack stand for? I will tell hon. members what it stands for. This is what I said in another debate:
The Saxon has marked around this earth, as has no other race before him, the scarlet circle of his power.
These are reasons why some people do not want to give up the union jack.
This thin red Saxon line, so thin with his numbers, so red with his blood, was made possible only by his heroism and radical fealty. Where this line has not gone man has not found. It has crossed every sea, it has traversed every desert, it has sought every solitude; it has passed through swamps where only the sacred ibis fishes, over sands that have never been moistened, over snows that have never melted. There has been no storm it has not encountered, no pain it has not endured, no race it has not fought, and no disease it has not contended with. This Saxon line has been to the earth a girdle tragic and heroic, binding within itself all the old and great places of the world. It has been silent in its duty, ignored in its achievement, and scorned in its devotion; yet it has given down to this now neglectful race a world such as mankind has never known before, an empire over which the sun and stars shine together, where night never falls nor dawn begins. The perpetuation of the British empire depends, first, upon its military duty, and secondly upon its political unification. Sectionalism in time and place must give way to laws so universal in their application that they differentiate in no way between the inhabitants of the overseas dominions and the United Kingdom.
_ The sentiment exists in almost every province. It was found also at the battle and siege of Londonderry. We look to Macaulay, who described what this flag meant to the people of his time, when he visited Ireland in his lifetime, when Britain was saved. Referring to this flag in the days of those great patriots who suffered and won great battles in the siege of Londonderry, in the history of our empire, he said that " the various tombs of the captains have been sought out and repaired and embellished. It is impossible not to respect the sentiment which manifests itself in these tokens. It is a sentiment which appeals to the higher and purer part of human nature and adds not a little to the strength of states. A people that takes no pride in the noble achievements of remote ancestors will never achieve anything worthy to be remembered." It is such 
sentiments as that which are wrapped around the union jack and all it stands for. No other is just as good.
In addition something was said in this debate about our soldiers, and I refer to the glorious land of France where so many of our brave soldiers sleep their last sleep. The endurance of the glorious French nation toward whom the eyes of the whole civilized world were turned during the late war; the awful privations, trials, and tribulations they suffered and endured for humanity; the anxiety, pain and sorrow of that land will live in history as an example, for all time, of the most sublime patriotism. So, if this union jack was good enough for those six hundred thousand men who went over to Flanders and France from Canada, and the sixty thousand who lie buried there, it should be good enough for those who stayed at home.
Reference was made yesterday to our relations with our sister country, the United States. There is a large body of public opinion in this country that supports the very fine relations we enjoy with our kinsmen, and long may those relations continue. But there is something to be said about the flag and democracy. One thing you can admire the people of the United States for is that they have one ruling power, the president and congress and the senate. Nobody can attack them. They have one flag, one school, and they are one nation.
This question of the flag and democracy was, on the anniversary of the birthday of Lincoln, February 12, last Sunday, the topic in many pulpits in Canada. At the dedication of the burial ground at Gettysburg he had this to say on democracy and one flag, and we can well take a lesson from it in regard to one flag for this empire. I think we should take a leaf out of the book of the people of the United States in this connection, and in regard to the way in which they honour their memorials and heroes. On that occasion President Lincoln said:
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But in a larger sense we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.

A Canadian Flag-Mr. Brunelle
It is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us, that from these honoured dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
I think those are reasons why there is a very large body of public opinion opposed to any change in our flag, especially at this time when dictators are leaping out of the trenches and advancing to the Baltic, the Black sea and the Mediterranean. This is no time for us to make a change; rather we should back up one flag for the whole empire. That speech will live for all time. All state governors were present to honour the dedication of Arlington cemetery on the field of Gettysburg. A famous orator of this day, Hon. Mr. Everett, was the chief speaker, and President Lincoln was called in at the end to say a few words. His classic belongs to the ages and should be a guide to Canada and democracy.
Mr. H. E.' BRUNELLE (Champlain) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) on his tenacity and perseverance, for it is the fifth or sixth time, I think, that his motion for the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag gives rise to a debate such as the present one.
On the 12th of December last I attended a celebration at Three Rivers, sponsored by a patriotic society, of the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster. On that occasion as on many others it was quite visible that the independence of our young nation is dear to all hearts. Indeed, this independence is for us a cause of legitimate pride.
As citizens of a self-governing nation it is quite natural and consistent that we should wish to enjoy the privileges incidental to that status, such as the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and the adoption of a distinctively Canadian flag. I wish to have recorded in the proceedings of the house a resolution forwarded to me by this patriotic society:
The Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society of Trois-Rivieres would be happy to see this country fly a distinctively Canadian flag during the coming visit of our king, George VI.
We hope that the government will introduce a motion on that subject at the next session of parliament.
(Signed) Maurice Galinas.
Last year I supported the hon. member for North Battleford's motion for the adoption of
a Canadian flag. I support it again this year and with still greater conviction. The mother country having seen fit to grant us our independence, she will naturally expect us to appreciate the privilege and take full advantage of it.
Sooner or later we shall have a Canadian flag, so why not now? I will not repeat the arguments I propounded last year, in order not to take up too much of the time of the house, as our hon. friends opposite have been doing for some weeks. I shall here venture a digression which will serve as a reply to the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) who has just been complaining of the uselessness of a discussion of this nature.
In answer to a question the government stated that the Davis inquiry had cost $12,580. The inquiry before the public accounts committee will probably cost as much, and if it is true that each sitting day of the session costs about 812,000 the Conservative party will bear the responsibility of having made the country spend more than 8120,000 to discuss a question which had already been definitively settled by the Davis commission. Is it not strange to hear hon. members opposite speak of the great number of unemployed workers and, at the same time, cause the useless expenditure of $120,000?
I would like to add that the arguments used against the adoption of a Canadian flag do not meet with the approval of the majority of our citizens. It is quite the contrary. Such arguments are futile. Many persons have asked me what objections are raised by the opponents of the proposal. Seeing that previous speakers have mentioned all the arguments in favour of a Canadian flag, I took the trouble to read the speech delivered last year by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) who has just resumed his seat. Let me read a few extracts from the forty minute speech which he delivered on that occasion.
I quote:
The union jack was good enough for 600,000 soldiers who fought for you and me in France and Flanders, and it should be good enough for the civilians who stayed at home.
Does that mean, sir, that those 600,000 Canadian soldiers would not have fought for England, had we had a distinctive Canadian flag? I always understood that the last war was fought in order to make the world safe for democracy.
I quote again:
There is no demand for a distinctive Canadian flag.
A Canadian Flag-Mr. Brunelle

I wonder if the hon. member took the trouble to ascertain the views of many of his electors, or if he saw only one or two.
I believe in the policy of one king, one flag, one school and one empire. . . .
The hon. member could have completed the list, with a statement frequently heard on July 12. and said that he believes in the policy of one language.
I resume the quotation:
I have consulted with a great many people about this flag issue, and the general feeling is that it would be better for us first to provide a proper fleet on which to hoist a flag, and not boats like the Minnie M, the Ada Alice, the Island Queen, the Luella, and the Shamrock. I do not know where this Canadian fleet is, though I read naval orders.
Further on he says:
So I say, wait until we get an adequate fleet to carry a flag and sufficient men to man the fleet. On land and sea and in the air what are we doing to-day for our own protection? Simply hoisting the pan-American flag in and out of this house.
He went on:
We should do well to go back to the days of Sir John A. Macdonald and remember his declaration, "A British subject I was born; a British subject I will die."
And he said further:
Is it advisable at the present time to raise this question when we are depending upon the motherland for maritime protection?
We are trying to establish an air force in Canada. We know how war has been revolutionized in the air. If the enemy were to sail up the St. Lawrence, what would be our position? We are unprepared; while we are talking about a new flag they could blow up the citadel, proceed to Ottawa and blow up these buildings and the Chateau Laurier.
Mr. Speaker, I have quoted those words from the hon. member for Broadview because he is one of the warmest supporters of the union jack and one of the fiercest opponents of an essentially Canadian flag.
Continuing, he said:
The new flag would no doubt please a good many people in all the provinces; but, as I say, if the enemy sailed up the St. Lawrence, where would we be? Somebody in the committee might say, "We have pan-Americanism to protect us."
His concluding remark was the following:
The people of Canada never voted or consented to that, and they have not voted on this question with regard to a change of flag.
I could find nothing more convincing than that in the speech of the hon. member for Broadview. That is what those who are opposed to a Canadian flag call arguments. It reminds us of the stone age artists who, after having drawn the likeness of a horse or a dog, had to write underneath it: this is a

horse, or this is a dog. The opponents of a Canadian flag and their arguments may be compared to the prehistoric artists and their works.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do say that our loyalty towards the Empire and the Crown have nothing to do with this motion. And I should like to answer what the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) said a few moments ago when he made a special appeal to the French-Canadians. He stated that we should be the first in wanting to retain the union jack, because it is mostly derived from the Fleur-de-lis flag! Let me say to the hon. member that we do love France, her culture, her arts, her literature. We also love England, but our chief concern is for our country, Canada, because we have no other fatherland.
In order to have any significance, a flag must be distinct from those of other nations. Let us hope that the Statute of Westminster will completely eliminate whatever colonialism we may still harbour, so that we may fully enjoy the distinct privilege of having a national flag. The days of a double allegiance are past. After all the question is: are we or are we not Canadians? If we are not, then let us go and live somewhere else, under the flag we prefer. The way has been shown to us recently by some one who is highly-placed. If this were done, there would only remain in this country true Canadians who could sing with sincerity these words from our national anthem:
Le ciel a marque sa carriere
Dans ce monde nouveau.
Toujours guide par sa lumiere,
II gardera I'honneur de son drapeau.
There is no room in this country for a divided allegiance, Mr. Speaker. When His Majesty King George VI pays us a visit next spring, we shall be receiving the king of Canada, and I venture to say that the king of Canada will find it quite natural to see flying throughout this dominion, wherever he goes,- a distinctively Canadian flag.


Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, rising to express my convictions with regard to the resolution I should like first of all to refer to the masterly manner in which the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) voiced his oft-repeated arguments in favour of a new and distinctive Canadian flag. Whatever inherent weaknesses there may be in the hon. member's argument-and I contend there are many-one cannot justifiably say that he did not conduct the argument in a most forceful and eloquent manner in his attempt to turn the parliamentary scales in his favour. I am convinced that not

A Canadian Flag-Mr. Gray don
only the hon. member but those sections of public opinion in Canada favouring the change are sincere in their endeavours to obtain a distinctive national flag. However, there are many people who, although sincere, may be somewhat misguided. May I say to the hon. member and to those who support him in his sponsoring of the change in our flag at this time that perhaps that word may be suitably used.
I never expected-and I believe my position is in common with that of other new members-that one of the problems we would be asked to debate during our term of service as new members would be the old union jack itself. And so in these days, when there is such a great desire for unity in Canada, it seems exceedingly unfortunate, from the point of view of national solidarity that this highly explosive subject should be debated. I say that because there is such a wide divergence of opinion, and views which are held strongly but honestly on both sides. Under such circumstances the possibilities of consequent bitterness over a change in the flag might well be minimized by leaving matters as they are for the present.
Apart altogether from the possible effect upon national unity there are those in Canada who feel that perhaps to make a change in the design of our flag would constitute, to some at least, an implied notice of a further desire towards insularity as far as the empire is concerned. I have not very much to say in favour of any hon. member who will stand in his place and wrap himself in the union jack, without having some real and honest conviction with regard to the subject in question. But surely, Mr. Speaker, even in these days some of the sentimental ties which bind Canada to the empire should be preserved. In my opinion the least we can do in Canada to-day is to preserve that one sentimental tie of the union jack, particularly at this time when we are soon to welcome with open arms Their Majesties the King and the Queen. Regardless of other arguments it seems to me there are many Canadians who, under ordinary circumstances, might conceivably favour a change to a distinctive national flag, but who in the face of the visit of their majesties would hesitate to sponsor any such idea just now. Our retention of the union jack will serve to show their majesties that Canada is not lacking in affection for the motherland, and that in addition to having a common monarch we fly in common with England the same flag.
I listened with some interest to the strong argument made by the hon. member for
Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) to the effect that if the matter were really of great national importance to Canada any proposed action in regard thereto would have been initiated by the government and not left to a private member. I have great respect for the Minister of Justice, but I cannot help but think that with his great enthusiasm in support of this change, which was exhibited so well in his speech this afternoon, it is curious that he has not translated that enthusiasm into the introduction of a bill, backed by the government, to change our flag. Had that been done, there would have been some evidence of the courage of the government in that respect.
The hon. member for North Battleford used the words "national defeatism" and "national darkness" as an implication of the ends to which our steps would be directed if we opposed his resolution. It seems to me that we have entirely lost our sense of proportion when it is claimed that one class or section of this country has a monopoly of loyalty or affection to the British empire or to Canada itself as compared with any other particular class or section. Who can say that because of certain honest and sincere policies advanced in the House of Commons we are travelling toward national darkness or national defeatism?
If there is one thing we need in this country it is courage in our national life. I refuse to believe that there are those in Canada who would voluntarily travel along the paths indicated. The hon. member quoted extensively from his scrap-book of editorials, but he did not quote from that great national newspaper, the Evening Telegram of Toronto; had he done so I am sure it would have proved very enlightening.
Once a flag design is altered there is no warranty as to the finality of the change. From the proposed designs I have seen from time to time I am free to say that they would be open to serious and frequent challenge throughout the years that lie ahead. There would be nothing to prevent resolutions of this kind being proposed at every subsequent session, with the obviously resulting confusion. The only guarantee we can have in this regard is to leave the national ensign as it is.
With a depressed agriculture, with low wages and insecurity in industry, with a restless youth and evidence everywhere of criticism of unpopular and unbusinesslike public expenditures and unbalanced budgets, is it any wonder that the people who send us here become impatient when the time of the house is consumed by a discussion prompted by a desire to change the flag? Let us not endanger parliamentary institutions in these days when eager, hopeful eyes

A Canadian Flag-Mr. Hyndman
are turned to parliament seeking prosperous conditions for the populace. Until some of our most urgent national obstacles are removed, let us not attempt to abolish the flag we have. Let us change the conditions over which the present flag flies before we attempt to alter the flag itself.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the proposer of this resolution (Mr. McIntosh) upon the manner in which he has brought it before the house. I was glad to hear him say that he hoped that the debate would be kept on a high plane. A subject of this kind should always be discussed from the national rather than the party point of view.
The hon. member said that the debates on this subject in the past had caused " consternation " in the Conservative party, but I am sure that if he were to consult his Liberal friends privately and quietly he would find that many of them are not in favour of changing the flag at the present time. The hon. member proposes setting up a special committee. I do not like that word " committee," especially after the experience we had with a certain other committee. I feel that we would get nowhere with a committee. I refer to the interdepartmental committee that acted in connection with the Bren gun. That committee was supposed to pass upon certain proposals put before it, but its recommendations were overruled. I feel that if this question is to go before a committee there will be a possibility that the recommendations of that committee will be overruled.


Ernest Lapointe: That is rather far-fetched, apart from its being out of order.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: The hon. member quoted from various newspapers which were favourable to his resolution, but I venture to say that there were many opposed to any change in our flag.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I ask the hon. member to quote some that are opposed.


Alonzo Bowen Hyndman: I propose to give the house the statements of a number of outstanding men throughout this dominion. First I mention Mr. N. C. Poison of N. C. Poison and Company, who said:
I think this move is just one step further away from the imperialism that should animate all of us.
Then Mr. A. O. Dawson, president of Canadian Cottons, said:
It doesn't appeal to me. The union jack is a good emblem. Good enough for me. This seems to me to be a dividing, rather than a unifying move.

Clinton Henderson, of Henderson, King and Charland, Limited, exporters, had this to say: I think the old flag will do for me. It is good enough for me, for as long as I live.
Then we have that outstanding Canadian, Sir Edward Beatty, president of the Canadian Pacific railway, who said:
While I do not think anyone will charge me with being anything but Canadian, I am not one of those who have a feeling of restiveness, nor is my inferiority complex heightened by reason of the fact that I live under the union jack. For a long time it has stood for some of the best things the world has witnessed, and it is likely to continue doing so.
The Hon. Gordon Scott, president of the Royal Empire Society, said:
I prefer to stick to the old union jack. It is symbolic of all that is good in the world and that will be good enough for Canadians.
The next is Doctor A. Bercovitch, one of the outstanding medical authorities in the city of Montreal, if not in the Dominion of Canada. He had this to say:
The union jack is good enough for me as long as I live. I don't see any reason for a change. We can be proud of the union jack.
Sir Charles Gordon, president of the Bank of Montreal, said:
The union jack is good enough for me. Colonel Philip Abbey, former officer commanding, second field brigade, royal Canadian artillery, stated:
The flag we have is O.K. with me.
Mr. C. E. Gravel, a French Canadian business man, said:
At the present time, I am not in favour of a change in Canada's flag as I am of the opinion that public officials should spend more time in the solution of the country's financial problems and difficulties.
Next we have an outstanding minister of the United church of Canada. Doctor F. W. Kerr of St. Andrew's church in West-mount, had this to say:
I am perfectly satisfied with things as they are. Any change at the present moment which would suggest disunity in the empire is to be deplored.
Mr. J. S. Rigby, a flag manufacturer, said: We should keep the union jack.
F. Winfield Hackett, K.C., said:
We are a part of the British empire and that flag has taken care of all our needs to date. Too many flags may lead to too much confusion, the %vay we are at present organized.
Then Major W. W. Gear, of William I. Gear and Son, shipping and travel agents, had this to say:
The government has more important things to do than think about flags, and the union jack should be retained.

A Canadian Flag-Mr. Hyndman
Colonel Royal Ewing, one of the greatest marksmen in Canada, who has been to Bisley year after year, says:
I think the union jack is still all right.
B. W. P. Coghlin, president of the Montreal board of trade says:
If we try to work out another design it will divide Canada even worse than it is at present.
And finally I quote John A. Charron, president of the building trades council:
The flag we fly has always suited me.
There you have, Mr. Speaker, the opinions of prominent men from all over Canada, and I think their opinions are entitled to respect. The mover of the resolution (Mr. McIntosh) is far astray when he says that Canada is unanimously in favour of changing the flag. I submit that there should be such a unanimous desire throughout the country before the change is made, and I claim that there is no such universal desire. National unity is at stake in Canada at the present time, and surely, Mr. Speaker, this is no time, as I suggested in the debate on the address, to throw another controversial question into the arena. We have enough disunity as it is. So far as I am concerned no representations have been made to me to change the flag- not one. I think our time could be better spent in trying to reduce relief costs and the present high taxation, because these really are burning questions throughout the country to-day.
I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mac. kenzie King) last night, and I certainly agreed with him when he said that one month of this session had gone by and absolutely no government business had been done. But I agree also with the leader of my group (Mr. Manion) that we were doing public business when we considered the Bren gun contract. This is what the Prime Minister said last night:
What I wish to make perfectly plain at this moment is that the government have been sent here by the people of Canada to carry on the business of the country, and the first duty of parliament is to get on with that business, no matter what anyone may say or wish. When private members, whether through resolutions or any other circumstances whatever, occupy the entire time of parliament so that it is impossible for the government to get on with a single measure, then I say the time has come for the government to take such action as is necessary and imperative to see that it can get ahead with the public business.
I suggested in the early part of this session that the hon. member for North Battleford withdraw this resolution, because it undoubtedly is contentious, and if he had withdrawn it at that time we should not be having this discussion to-day.
When the house is asked to consider changing the flag, we must remember that in Canada we have not only English, French, Irish and Scotch, but, in addition, quite a mixed population. I looked up the Canada Year Book for 1938, with respect to the origins of our people, and I found that in 1921 our English, Irish and Scottish population numbered 4.868-, 738, and in 1931, 5,381,071, and our total population in 1931 was roughly ten millions. So half the population of Canada is not made up of English, Irish and Scottish. The Freneh-Canadian population in Canada in 1931 was 2,927,990, and surely they have a right to say: Let us have a flag emblematic of the Freneh-Canadian. Then there are Austrian, Belgian, Bulgarian, Roumanian, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, Finnish, German, Greek, Hebrew. Hungarian, Indian, Eskimo, Italian, Japanese, Polish, Russian, Scandinavian, Ukrainian, Jugoslavic and various other people. We should have a lovely flag if it was going to represent them all!
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that no one in this country is advocating a change in the flag. If it was a burning question, I would say all right, let us consider it. So far as a distinctive Canadian flag is concerned, the idea is perfectly all right, and if the hon. member for North Battleford would bring down a flag to the house and say, "This is the flag that I propose Canada should adopt as its distinctive national flag," I would not oppose it if it met with my approval, but I am certainly opposed to sending this question to a committee of the house.
We must also consider the number of different religions there are in Canada. We have for example, Adventists, Anglicans, Baptists Buddhists, Christians, Christian Scientists, Church of Christ Disciples, Confucians, Con-gregationalists, Doukhobours, the Evangelical Association, Friends (Quaker), the Greek Church, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Holiness Movement, International Bible School, Lutherans, Mennonites, Methodists, no religion, pagans, the Pentecostal Church, the Plymouth Brethren, Presbyterians, Protestants, Roman Catholics, the Salvation Army, the Unitarian Church, the United Church, and various other religions. These are the religions of the people of Canada as classified at the decennial census, so I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have in this country so many different races and so many different religions that we had better leave a question of this kind alone at the present time, and not stir up strife when we have so much already in this country.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
9SS
Questions
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 16, 1939