1931-05-25

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to lay on the table an abstract of the operations of the insurance department. Always the report is printed as quickly as possible, but as it involves a large amount of detail, it usually has not been completed until after the house has risen. For this reason the abstract is made available as soon as possible.
Immigration Advertising



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 52, to amend the Board of Management of the Canadian District of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio and other states, and to change its name to the Board of Management of the Canadian District of the American Lutheran Church.-Mr. Gershaw.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-AIbemi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of the acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to the very serious, I might say desperate, conditions that exist in the city of Nanaimo. Owing to the closing down of the mines there are more than- 800 men out of work. Nanaimo has spent all its available funds. At a conference -between representatives of the province, the city council and the board of trade, the provincial representative, a minister of the crown, said that he fully realized the seriousness of the situation and was quite willing to help, but that it was impossible for him to do so unless he got some assurance from the federal government as to what they were going to do. I would urge that the matter be taken in hand at once, so that the situation, which is really desperate, may be given attention. One man said that it is "truly appalling."


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :: Mr. Speaker, the situation referred to by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill) is, as no doubt the house understands, purely a provincial matter. If it is found that the municipal and provincial authorities cannot relieve the situation, there is no doubt that proper steps will be taken and taken without delay, by this government to assist.
IMMIGRATION ADVERTISING On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, if
any such advertisement is appearing in the British papers with the authority of the government it is being done under some unexpired contract that was entered into by the late government. But I am inclined to the view that the advertisement which the hon. member has read, and any others of a similar character, are being circulated on behalf of the steamboat company concerned. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) need not fear that British people are being encouraged to come to Canada at the present time by the government making statements that are calculated to deceive and disappoint them when they get here. The government is not doing anything of the kind. Anyone in the British isles who cares to come to Canada under what I might term "his own steam," is very welcome, but the government is not publishing information calculated to deceive intending immigrants; indeed, no encouragement is being held out to such people. I will inquire into the advertisement referred to and ask the steamship company the reason for its publication.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-ADVERTISING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to direct the attention
of the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) to further advertisements, not in the English papers this time but in the Irish papers, along the line of the advertisements referred to by my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown). This time the advertisements are carried by the Canadian National Railways, and I should like to ask the Minister of Immigration to

Grain Shipments
take into consideration the question of whether he should not advise the Canadian National Railways to stop this advertising.



GRAIN SHIPMENTS


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw the attention of the Priipe Minister (Mr. Bennett) to a certain condition and base a question upon it, but before doing so may I be permitted to read a copy of a petition that has been forwarded to him. It reads as follows:
Honourable Sir:
Although the attention of the respective governments has been drawn to the fact whereas American steamers are carrying our Canadian grain to Buffalo for transhipment to Montreal, and-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The reading of petitions is out of order.


Angus MacInnis: The reading of this petition would make my question more clear, but I will put my question as best I can. The fact is that according to the petitioners Canadian grain is being shipped from one Canadian port to another in American ships, and the petitioners' are asking what steps the government intend to take, by order in council or otherwise, to remedy this situation. As a result, American ships are carrying our grain while Canadian ships and Canadian seamen are idle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
statements are not quite accurate. The question is not a few weeks old, it is years old. It has been before the house, to my certain knowledge, for many years during the time I have been a member. The provisions of the Canada Shipping Act permit of certain amendments to be made without reference to the shipping act passed in Great Britain. We are now in a position to ask this house to petition the parliament at Westminster to enact such legislation as will permit this parliament to deal with the question the hon. member refers to. During the last nine years I have not heard of its having been dealt with by the previous government, and long before the hon. member was in this house the question was raised and discussed. But inasmuch as an order in council of the Imperial government would be required to give validity to any legislation that we might pass, the position, I am unofficially advised, is that such order in council would not be passed in view of the fact that legislation is
pending that would confer upon us the necessary powers to deal with it without reference to the Imperial government. That is the position at the moment. I will look further at the hon. member's question when it appears in Hansard, and if any additional statement is necessary I will make it.


Angus MacInnis: I am not taking exception to the right hon. member's saying that my statement was not quite accurate, but I do wish to point out that what I was stating was simply based on the petition-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order, the hon. member
cannot debate the subject.


Angus MacInnis: I am not debating it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has
asked his question, and he cannot now enter into a debate on the subject.


Angus MacInnis: I am not debating it.



WORLD WHEAT CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I promised that when I received the
information I would communicate to the house the report of the High Commissioner on the recent conference held in London with respect to wheat. His report, which was received yesterday and decoded this morning, reads as follows:
The final act of the -wheat conference drafted and accepted by all delegates reads:
Final act of the conference of wheat exporting countries held in London at the offices of the High Commissioner for Canada from the 18th day to the 23rd day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one.
The official delegations of the following countries: America, the United States of; Argentine; Australia; Bulgaria; Canada; Hungary; India; Poland; Roumania; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Yugoslavia; have met on the invitation of the Canadian government and at the offices of the High Commissioner for Canada from the 18th May, to the 23rd May, for conference of wheat exporting countries.
The conference invited the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, K.C., etc., High Commissioner for Canada, to act as its chairman. At fourth plenary session on May the 23rd, 1931, the report of the committee was presented to the conference and was finally adopted in the following form:
The conference of wheat exporting coun-tiies, consisting of delegations appointed by the governments of America, the United States of: Argentine: Australia; Bulgaria; Canada:_ Hungary; India; Poland; Roumania; Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; Jugoslavia; having studied existing world wheat situation is con-
World Wheat Conference

vinced that among underlying causes for present depressed prices for wheat, the following points should be specially mentioned:
(i)	'lhe effect of economic depression throughout the world.
(ii)	The fact that there is more wheat produced than can be sold at a profit.
(iii)	The absence of sufficiently adequate information regarding movements of wheat, the requirements of certain countries, and quantities which are liable to be placed upon the market.
(iv)	The present uncertain state of wheat markets.
The conference, recognizing the serious nature of world economic depression, believes nevertheless that a substantial contribution to an improvement of present situation may be made through a clearer understanding of underlying facts regarding so important a commodity as wheat.
The conference considers that, where possible. a reduction in areas devoted to wheat should be undertaken in whatever way each country considers to be most effective and practical.
It was also felt to be especially desirable that there should be careful exploration of all avenues for greater utilization of wheat, both for food and also for other purposes.
The conference further considered current information respecting supply, the demands and the movement of wheat should be brought together in such a way as to assist wheat exporting countries towards orderly marketing of their surpluses.
The conference of wheat exporting countries has. therefore, decided to establish a committee of the conference consisting of one representative from each state participating in the conference to:
(a)	Submit to the governments of the countries participating in this conference a definite proposal for establishing, under supervision of committee of tile conference, a clearing house of information to serve wheat exporting countries. For this purpose, the committee shall be empowered to secure from states represented on committee full information as to unloadings and stock of wheat at all importing points, the areas sown to wheat, and crop prospects, thereby assisting orderly distribution of wheat in world markets. This information should be as far as possible in the form prescribed and at times fixed by committee.
(b)	To explore carefully all possible avenues for greater utilization of this important cereal.
The conference, convinced that existence of this standing committee will develop contacts already established here between wheat exporting countries, proposes that committee may prepare and recommend a draft agenda for a further meeting of conference at which countries here represented may enter upon consideration of subjects as may then be deemed appropriate.
Executed at London, the twenty-third day of May, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-one.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the right hon. gentleman in what way this new method of gathering information will differ from the methods already existing, the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome; the League of Nations; the Inter-
[Mr. Bennett.)
national Chamber of Commerce and various other agencies?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I anticipated that possibly the hon. gentleman might suggest some such question, and in communicating with the High Commissioner during the progress of the conference it was pointed out that our Department of Trade and Commerce had verv complete figures with respect to Canada and that the League of Nations gathered certain statistics at Geneva and the International Institute of Agriculture at Rome. The High Commissioner uses these words in answer to my inquiry :
The setting up of a special bureau for wheat lending special importance to wheat problems. It does not interfere with good work of office at Geneva or International Institute of Agriculture at Rome, both of which will be of great value to wheat bureau. The former deals with all trade statistics and latter with whole range of agricultural products. The clearing house proposed by conference will cover not only statistics but all other information that may be deemed of value upon the subject of wheat. Discussions throughout conference were vigorous but at all times harmonious and gave undoubted evidence that all exporting countries are seized with gravity of the present situation and seriously desire, by cooperation, to bring about improvement.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether, as Minister of Finance, he will be in a position to bring down the budget this week?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the introduction of the budget, I hope to make a definite announcement, but it is my present intention to endeavour to bring it down this week.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the Prime Minister indicate whether, in addition to the legislation foreshadowed in the budget, there will 'be legislation introduced other than that which already appears on the order paper?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In addition to the legislation which will be foreshadowed by the budget, there

Dominion Conversion Loan
will be a few measures that affect departmental matters and administration, with possibly one other matter.



DOMINION CONVERSION LOAN


[Stage Direction]
TOTAL $600,000,000 On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it seems veTy appropriate that on Empire day I should indicate to this house that the great effort made by the Canadian people with their resources to maintain the integrity of the empire some fifteen years ago, or more, by providing loans which were payable to the extent of $1,082,000,000 during the years 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934, has been continued, and that these securities have been exchanged to the extent of over $600,000,000 for securities that call for the payment of only 4| per cent interest. The exact amount, since to-day is a holiday and Saturday was a very large day in conversions, I cannot state at this moment, but upwards of $600,000,000 of the securities taken by the Canadian people at that time have been exchanged for securities bearing 1 per cent less interest, for all the securities I have mentioned, except those due this year, carried interest at the rate of 5i per cent.
I think the house will agree that the Canadian people are to be congratulated upon their confidence in their country, which has been shown by this magnificent tribute to the stability of this Dominion.
ALLEGED PROPAGANDA On the orders of the day:
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): Before the orders of the day are called, I have been requested to direct the attention of the government and especially that of the Postmaster General to the bolshevistic propaganda carried in an American magazine called The Saturday Evening Post, under the signature of that international bandit Trotzky. I should like to ask the Postmaster General or the government if they intend to take any steps to prevent this propaganda from coming into Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The matter will be brought to the a^ention of the Postmaster General, who is not in his place to-day.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. F. WILLIS (Souris) moved the third reading of Bill No. 15, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

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

*Mr. FACTOR:: 1.	Has the government received any applications from private corporations for further diversion of power water rights in the St. Lawrence river?
2.	What progress has the government made in reference to the plan for the deepening of the St. Lawrence river waterway?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question has been standing for some time and I think it will have to be answered verbally. To the first part of the question the answer is, yes. To the second part it is very difficult to make answer other than that at the proper time the house will be fully advised; because the progress which a government may make in reference to a matter of this kind is something with respect to which it cannot give an answer until the question is in some more concrete form than mere discussion.


HON. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	During the term of office of Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, as Speaker of the House of Commons, were certain pieces of furniture, the property of the state, transported to his summer residence, at Pointe au Pic, Quebec?
2.	If so, what were said pieces of furniture?
3.	Has said furniture been returned?
4.	If so, at whose request?
5.	Who paid for the transportation of the said furniture?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Speaker's department has furnished the answer, which merely indicates what the right hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) said the other day. Under the circumstances I think the question and answer had better be filed. The answer in each case is, no.
The question and answer follow:
Question:
* 1. During the term of office of Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, as Speaker of the House of Commons, were certain pieces of furniture, the property of the state, transported to his summer residence. at Pointe au Pic, Quebec?
2.	Tf so, what were said pieces of furniture?
3.	Has said furniture been returned?
4.	If so, at whose request?
5.	Who paid for the transportation of the said furniture?
Answer:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Answered by No. 1.
Questions


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GASPS TERMINUS
*Mr. MARCIL:: Has the Canadian National Railways decided to retain the western terminus of the Gaspe railways at Matapedia, Quebec, and will the place be provided with the usual facilities?


Mi. MANION:: Perhaps I can answer this question by stating that the matter is still under consideration by the Canadian National Railways. They have not yet come to a decision.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	When was the lease for the new premises of the Canadian National Railways in New York signed?
2.	What is the rent per year?
3.	What is the name of the lessor?
4.	Has the Canadian National Railways any other premises in New York, if so, what rent is paid?
5.	Is the place rented at present, if not, why was it vacated?
6.	What amount of business was done in the New York office during 1930?
7.	Has the Canadian National Railways similar offices in Chicago, Detroit and other American cities?
8.	If so, what rent is paid in each case?
9.	What amount w-as spent on each or any of such premises?
10.	What amount was spent on furnishings of 9aid premises?
11.	What was the amount of current liabilities of the Canadian National Railways unpaid on December 31, 1930, and were these included in the deficit shown in the annual report?
12.	Does Sir Henry Thornton receive a salary from the Canadian National Express Company, The Canadian National Hotel Company, Canadian National Telegraph Company, subsidiary railways or any other companies?
13.	If so, how much from each?
14.	What was the salary of Sir Henry Thornton stated an the last agreement with the Canadian government?


Mr. MANION:: 

MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Is the government aware of the fact that the chairman of the harbour commission of Montreal has declared that through lack of funds twelve hundred labourers will not be reengaged this summer ?
2.	Has the government been requested to give authority to said harbour commission to proceed with urgent work?
3.	Have any contracts been awarded lately for wharves and piers in said harbour, and if so, what are the names of the contractors and amount of contracts?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	I am informed by the harbour commissioners of Montreal that the answer is in the negative.



OCEAN RATE ON CATTLE

Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	What was the ocean rate on cattle between Canada and Great Britain for each of the years, 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931?
2.	Upon what date (year, month and day of the month) were each of these changes of rates, upward or downward, made?
Questions


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	January 1st, 1926, to February 28, 1927, $20 per head on fat cattle and $18 per head for light cattle under 1,000 pounds.
March 1st, 1927, to date, $15 per head with discount of 10 per cent on cattle under 1,000 pounds.
2.	Answered by above.



ICE BREAKER N. B. MCLEAN

Mr. LACROIX:: 1.	For how many days did the government icebreaker N. B. McLean work in the gulf of St. Lawrence and Chaleur bay during the months of March, April and May, 1931?
2.	To what point in Chaleur bay did she succeed in cutting a channel through the ice?
3.	What was the daily cost of the operation of this vessel, including wages of crerv and fuel?
4.	Was the vessel obliged to abandon this work on account of an accident?
5.	If so, for how long will the vessel be laid up, what is the estimated cost of the repairs required in order to put her back in working condition?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	The icebreaking steamer N. B. McLean left Quebec 8th March, 1931. She returned to Quebec 10th May, 1931.
2.	No icebreaking operations were carried out in Chaleur bay.
3.	$460.
4 and 5. The N. B. McLean did not meet with any accident and sustained no damage.



TRENT CANAL-EMPLOYEES

Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Who is the medical officer or physician employed by the Department of Railways and Canals for the examination of the employees of the Trent canal at Peterborough?
2.	Who was the physician who examined Thomas Black, bridge keeper of the Trent canal at Bridgenorth in 1931?
3.	How long was he employed and what is his remuneration?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No medical officer or physician is employed by the Department of Railways and Canals for the examination of the employees of Dominion canals. When necessity for medical examination of employees arises, the matter is placed in the hands of the Department of Pensions and National Health, which department instructs its local medical officers to act.
2.	Dr. A. W. MacPherson, Peterborough.
3.	Only for the time required to make the actual examination and report. For this

service Dr. MacPherson charged $3. Such charges are paid by the Department of Railways and Canals.



BONAVENTURE POINT, QTJE., LIGHT KEEPER

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the light keeper of Bonaventure point, Quebec, been dismissed?
2.	If so, was an investigation held and by whom ?
3.	Who is now in charge of this light and on whose recommendation was the temporary appointment made?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	No, he resigned.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Ovide Bourdages; by direction of the Minister of Marine.



ST. STJLPICE, QUE., WHARF

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Who advised the engineer in charge of the *works on the wharf at St. Sulpice, Quebec, carried on by the federal Department of Public Works during the course of the year 1930, to dismiss Mr. Mederie Lacombe as foreman of the said works?
2.	Who advised the engineer in charge of the said works, that the services of Mr. Mederie Lacombe were not satisfactory?
3.	Who advised the above-mentioned engineer of the works on the wharf at St. Sulpice, regarding the opportunity of nominating Mr. J. E. Robitaille to replace Mr. Mederie Lacombe as foreman of the said works?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 and 2. Dismissed by engineer in charge of works for not following instructions.
3.	District engineer.



RIVIERE DU LOUP, QUE., WHARF

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What is the depth of the water: (a) at low tide, and (b) high tide, at the northeast end of the wharf at Biviere du Loup, Quebec?
2.	What is the depth at forty feet from the end of said wharf?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The following are based on soundings taken October, 1929.
1.	(a) Approximately 15 feet low spring tide; (b) approximately 27 feet high neap tide; approximately 31J feet high spring tide.
2.	Approximately 16 feet at low tide with 12 or 16J feet more at high tide.



PETERBOROUGH, ONT., GOVERNMENT GRADER

Mr. GRAY:: 1.	Has the Minister of Agriculture received any complaints regarding the failure of government grader, Donald McKinnon, of Peterborough, grading the hogs of the Canada Packers Limited?

Questions
2.	Has the minister ascertained that one of the weighers of Canada Packers Limited has been grading the hogs at Peterborough plant instead of the government grader?
3.	Have the government manifests of the government grader at Peterborough been discovered missing and for what years are these manifests of the government grader missing?
4.	Has the minister investigated as to whether there has been a shortage in weights discovered at the Canada Packers Limited plant at Peterborough, between weights given to the farmers on sale tickets and the weights shown by the weighers' records of the Canada Packers Limited at its Peterborough plant?
5.	Has the minister instituted the investigation?
6.	Hoes the minister intend to institute an investigation?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	Yes, by personal and confidential letter.
2.	The usual practice is followed in administering the hog grading regulations at the Peterborough packing plant. In the event of the official hog grader being called to the country for a hog grading demonstration or other work in connection with swine improvement in the district immediately surrounding the packing plant, arrangements are made for the grading of the hogs at the plant by *an official of the plant subject to the supervision and approval of the official hog grader on his return.
3.	No; hog grading records for the province of Ontario are filed at the office of the district swine grader, 59 Victoria street, Toronto 2, from which office reports on the grading are issued to the farmers and shippers.
4.	No.
5.	No.
6.	No. Under the British North America Act, authority for such an investigation is vested with the Province.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EX-CONDTJCTORS

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were Messrs. Noel Plourde and Joseph I'loiirde, ex-conductors on the Canadian National Railways, reinstated?
2.	If so, on what date?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	The management advise that Noel Plourde has not been reinstated. No record of a Joseph Plourde employed as conductor.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



BUTTER IMPORTS

Mr. RAYMOND:: 1.	How many pounds of butter were imported into Canada during the month of April, 1931, from: (a) New Zealand; (b) Australia; (c) other countries?
2.	What was the average price of butter per pound, in Canada during the month of April, 1931?
3.	What was the lowest price per pound at which butter sold, in Canada during the month of April, 1931?
4.	What was the lowest price per pound at which butter sold, in Canada during the month of May, 1931?


Mr. STEVENS:: 

CENSUS COMMISSIONER, TEMISCOUATA

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who was appointed census commissioner for the county of Temiscouata?
2.	What is his salary?
3.	Who recommended him to the department?
4.	How many census enumerators will be appointed in the county of Temiscouata?
5.	What salary will each one receive?
6.	By whom will they be appointed?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Mr. Romeo Tremblay.
2.	An allowance of $250 to cover organization expenses and for viseing of the returns made by the enumerators; checking them and forwarding to Ottawa; verification of enumerators' accounts and the general supervision of the census within the district over which he is appointed as Commissioner the following rates are provided: 1 cent for each name on the "population" schedule; 3 cents for each "Agricultural" schedule; 1 cent for each entry on the "Animal and animal products, not on farm" Schedule; 1 cent for each record of blind and deaf persons; 1 cent for each record of merchandising and service establishments.
3.	Appointed by the Honourable the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
4.	Information not yet available.
5.	Five cents for each person recorded on the population schedule; 5 cents for each absentee family; 5 cents for each closed house card; 35 cents for farms of 5 acres and over; 25 cents for farms of 1 to less than 5 acres; 35 cents for vacant and abandoned farms; for animals, animal products and fruits, etc. not on farms, 10 cents per family; for merchandising and service establishments 10 cents each; for blind and deaf persons 5 cents per name; in lieu of horse hire and all other expenses at the rate of $5 per 100 names on population schedule.

Questions as Orders lor Returns
6.	By the Honourable the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



ROSEMOUNT, MONTREAL, PROPOSED POSTAL STATION

Mr. LAURIN:: 1.	Has the government received a petition or delegation requesting that a postal station be erected in the district of Rosemount, Montreal ?
2.	If so, what action is the government taking in connection with such petition?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The department is studying the present postal needs of Montreal district, and as soon as possible the case of Rosemount will be fairly considered.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	Has the government or the Minister of National Revenue placed a value upon acid phosphate for duty purposes under the dumping clause?
2.	If so, what is that value?
3.	Why was such value fixed, and when did it take effect?
4.	Will the minister bring down copy of order in council or other ruling fixing such value?
5.	Is acid phosphate manufactured in Canada?
6.	If so, at what places and by what companies?
7.	Where is the raw rock used in its manufacture obtained?
8.	If there is not at present any acid phosphate produced in Canada, does the government know of any preparations being made for its manufacture?
9.	If so, where and by whom?


TRENT CANAL SUPERINTENDENT
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	During what periods and for what purpose and what were the dates of absences of Mr. A. L. Killaly, superintendent of the Trent canal at Peterborough during the years 1929, 1930 and 1931?
2.	What leave of absence was given to other members of the office staff on the Trent canal at Peterborough, and what were the dates and purposes of such leave?


BOARD OF PENSION COMMISSIONERS
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How many cases were allowed by the Board of Pension Commissioners between October 1, 1930, and April 30, 1931?
2.	How many cases rejected by said board were allowed by the pensions tribunals in the same period?

3.	How many cases rejected by the pensions tribunals were allowed by the appeal court in the same period?
4.	How many cases allowed by the pensions tribunals were rejected by the appeal court in the same period?
5.	What was the cost during the same period
of: (a)_ the Board of Pension Commissioners and their administration as such; (b) the pensions tribunals:	(1) salaries; (2) travelling
expenses; (c) pension advocates: (1) salaries; (2) travelling expenses; (d) commission counsel: (1) salaries; (2) travelling expenses; (e) the appeal court: (1) salaries; (2) travelling expenses ?
6.	What was the monetary value of all pensions paid during same period: (a) by decisions of the pensions board and not appealed; (b) by decisions of the pensions tribunals and not appealed; (c) by decisions of the appeal court?
7.	How many cases (outside the decisions of the pensions board) have been finally disposed of by the appeal machinery in the same period?
8.	How many eases were finally disposed of by the old federal appeal board between May 1. and October 1, 1930?
9.	How much was the monetary value of such decisions?
10.	What was the cost to Canada?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. HALL (for Mr. Howard):: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, letters, etc., exchanged between the Minister of Labour at Ottawa and the Director of Unemployment at Ottawa, and any person or persons, in connection with the expenditure of moneys under the Unemployment Relief Act, in the county of Sherbrooke, Quebec.



ST. BENOIT DE MATAPEDIA POST OFFICE

Charles Marcil: For a copy of the report made by Mr. Gerard Simard, commissioner, of St. Benoit de Matapedia post office, and copy of the affidavits produced at this investigation.



PIERRE TRUDEL

Mr. DESROCHERS:: For a copy of all papers, documents, memoranda, certificates, charges and reports, in connection with the dismissal of Pierre Trudel, an employee of the Department of Marine, Quebec agency.



ST. JACQUES, MONTCALM, POSTMASTER

Charles Marcil: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, complaints, requests for inquiries and all other documents, exchanged with the Post Office Department or any other member of the government regarding the dismissal of Mr. Joseph Levesque as postmaster of St. Jacques, in the county of Montcalm, and the appointment of his temporary or permanent successor.

Unopposed Motions for Papers



RIVIERE DU LOUP, WHARF

Mr. POULIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports and plans, in possession of the government departments, in connection with the extension of the Riviere du Loup wharf, since August 7, 1930.



POINTE A LA I.OUPE-WHARF CONSTRUCTION

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all reports and correspondence regarding claim made to the "Department of Public Works by Mr. C. E. Michaud, of Lisle Verte, Quebec, for the occupancy or possession of a lot used in the construction of a wharf at Pointe a la Loupe, at St. Eloi station, in the county of Temiscouata, Quebec.



ST. CANUT, QUEBEC-DISMISSAL OF POSTMASTER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CA3GRAIN:
For a copy of all documents, letters, correspondence, and testimonials given at the inquiry held in connection with the dismissal of Alderic Legault, postmaster of St. Canut, Quebec, and also copy of report of the inquiry commissioner.

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, plans, pay lists, bills and invoices, or other documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works, in connection with repairs to the Trods Pistoles wharf, in the county of Temiscouata, since August 7, 1930.



NOTRE DAME DU PORTAGE, WHARF REPAIRS

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, plans, bills and invoices, and other documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works, in connection with repairs to the wharf of Notre Dame du Portage, county of Temiscouata, since August 7, 1930.



RIVIERE DU LOUP, POST OFFICE

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy * of all correspondence, reports, calls for tenders, tenders and plans, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, in connection with the construction of a veranda at tire post office of Riviere du Loup, Quebec.



TROIS PISTOLES, POST OFFICE

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, plans and other documents, in the possession of the Department of Public Works, since August
7.	1930, regarding:	(a) the construction of a
new post office building at Trois Pistoles, Quebec; (b) rent payable to the town of Trois Pistoles for a post office and the home of the postmaster; and (c) in connection with repairs to the building (the property of the town of Trods Pistoles), where the post office is presently located.



CANADIAN EXPORTS AND TRADE BALANCES

Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	Canada's exports to the United States in
1922 and 1929.	.	.
2.	Canada's exports to foreign countries other than the United States in 1922 and 1929.
3.	Canada's imports from the United States
in 1922 and 1929.	.
4.	Canada's imports from foreign countries other than the United States in 1922 and 1929.
5.	Canada's exports to the United Kingdom
in 1922 and 1929.	.
6.	Canada's imports from the United Kingdom in 1922 and 1929.
7.	Canada's exports of manufactured goods to the United States in 1922 and 1929.
8.	Canada's exports of raw material to the United States in 1922 and 1929.
9.	Canada's imports of raw materials from the United States in 1922 and 1929.
10.	Canada's exports to the following countries in 1922 and 1929: Germany, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, British West Indies, New Zealand. Australia, France, Portugal, Spain, Dutch East Indies.
11.	Amount in value of Canada's exports to other portions of the British Empire in 1929.
12.	Amount in value of Canada's imports from other portions of the British Empire in
1929.	.
13.	Canada's favourable trade balance with foreign countries giving Canada tariff concessions for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930.
14.	Canada's favourable trade balance with British countries giving Canada Empire preference for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1930.	_
15.	Canada's favourable trade balances with the following countries for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1930: Australia, France, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, Japan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A question is raised here of considerable importance. I mentioned it the other day. This substitutes for a member's own industry the public service of the country. The ability of the staff of a department to carry on and at the same time answer questions for which the blue books are provided is one which I think hon. members might seriously consider. All these figures are in the trade and commerce reports, and the hon. member or his secretary or someone else could obtain the information in a short time. To turn the staff of the department on this work and other work of a similar character is not customary, at least in the British parliament, and I have not seen it carried to such an extent as it is here. I should hardly think that, on consideration, the hon. gentleman would regard this as a matter on which the members of the statistical branch of the Trade and Commerce department should spend a week or so for the purpose of obtaining information, while they are performing their own work.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I might
point out that the nature and the form of the
Unopposed Motions jor Papers

questions were obtained by me from similar questions asked by the right hon. gentleman and his friends when they were in opposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is so, the hon. gentleman has no excuse for asking the question, because the answer is before him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
answer is not up to date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not ask for it up to
date?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I intend to do so later on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of pay lists of the unemployment relief work in the city of Riviere du Loup, Quebec, before January 1, 1931.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The Department of
Labour has not in its possession the pay lists referred to in this motion. It is doubtful whether such lists would be supplied to the department. In dealing with the various provinces in connection with the payment of these moneys it has not been the practice to demand a detailed pay list, but merely to ask for a certificate that the money was paid in the way it was intended to be paid, which certificates are attested to by the proper treasury officials of the various provinces.


Jean-François Pouliot: Could the hon. minister
advise whether or not these lists are made out in duplicate, and if so, is a copy left with the minister of public works or the minister of labour of the province?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The department does not receive the lists, it receives only the certificates of the province duly certificated by affidavit.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it within the personal
knowledge of the hon. member that duplicate copies of the lists are left with the minister of labour of each province? I would like to know where I could get a copy.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask Taschereau.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member
desire to press the question?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.
Motion withdrawn.



CACOUNA, TEMISCOUATA COUNTY, QUEBEC- RURAL MAIL ROUTE NO. 2

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence and reports in possession of Post Office Department in reference to the rural mail route No. 2 of Caoouna, Temiscouata county, Quebec.


Mr. CAHAN:: There should be a time
limit to this motion.
Mi

 POULIOT:	Since last August, say
August 1, 1930.


An hon. MEMBER:: Since the turmoil. Motion as amended agreed to.



ST. CLEMENT, TEMISCOUATA COUNTY, QUEBEC- RURAL MAIL ROUTE NO. 1

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence and reports in possession of Post Office Department in reference to the rural mail route No, 1 of St. Clement, Temiscouata county, Quebec.
He said: From August 1, 1930.
Motion as amended agreed to.



ST. CYPRIEN, TEMISCOUATA COUNTY, QUEBEC- RURAL MAIL ROUTE NO. 1

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence and reports in possession of the Post Office Department in reference to the rural mail route No. 1 of St. Cyprien, Temiscouata county, Quebec.
He said:	The same amendment, from
August 1, 1930.
Motion as amended agreed to.



ST. PAUL DE LA CROIX, TEMISCOUATA COUNTY, QUEBEC- RURAL MAIL ROUTE NO. 1

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence and reports in possession of Post Office Department in reference to the rural mail route No. 1 of St. Paul de la Croix, Temiscouata county, Quebec.
He said:	From August 1, 1930.
Motion as amended agreed to.



RAVIERE TROIS-PISTOLES, TEMISCOUATA COUNTY, QUEBEC- RURAL MAIL ROUTE NO. 1

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence and reports in possession of Post Office Department in

Motions for Papers
reference to the rural mail route No. 1 of office and the transportation of mail on the Riviere Trois-Pistoles, Temiscouata county, eighth and ninth back settlements of the town-Quefoee.	ship of Yiger, in the county of Temiscouata.
He said: From August 1, 1930.	Mr. CAHAN: Since August 1, 1930.
Motion as amended agreed to.	Mr. POULIOT: Yes.



CONFEDERATION OF CANADA AND NEWFOUNDLAND

Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister of Canada, and W. A. McKay, of St. Johns, Newfoundland, and any other person, relating to the subject of confederation of Canada and Newfoundland.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If ever there were a
question which should not be on the order paper this is one. I have had no official correspondence with Mr. McKay, whom I do not at the moment recall knowing. I received a personal communication from him which I did not treat as an official communication in any sense, and I simply replied to it.


Mr. YENIOT:: That is sufficient answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. McKay was in no way connected with the government of Newfoundland. I desire to make it perfectly clear that it would be most unfair to leave the impression that someone connected with Newfoundland had carried on official correspondence with myself.


Peter John Veniot: I have been advised that
this Mr. W. A. McKay has been circulating letters in connection with the confederation of Canada and Newfoundland purporting to have come from the Prime Minister of Canada. I am pleased to hear from my right hon. friend that no such letters exist.
Motion dropped.



RIVIERE DU LOUP, QUEBEC-WHARF REPAIRS

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, reports, pay lists (original, corrected or revised), itemized bills of carters and materials, in connection with the wharf repair works at Riviere du Loup, Quebec, since August 7, 1930, to date.
He said:	I would like to add the word
"chauffeurs" after the word "carters" in the third line.
Motion as amended agreed to.



TOWNSHIP OF VIGER-MAIL CONTRACT

Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of all correspondence and reports in the possession of the Post Office Department, in connection with the establishment of a post
Motion as amended agreed to.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn) moved:: For a copy of the brief or briefs submitted to the government by the Dominion Cartridge Company, or by any other manufacturer or manufacturers of ammunition, in connection with an application for increased duties on ammunition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This return cannot be brought down. Part of the information asked for is regarded as confidential: not confidential in the narrow sense 'of the term, but confidential as such information would be before a tariff board. It involves knowledge of the details of manufacturing costs by rival interests in a particular business, and just as tariff 'boards in this and other countries have regarded as confidential in the very nature of things such information as the internal operations of enterprises and just as the railway company has declined to bring down information regarding certain matters that will give its competitors knowledge which they otherwise would not possess, so we must decline to accede to the hon. gentleman's motion to bring down the return for which he asks.


Jean-François Pouliot: H the ammunition were dropped, it might explode.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If it exploded in some quarters' near at hand, that would be of great benefit to the country.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does the hon. member wish to proceed with the resolution?


Edward James Young: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am informed by the officials who received this information that it was obtained on the ground that it would be considered as absolutely confidential.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is for the house to decide whether the resolution shall be agreed to or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the statement made by the Secretary of State that officials of the department informed him that when this brief was filed, it was filed on the distinct understanding that some portions of it
Motions for Papers

were purely confidential, does Your Honour think the house should violate their undertaking which is really an obligation in that sense and which, I think, has been so regarded in times past in the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This raises a much larger question, namely, whether increases in the tariff are to toe given as a result of confidential information. If any interest is seeking to benefit by an increase in the tariff, such interest ought to be prepared to give to the public all the information necessary to enable the public to judge whether the increase has been given without fear, without favour and in the public interest. That is a very large question, and before rejecting this motion, I hope the Prime Minister will give that phase of the question a little further consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have given it consideration. The same question arises frequently before tariff boards in the United States and in this country as well. This subjecting of the cost figures of internal operations of a company to a competitor has never been done in any instance. It is not only unfair, but it is not allowed even in the railway committee in the case of a railway of which we are the shareholders. The right hon. gentleman, I think, confuses two things. The responsibility must be assumed by the government with respect to its tariff legislation, and the method by which it arrives at the legislation may, of course, at times be, as has been said, wholly inaccurate, but it gets the best information it can, sometimes from a tariff board, sometimes from other sources, and sometimes- from both. But I should be loath to believe that the house is of opinion that confidential information connected with the internal economy of the various enterprises in Canada should be made public in the house and thereby benefit a competitor. In this instance the information was given to the government on the distinct understanding that it was not to be subject to publicity. The government, of course, must assume the responsibility for any action it takes, not upon secret information but upon information which is furnished to a cabinet of Canadians who have to consider and deal with the problems in the best way it can. Under our tariff measure now before the house it is not proposed that this information should be made public. The question involves not only this but many other matters of the same character. I am inclined to think upon mature reflection the hon. gentleman himself will see how unfair it would and must be in the very nature of

things to divulge such information when there are competitors-and I shall not go into the question of who they are-who are interested in this particular business and who would be very glad to get this information in this way when they otherwise could not secure it.


Peter John Veniot: Does the Prime Minister
mean competitors within Canada or without?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Without, partly.


Edward James Young: I might explain in a word
why I asked this question. The price of ammunition in other countries has dropped. The price in Canada was about to drop when the Customs department interfered and prevented its doing so. I understand this was done at the instance of a certain Canadian manufacturer who furnished certain infoima-tion which was contained in a brief submitted to the government. In order to get at the truth and to know why the department interfered to prevent the price of ammunition dropping in this country, I asked this question, and I ask that the motion be voted on.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: If the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) assures us that in this particular instance he has given a guarantee that this information will not be made public, I do not think the house can very well override that statement of his. On the other hand, I should like to point out to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that as soon as a firm of this kind makes representations for an increased tariff -which means a burden on the general consuming public, that business ceases to be private in character.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is not debatable, and no one has suggested it is out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggested it was out
of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I did not so understand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that I conceived
one part of it so to be, but I was not going to argue the question at length. The ground on which the motion may be opposed is clearly stated in the manual of procedure at page 136 of Beauchesne where it is stated:
A motion for a return may be opposed on the ground of public policy, such as that the disclosure of the information sought is not for the public interest, or that its supply would involve unreasonable labour or expense.
The latter part the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) will understand. In any event I put it on the larger ground that in view of the statement made

Dominion Elections Act
by the Secretary of State, the house should not furnish that information. In the main I agree with what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said; this is a case where definite information was given on a distinct understanding, and in my judgment the house should not take the view suggested that the information be divulged.


John Livingstone Brown: I think we should agree
that no such understanding should be given in the future.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The citation quoted from the manual of procedure in the public business of the British House of Commons givps a ground for opposing such a motion as a matter of public policy, but I do not think it goes so far as to entitle the Speaker to rule the resolution out of order. It is for the house to deal with it, either pass it or not. Whether it would be in the interest of the public or a matter of public policy to pass the resolution is entirely for the house to decide.
Motion negatived.



DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. B. THOMPSON (East Simcoe) moved):
For a copy of all correspondence and other communications in the possession of the government, relating to the preparation of the voters' list for the municipality of Port McNicoll, in the riding of East Simcoe, and a copy of the original list as prepared by the enumerator, and of the revised list as prepared by him for use on election day. Also a copy of any communications exchanged between the chief electoral officer and the returning officer or any other person as to the conduct of the poll on election day.
He said: I desire to say a few words in connection with this resolution standing in my name. I want to enter a protest against the manner in which a number of the electors in my riding were deprived on election day of their right to vote. I claim that a number of the voters in my riding were wrongfully deprived, in connection with the preparation of the voters' list, of their right to vote.
Port McNicoll, for the purpose of the Dominion Elections Act, is a rural municipality, and so the preparation and revision of the voters' list is left in the hands of the local registrar. The registrar prepared his preliminary list, which he posted up in the usual way, and then, in accordance with the provisions of the.act, he proceeded to revise the preliminary list, and then issued his final or
revised list. When his final list was given out, it was found that the registrar had omitted 90 names that he himself had placed on the preliminary list* The registrar in the preparation of this preliminary list is supposed to put on the names of all those whom he believes to be entitled to vote, but when he issued the final list he had taken off 90 names that he himself had put on the preliminary list. The men whose names were struck off received no notice and were given no opportunity to come before the registrar and swear as to their qualifications. They were given no chance at all to prove their right to have a vote. I suppose the reason why this extraordinary power is given to a registrar, there being no appeal from his decision in the matter, is that there is a further provision in the act which says that if the name of a voter in a rural municipality is omitted from the list, the voter may, on election day, go before the deputy returning officer, swear as to his qualifications, be vouched for under oath by a voter already on the list, and then he can demand a ballot. But, sir, Port McNicoll is a lake port town. These men whose names were struck off the list are mariners, forming part of the crews of the four Canadian Pacific steamboats running between Port McNicoll and Fort William. All these boats will not be in port on election day, and in order to give the voters a chance to vote, provision is made in the Act for an advance poll, which under ordinary circumstances would give every one of these men a chance to vote. But, sir, no man can vote at the advance poll unless his name is actually on the list, and so these 90 men-at least from one-half to three-quarters of them-were automatically deprived of the right to vote, because at the most two of these boats, and probably only one, would be in port on election day.
I submit that the elections act should be amended to provide for an appeal from the decision of the registrar, in order that eligible voters such as I have mentioned should not be deprived of their vote. In 1926, with the same number of Canadian Pacific boats in commission and the same number of crews, there were 77 voters who polled their votes at the advance poll. In 1930 this number was reduced to 15, showing conclusively how this thing worked out.
Immediately this revised list was issued by the registrar, my friends directed my attention to it, whereupon I telegraphed to the chief electoral officer. I was in Orillia at the time, right in the midst of my campaign. I wired the chief electoral officer as follows:
Dominion Elections Act
[Stage Direction]
Orillia, July 2, 1930.
Registrar at Port McNicoll in East Simcoe, Ontario, acting under instructions from returning officer, has struck off about 90 voters from list. These men come to Port McNicoll about March, and remain there until end of December, sailing in boats from Port McNicoll to Fort William and return. Many of them unmarried with no other permanent residence. Returning officer justifies his action on letter received from you. Think facts cannot have been properly explained to you. Request that you wire registrar to put these names back on list. Kindly answer me.
A. B. Thompson, M.P.
I received this reply:
Ottawa, July 4, 1930.
Question dealt with in my letter to returning officer related to persons forming crew of Canadian Pacific Railway boats registered in Montreal and plying between Port McNicoll and other ports. Port McNicoll being described as vessels' home port by reason of their spending occasional layover days there. On these facts and assuming individuals concerned continuously housed on board, they are clearly not entitled to vote in Simcoe East. I advised returning officer that only persons really resident in Port McNicoll should be placed on lists for that place.
Jules Castonguay,
Chief Electoral Officer.
On receipt of that telegram I wrote the following letter:
Penetanguishene, Ont.,
July 7, 1930.
Jules Castonguay, Esq.,
Chief Electoral Officer,
Ottawa, Ont.
Re: Port McNicoll Lists
Dear Sir:
In reply to your telegram to me of July 3, I beg to say that the men struck off the list on your instructions go to Port McNicoll about 15th March, and live on shore until about May 15th, when navigation opens and they then go aboard their boats. I consider that every man is entitled to go on the voters' list for some place. I cannot see how these men could go on any other list but that of Port McNicoll, and I claim that these men will have the right to take the oath on election day and be vouched for and vote. To deprive men of their vote is surely not the intention of the act. Some of these men will have to vote at the advance poll. As I read the act, a man's name has to be actually on the list to vote at an advance poll. Is this right, or has he the same right to take the oath as on election day? I would like to hear from you about this point as well.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) A. B. Thompson, M.P.
Then by way of postscript I wrote:
What has the registration of these boats at Montreal to do with the case? They ply between Port McNicoll and Fort William.
To that I received this reply:
Dear Sir,-
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 7th. The question of the right to vote of persons

employed on the Canadian Pacific steamships was put to me as depending upon whether they could properly be said to be resident in East Simcoe by reason of the fact that Port McNicoll was what was described as their "home port," although not the boat's port of registration, the expression "home port" apparently meaning the port at which the boats lay over between trips, the members of the crew, however, remaining on board. I advised, after consulting with Mr. Biggar, that this casual relationship of the ships to Port McNicoll did not give to the members of the crew who lived upon them the right to describe themselves as "resident" in Port McNicoll or entitle them to vote in Simcoe East as^ having been resident in that electoral district on May 30th inst.
' I have discussed the matter further with Mr. Biggar in the light of your letter under reply and he advised me that the fact that the individuals in question came to Port McNicoll in March and remained there until they joined their ships about the middle of May makes no difference to their qualification assuming that whatever lodgings they had during that interval were, as one would expect, given up upon the ship going into commission, and that thereafter they lived on board. If any particular individuals among them could properly claim to have continued, notwithstanding their having joined their ships, to have retained a residence in Port McNiooll, the conclusion with regard to them might be different, but speaking generally, I suppose it miay be assumed that once they did join their ships their residence ashore ceased.
Only those persons whose names appear on the list are entitled to certificates to vote at an advance poll. The deputy returning officer at an advance poll has no authority to accept any vote from a voter who has not obtained a certificate, and the registrar cannot issue a certificate to anyone whose name has not been included in the list he has prepared.
Yours truly,
Jules Castonguay, Chief Electoral Officer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the chief electoral officer has assumed too much, because as a matter of fact the following are the circumstances. These men start their work on shore about the 15th of March and remain continuously on shore until the 15th of May, when they go aboard their boats. These boats do not occasionally call at Port McNicoll; they call there twice a week. When the navigation season closes these men go ashore again, return to their lodgings and work in the locality until about the end of December. January and February are their holiday months, and they may go away for those two months, but as I said before, they return about the 15th of March. Therefore why these men should be deprived of their right to vote at Port McNicoll is beyond my comprehension, It is the only place where they have any residence, and they could not go on the voting list in any other place.
I may say that I addressed a public meeting at Port McNicoll after the lists were pre-

Dominion Elections Act
pared and after I had had this correspondence with the chief electoral officer. At that meeting I stated that any man whose name had been wrongfully left off the list, and who was in port on election day, had the right to go to the polling booth and demand a ballot, on taking the oath as to his qualifications and on being vouched for by a man whose name was already on the list. That was my advice to the electors, and I believe it to be sound. But, sir, I desire to call attention to what happened on election day, when one of these boats was in port. I have had two affidavits sent to me which I propose reading. The first is by Alexander Campbell and is as follows:
County of Simcoe, and Province of Ontario.
I, Alexander Campbell, of the village of Port 110X10011, in the co-unty of Simcoe,. and the province of Ontario, make oath and say:
That I am 28 years of age, single, and was born in Harris, Invernesshire, Scotland.
That I am employed as a sailor on the SS. Keewaitin sailing between Port MeNicoll and Fort William.
That I have been in Canada since May, 1927, spent one year in Owen Sound, coming to Port McNicoll in 1928. and have resided continuously in Port McNicoll ever since.
That I took a vacation from December 12, 1929, to April 16, 1930, to Harris, Scotland. The previous winter I spent in Port McNicoll, making my home with Bertram Scott, having no other home in Canada.
That on July 28, 1930, I called at the polling booth in Port McNicoll at 2 p.m. and my name not being on the voters' list 1 made application for ballot but was refused by the district returning officer. I returned again at 3 p.m. and took the oath of residence but still the ballot was refused me even with my late landlord to swear to the accuracy of my statement as to residence and on the order of district returning officer Daly I was placed under arrest by the polling booth constable I. Bosley. On Mr. Wm. Finlayson assuming responsibility for my appearance when requested I was released.
That I have heard nothing further about the matter or why I was not allowed to vote after taking the oath of residence.
That the above statement is true, So Help me God.
Sworn before me at Port McNicoll, in the county of Simcoe, and province of Ontario, this 7th day of October, 1930.
Alexander Campbell.
Jas. C. Young,
Notary Public.
The second affidavit is by Fred B. Chid-wick and is in these terms:
County of Simcoe, and province of Ontario.
I, Frederick Benjiman Chidwick, of the village of Port McNicoll, in the county of Simcoe, and the province of Ontario, make oath and say:
That I am 24 years of age, single, and was born in London, England.
That I am employed as a waiter on the SS. Keewatin. sailing between Port McNicoll and Fort William.
That I have resided in Canada since 1922, with the exception of one year vacation in England during 1925.
That I farmed in Shelburne for 15 months prior to shipping on the SS. Alberta in September, 1924, went to England in 1925, returned to Canada in 1926 and shipped on the SS. Assind-boia, In 1927 I shipped on the SS. Keewatin and I have remained a member of the stewards crew through the intervening years.
That during the closed season or winter months I spend some time travelling and visiting other cities but I always consider Port McNicoll my home as I have none other.
That at 10 a.m. on July 28, 1930, I went to the polling place in Port McNicoll, and my name not being on the voters' list I demanded a ballot which was refused me by the district returning officer Daly. I went back twice that afternoon and was finally told that if I could swear to my residence I would be given a ballot. I took the oath but ballot was withheld from me on the advice of Mr. Harvie, a lawyer from Orillia who swore information Against me accusing me of perjury. At the instigation of district returning officer Daly I was placed under arrest by the constable I. Bosley. I was released after Mr. McCormick, general foreman of the Canadian Pacific Railway in Port Mc-Niooll who vouched with Dr. MePhee, for my eligibility to vote became responsible for my appearance to answer the charge preferred against me.
That up to the present time I have heard nothing further about the matter or why I was deprived of exercising my franchise.
That the above statement is true, so help me God.
Fred B. Chidwick.
Sworn before me at Port McNicoll, in the county of Simcoe, and in the province of Ontario, this 7th day of October, 1930.
Jas. C. Young,
Notary Public.
The prosecution of these men was never proceeded with; it was never intended that it should be proceeded with. The idea was to deprive them of their votes, and I want to know if the Dominion Elections Act can be played with in this manner so that honest men are deprived of their votes. I understand that under the common law of England, if a voter is wrongfully refused a ballot the deputy returning officer is liable to damages up to £200, but in Canada, under circumstances such as I have outlined, there is no such responsibility on the deputy returning officer, because our act specially protects him in these circumstances. It says:
Any resident of a rural polling division may vote notwithstanding that his name has been altogether omitted from the list of voters. In any such case the voter must take the oath E on the card, and he must also be vouched for upon oath by some other resident of the polling division whose name is on the voters' list.
Then it concludes as follows:
Thereupon the particulars of the voter whose name was omitted from the voters' list will be added to it with the word "sworn" following,
Dominion Elections Act
[Stage Direction]
and the voter must be given a ballot unless he is immediately proceeded against for perjury; the deputy returning officer has no discretion to refuse the voter a ballot unless a charge is forthwith laid before him.
That is the case here. The English common law gives a man some remedy, on the principle that no wrong can exist without a remedy, but in Canada our elections act takes away from the voter that right. No doubt you are familiar, Mr. Speaker, with that passage from the Bible which says:
Or what man is there of you. whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?
These Canadians asked of their country the right to vote, and what happened? They were arrested. They had a grievance, and they have asked me to bring it before parliament. I have done so, and I leave in the hands of parliament the matter of providing a remedy or affording redress.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I rise not to oppose the motion, because I can see no objection to its being passed, but with the idea that a word or two might well be said to relieve misapprehension as to where responsibility, if any, lie3 for shortcomings in the act or its administration. If the facts aTe -as I am sure they are-as my hon. friend (Mr. Thompson) has represented, it would appear that men who were entitled to vote were prevented from doing so, and that certainly the law either as drafted or as administered should be changed in order to make it quite certain that every citizen shall have the first right of a citizen, namely, to participate in the elections.
The act under which the elections take place is the "act respecting the election of members of the House of Commons and the electoral franchise," which is cited as the Dominion Elections Act, 1920. That will make clear to my hon. friend and his friends the time at which the elections, act was drafted in its present form. As I recall it, the act was revised considerably at the time the Union government was in office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have been revising it these last two or three years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have
been some revisions, but I do not think they have touched the essential points brought up in the remarks of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat.
The fact I would like to make clear is this, that the elections act itself, in the main, assumed the form in which it now appears as a result of the important revision which took

place in 1920. Under the act as revised, the business of elections is in the hands of the chief electoral officer, who is an officer of the House of Commons and appointed by this House of Commons. The electoral officer appointed at the time the act was revised was Mr. Oliver Mowat Biggar, whose name has been mentioned by my hon. friend as the legal adviser of the present chief electoral officer. Colonel Biggar was the first chief electoral officer to administer this act as revised, and Colonel Biggar was appointed as a result of a conference, if I remember aright, between the present Minister of Justice and myself, acting together and speaking for the two sides of the house, with a view to securing unanimity with regard to the person who should be chosen as chief electoral officer. All political parties, as a matter of fact, were agreed that Colonel Biggar, having had very much to do with the preparation of the act itself, would be the best possible person to be appointed as chief electoral officer. Mr. Castonguay was appointed assistant electoral officer, and when Colonel Biggar resigned the position, desiring to leave the public service altogether to take up the practice of his profession independently, Mr. Castonguay was by resolution of this house promoted to the position of chief electoral officer.
When the last elections took place the government then in office thought it would be advisable to reassociate Colonel Biggar in some way, if that were at all possible, with the then chief electoral officer, Colonel Biggar being the best informed of >any person in the Dominion with respect to the act and its various provisions, and what should be done with regard to any matters which might come up under its provisions in the course of an election.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunibury):: Will the right hon. gentleman allow me? Is he attempting to state the reason why Colonel Biggar was made counsel to the chief electoral officer? Does he not know that it was the consensus of opinion of the special committee dealing with the elections act last year and the year before that Mr. Castonguay was not qualified to carry out the provisions of the act?


An hon. MEMBER:: Where do you get
that?


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I know,
because I was there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is taking a very unfair advantage of any privilege he may have as a member of par-

Dominion Elections Act
liament to attack a member of the civil service who is not here in a position to defend himself.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not doing anything that I did not do to Mr. Castonguay's face last year and the year before, in the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a
great deal of difference between saying something to a man's face when he is in a position to reply, and taking advantage of the privilege which one has as a member of parliament to make statements which I submit should not be made by any hon. member, seeing that they constitute an attack upon a member of the civil service, who is also an officer of this House of Commons but who is not in a position in any way to defend himself. However, the point is quite clear, that Mr. Castonguay came to the office of chief electoral officer by promotion and by unanimous resolution of this house, having been assistant to Colonel Biggar when Colonel Big-gar was chief electoral officer, and that he had as legal adviser, Colonel Biggar who was in a better position to advise on matters respecting the elections act than any other individual.
Now with respect to this case at Port Mc-Nicoll which has been referred to, the hon. member has read telegrams which would indicate that Mr. Castonguay, the chief electoral officer, had referred the specific questions at issue to Colonel Biggar for his advice, and that he secured and acted upon the advice of Colonel Biggar, so I assume no better course possibly could have been taken. If the advice was not sound, that is a matter for discussion and might well be brought up when the elections act is being considered, but I can think of no one who would be in a better position to advise soundly on any matter pertaining to the elections act than Colonel Biggar, not only from the circumstance that he, more than any other single person, had to do with its drafting, and himself had acted as chief electoral officer, but also because he is a very eminent counsel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is difficult to understand his advice.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend says it is difficult to understand his advice. That possibly may be so; that is a matter which I would prefer that lawyers settle among themselves, but what I do submit is ihat with respect to the course taken by the chief electoral officer, it is not open to criticism. He took the precaution to consult Colonel Biggar, and then in the matter acted upon his advice.
The act, as I have said, was passed in 1920 and the pertinent provisions with regard to the chief electoral officer are as follows:
The chief electoral officer shall be appointed by resolution of the House of Commons-
That was done with respect to both electoral officers whose names have been mentioned. Then subsection Ob) provides that he, the electoral officer, shall:
exercise general direction and supervision over the administrative conduct of elections with a view to ensuring the fairness and impartiality of all election officers and compliance with the provisions of this act;
(c) report to the House of Commons, through the Speaker, after an election, any matters arising in the course of the election an account of which ought, in his judgment, to be submitted to the House of Commons.
The point I wish to make clear in this connection is that parliament itself has sought to remove and has removed from the possible control of any political party or any government in office the administration of the Dominion Elections Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was this point referred to? I cannot remember, looking through the report, that the chief electoral officer mentioned this point.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know of its having been mentioned, but it seems to me that the particular matter that has been brought up to-day is one that properly would come within the kind of report which the chief electoral officer might be expected to make to the Speaker of the House of Commons. As to the question whether oi not this matter was brought by the chief electoral officer to the attention of His Honour the Speaker, I would point to another section of the act which touches specifically upon the rights of parties concerned as respects references to be made to the Speaker by the chief electoral officer. Section 75 reads:
The chief electoral officer shall, after each election, make a report to the Speaker of the House of Commons, suggesting what, if any, amendments are in his opinion desirable for the more convenient administration of the law, and each candidate and the agent of each candidate shall have the right to send written statements to the chief electoral officer suggesting such changes and improvements in the law as to such person may deem desirable, and to make written complaint of the conduct of any officer employed an such election.
Any such statements and complaints shall be transmitted by the chief electoral officer to the said Speaker, and they shall, together with the report of the chief electoral officer, be forthwith submitted by the said Speaker to the House of Commons if parliament is then sitting, and if not, within fifteen days after the opening of the next session of parliament.
Dominion Elections Act

I do not know whether my hon. friend who has just spoken did forward a written statement to the chief electoral officer, suggesting such changes and improvements in the law as to him seemed desirable, and making a written complaint of the conduct of the officer employed in the election. That, I submit, is a step which he would not only have been justified in taking but which he should have taken in a matter of this kind, because as a member of parliament he is interested, as he has shown this afternoon, in bringing to the attention of parliament any deficiencies that exist in the law and in making suggestions as to possible remedies. I am inclined to think that my hon. friend's reason for waiting to bring up the matter in the form in which he has introduced it this afternoon has been due mainly to his desire to make the speech which he has made, and which he has made I think in a very moderate and acceptable way. So far as the remedy to meet such a situation is concerned, the act itself provides, as I now read, that a member of parliament or a candidate may bring to the attention of the chief electoral officer, with a view to having it submitted to His Honour the Speaker, any defect in the law of a character such as has been mentioned to-day. Had that course been pursued, we should not have had to wait until the 25th of May to have knowledge of what took place at Port McNicoll; it would have been the duty of His Honour the Speaker to report the matter at the opening of the house.
I see no reason why the request of my hon. friend for all the information should not be complied with; but I do not think except for the desired publicity there is any reason why he should have made the speech he made this afternoon. In view of what has been said I do see strong reason why just what the act provides should be made clear, lest an inference be drawn from my hon. friend's remarks that the government which was in office at the time of the election was in any way responsible for any defect or deficiency in the law. The act itself was passed by a previous administration, and the chief electoral officer was an officer of the House of Commons, chosen by unanimous resolution of the house. He has sole control of the administration of the act; and, in exercising his functions, he pursued the wisest and best course and was governed by the wisest and best advice which was obtainable. If, in spite of that, someone seems to have been deprived of the right of voting, then it does seem that, obviously, when the act comes to be amended, some remedy should be pro-
vided to meet a situation such as that which has been described. And if there are cases of that character, the sooner the act is amended in that particular, the better.


Mr. THOMPSON (Simcoe):: What remedy would my hon. friend suggest for the men who were arrested?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: The inference which I drew from the statement made to the house by the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson) was that something was seriously wrong in regard to the vo.tes of these ninety men at Port McNicoll during the last election, and I believe it is the duty of the House of Commons in a case like this to endeavour to fix the blame-because blame there was somewhere. Either, Colonel Biggar, the legal adviser of the chief electoral officer, was not fully informed, or he was misinformed. I cannot conceive of his giving the advice which he did give if the facts were as related by the hon. member for East Simcoe to-day-and I believe the facts were fairly related to the house. Ninety men have as a result been deprived of their votes, and a very serious situation has arisen in regard to that poll.
It would appear that certain information passed from the constituency of East Simcoe to the chief electoral officer, of which we are not aware, because it is certain that information went to the constituency of East Simcoe to have warrants issued, ready to apprehend any person of these ninety who should appear and ask for a ballot, or seek to vote. And the two residents of Port McNicoll who did appear at the polling place and who demanded the right to take the oath and vote were immediately arrested. The warrants were there. The case had been prearranged under someone's authority and instructions, and it was only on the intercession of the Hon. William Finlayson, a member of the Ontario government, that these persons were subsequently released. It looks to me as though there were more in this case than appears on the surface.
We have a tribunal in this house specially charged with the investigation of matters of this kind when they are referred to it; that is, the standing committee of the House of Commons with respect to privileges and elections. I do not know that it would be very much satisfaction to my hon. friend from East Simcoe or to the ninety men who were deprived of the right to exercise their franchise on the 28th day of July last, if the hon. member for East Simcoe should merely write a letter to the chief electoral officer,' suggesting some amendment in the

Marine Insurance
law. If a wrong has been done it is our duty to investigate it. On the face of it, I am inclined to think that some kind of conspiracy has existed to deprive these particular men of their votes on election day. My suggestion to my right hon. friend and to the house is that the motion carry, that the papers be produced, and that if they bear out in any way the case which has been made by the hon. member for East Simcoe the matter be referred to the committee on privileges and elections in order that a thorough investigation may be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston City) moved:: That the continuation of navigation after November 1st. on the great lakes has taken a great toll from the lives of our mariners and while this dangerous period of navigation is continued as a national necessity and is yearly undertaken by a courageous marine body, this house deems it the duty of the federal government to provide insurance for each mariner on Canadian boats from November 1st, to the end of navigation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, to any hon. member who represents a constituency the residents of which are largely mariners this motion will be of interest and should receive sympathy. From the first reading of the motion it might appear to be out of order in that it asks the federal government to provide insurance, .but if the house will bear patiently with my remarks I hope to show that it is not out of order on that ground. It might appear also to be out of order because of possible interference with the privileges and rights of the provinces, but I hope to be able to show that this is not a provincial matter.
The period of navigation referred to in this motion is a very dangerous one on the great lakes. I think it was in the year 1902 that a well-known steamer, the Bannockburn, disappeared with all on board. No information respecting that disaster has been obtained up to the present time. Twenty-two lives were lost, mostly men from the city of Kingston. Other disasters have since occurred, practically all during this dangerous period. Other steamships cease to operate on or about November 1, but these boats engaged in the transport of grain carry on later than that. The carrying of grain is a national necessity and is therefore a matter of concern to the federal parliament.
Certain measures have been adopted which have effected considerable improvement with
respect to this matter. I am proud to say that the province of Ontario has dealt with it most sympathetically. The compensation act of Ontario contains this clause:
Where an accident happens out of Ontario on a steamboat, ship or vessel or on a railway and the workman is a resident of Ontario and the work or service rendered by him is required to be performed both within and without Ontario, the workman or his dependents shall be entitled to compensation under this part as if the accident had happened in Ontario.
In the summary on compensation issued by the Labour department in January, 1931, the following reference is made to this legislation:
The Ontario and Manitoba acts include within their scope the operation of steam vessels and works for the purposes of the business of a navigation company and all other navigation, towing, operation of vessels and marine wrecking, but in Ontario the employer in these industries is individually liable.
My intention in introducing this motion is to bring to the attention of the house and of whatever department it may pertain to- I am not sure what department will be affected-the fact that this matter should be placed beyond any doubt. We have listened to-day to a discussion on what residence means, and if the same doubt exists in regard to the payment of compensation to mariners or their dependents, it would be impossible for them to go into court and testify as to their rights.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Has the hon. member any information with regard to whether or not other provinces pay such compensation?


Arthur Edward Ross: That is one of the reasons
for my bringing up this motion. I know no decision can be given to-day, but the matter should be discussed in order that we may obtain information as to how the other provinces are treating this matter. Last year the province of Quebec accepted the same standards as those applying in the province of Ontario, at least I have been so informed, but many of these steamship companies have their headquarters in other parts of the Dominion and for the sake of the mariners who are engaged in this hazardous work at the dangerous period referred to, there should be no doubt as to where they stand in regard to the payment of compensation when disasters occur.
This matter is or can be made a federal one. The committee on industrial and international relations brought down in 1926 a ruling which still stands, as follows:
Local works and undertakings, other than such as are of the following classes (a) lines
Marine Insurance

of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs, and other works and undertakings connecting a province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province; (b) lines of steamships between the provinces and any British or foreign country, such works as although wholly situated within the province, are before or after their execution, declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or to the advantage of two or more of the provinces.	[DOT]
So that the matter can be made a federal one, and I think those of us who represent those ports on the great lakes where so much suffering has been caused in the past by marine disasters will take a sympathetic view of the question and will place it in the hands of some committee or some department of the house where action may be taken so that there may no longer 'be any doubt with respect to it.
A short time ago the house was sjunpathetic to a former motion of mine, and I am sure the present motion will command the same sympath}' from all parts of the house, having regard to the fact that many constituencies, town and ports that may be concerned are represented here. It may be that some hon. member may have in his constituency a man whose residence may be disputed, but who either has lost his life or may yet lose his life in carrying on this important work, and whose dependents may receive compensation or insurance on that account.


Edward James Young: Farmers engaged in the
business to which my hon. friend refers-that is, transporting grain in the winter, but transporting it across the prairies-have been overtaken by a snowstorm and lost their way, and their remains have later been found under a snowdrift. Would my hon. friend be willing to extend insurance to those men also?


Arthur Edward Ross: I suppose in such a case the wheat belongs to the farmer. The ruling has already been given that if a man owns any part of the boat which goes down, he cannot claim compensation. Even with the law as it is at the present time, if a man takes wheat on a steamboat, the ruling would be against the man who owned the wheat.


Edward James Young: What about the farmer's
hired man?


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not think the hon. member is at all backward about introducing legislation and looking after it. If he will attend to that, I am attending to this.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Do I understand that these mariners are navigating at their own risk?

Mr. RO'SS: No, but after November, the insurance rates on boats are very greatly increased. I may be asked why I do not bring in a motion requiring the owners of steamboats to provide this compensation. I have no power to do this with regard to owners of steamboats. The steamboat is insured ; the grain is insured; everything is insured except the human life involved in the transportation. We have no power to go after the steamboat companies unless the government can take this action, and that is why I am bringing the matter to the attention of the federal government.


John Livingstone Brown: Under the practice that prevails can the seamen take out insurance themselves?


Arthur Edward Ross: The captains, mates and so forth do, but the deckhands do not.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Although representing a constituency which, since it is far from the ports, contains no considerable number of mariners, I am sympathetically interested in this motion. I do represent a constituency, 'however, which has to do largely with grain growling and grain shipping, and to us every day of navigation at the end of the season is a matter of deep concern. It is important to us, and I think to the country, that the shipment of grain should be carried on until the very last possible moment, and we realize quite well that during the last days of navigation before the season closes there .must of necessity 'be much danger to the men engaged in that work. Without going into the matter at length, I wish to say merely this: with regard to the constitutional aspect I am not certain where the onus of responsibility should lie. I am not sure just how this should be done, but in the national interest, in the interest not only of those who carry the grain, but of those who are anxious to see that grain carried until as late in the year as possible, I am convinced that this matter should be given most sympathetic attention. 'Certainly we should consider whether it is possible for parliament to see to it that those who imperil their lives in a national service of this kind should at least be secured so far as they can be, by some form of insurance. If it cannot be done privately; if it is not the duty of the province, then I for one, should be glad to see the federal government and parliament take the matter into consideration, and if possible accede to some measure such as that suggested in the resolution.


John Livingstone Brown: I do not feel at all competent to discuss this matter, but

Marine Insurance
I should like to say that I am certainly in sympathy with the resolution of the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Ross).


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think we ought to be very grateful to the hon. member for Kingston for having introduced this motion. The problem involved is one that has been of great concern, not merely to the men engaged in the lake trade but to those also on the Atlantic and the Pacific. There does not seem to be any clear understanding as to 'how far the provincial law applies. I have not gone into the matter from a strictly legal standpoint, but I know both the seamen themselves and the masters are very much in doubt as to how far workmen can claim compensation for accidents that may happen. Further than that, sometimes a boat may sail from Montreal and arrive at Vancouver. It is not very clear whether the Quebec authorities are responsible or not. Then again, there is the question of where the boat is registered and what is the home port. These are complicated matters, and some authority ought to decide as to just where the responsibility lies, thus enabling the seamen to obtain compensation.
May I call the attention of the house to the fact that in the bill introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Innis) providing for certain amendments to the Canada Shipping Act, there is a clause dealing with this matter and an attempt to secure action. The clause reads:
Every member of the crew of all such ships shall be entitled to the benefits of and shall be subject to the provisions of the workmen's compensation act in effect in the province of Canada in which the ship is registered.
Whether or not that is the best way of reaching the result aimed at, I do not know. Whether or not that clause is intra vires, I am not quite certain, but something should be done, and I hope the suggestion of the mover will be carried out and that before long we may have definite action in regard to the matter.


Alan Webster Neill: I
am not very much impressed with some of the features of this resolution. In the first place, the hon. member confines it to the great lakes. Why confine it to the great lakes? If the hon. gentleman wishes to safeguard the lives of our mariners, why not, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) suggested, adopt the proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) and make it applicable to all our sailors? Next the hon.
member recites that navigation in the winter months takes a great toll from the lives of our mariners, and what is his remedy? To pay their widows money. Would it not be better to endeavour to save the lives of the mariners? That can readily be done, as was suggested to this house some years ago, by the government fixing a date on which navigation on the great lakes would close in the fall. Would it not be better to prevent this heavy toll of life than to pay the widows of those who lose their lives? Human greed will always take a risk, with somebody else's life, and have boats laden with grain go out on the great lakes after it has ceased to be safe for them to do so owing to the weather, the make of the boat perhaps, and the way she is loaded. I would suggest that it would be more to the point if we safeguarded not the money point of view, but the lives of our mariners by giving power to this government to proclaim, after due investigation a date in the fall on which navigation must close. By such a step this great toll of lives would be, at least to some considerable extent, reduced.


Edward James Young: This is
a humanitarian measure, I will admit, but we cannot make laws merely out of pure sympathy for men who might be endangered. If we are going to insure the life of every man who is engaged in a useful and hazardous occupation, I would like to know where we are going to stop. If we are going to do that, a very good case could be made out for fiftyr per cent of the citizens of this country who are engaged in active work. It seems to me that we are on solid ground when we say that every industry should carry its own risk. I believe in insurance for these men, but let the industry itself carry it. If you are going to unload everything on to the federal government, who in the end will have to pay for it all? The primary producer, the man you cannot and never do anything for. I am opposed to the resolution.
Right Hon.. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :	This matter touches the question of
insurance, and I suppose it is expected that the Department of Finance will at least say something about it. I for once-I almost fancy I may be wrong-find myself at least in partial agreement with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) when he says that you cannot unload all the responsibility upon the federal government. The question of contract is a matter of property and civil rights and belongs to the province. The question of shipping contracts is governed by the Can-
194S
Marine Insurance

ada Shipping Act, which in part is a copy of the British Shipping Act. The contracts of sailors are to be found, in the parlance of the statute, in what are called articles; that is, a crew signs articles, or it does not sign, to serve on a ship. If they sign articles, it is then a contract, certain terms of which are fixed by law. It is upon the articles they sign that the sailors rely so far as their rights are concerned, whether on the great lakes or elsewhere. There are, however, special provisions with respect to inland navigation. That contract being governed in part by federal legislation, it would seem to me that the question of compensation must be regulated by this parliament, at least in part, and the application of the compensation acts of the various provinces to those who are subject to the risks and hazards of the sea must be determined by this parliament taking such action as would make those compensation acts applicable and provide for the compensation that is to be paid; in other words, the owners of the ships must make their contributions to the fund out of which compensation is paid by the province to employees of various kinds throughout the Dominion. I eannot think that it is possible to place relatively a few of our population in a position where the hazard which they incur must be insured against by the Dominion. I cannot think that that is any part of the functions of this country at the moment. I cannot think that it was ever intended by anybody familiar with our institutions that this country, as a country, should become responsible for the hazards incident to the risks of those who go down to the sea in ships and do business upon the great waters.


An hon. MEMBER:: On inland waters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Risks of course are incurred on other waters than inland waters, and the fact that ships have been lost on the great lakes is only a reminder to us that a brand new ship of the White Star line left a great port in England for the United States and was never heard of again. Ships are being lost all the time, even with the wireless. The Vestris was lost not long ago, with the loss of life of many of her passengers and crew. My memory is that there is some provision in Great Britain in their compensation act to take care of those who are articled on ships, and the shipping interests pay into the compensation fund, as the hon. member for Wey-burn has suggested they should do in this country; I have not looked into it recently, and I am not speaking therefore with any degree of certainty with respect to it. While

every instinct of humanity impels one to desire that the provisions Which this motion suggests for insurance should be made, I am sure that the hon. member for Kingston city (Mr. Ross) cannot expect this house to adopt a motion that selects from a large body of our citizenship a few for special consideration, leaving out, for instance, those who are traversing the dangerous waters at times of the Atlantic and Pacific. Anyone who realizes the danger of making shore in foggy weather on the Atlantic or the dangers of navigation at certain times north of Cape Flattery on the Pacific, will realize that the dangers on the waters of the great lakes are not greater than they are elsewhere. While I am of the opinion that when the Merchant Shipping Act is revised, as it must be here ultimately after the statute of Westminster is passed, it will be competent for this parliament to impose conditions to be incorporated in ships' articles that would necessitate insurance being carried by the owners of the ships on the lives of the seamen on the boats, it would not be right or fair to impose upon the taxpayers of Canada as a whole the burden of the duty, as it is here alleged to be, of providing insurance for every mariner on Canadian boats from November first to the end of navigation. I trust the hon. member will not force the motion to a division for to do so would be to ask us to assume as a duty a responsibility which in my judgment cannot properly be placed on the federal authority, although the federal authority in conjunction with the provincial authorities may be able to work out a system by which the contributions by those concerned will be such as will enable compensation to be paid to survivors on the same terms as though the seamen came under the compensation acts applying to industry generally; in other words, that shipping may be treated as a branch of industry for compensation purposes. I do not think I can usefully add more than that to the discussion.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) has struck the nail on the head-*


Mr. HEPBURN:: He has struck you on the head.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am glad to see the leader of the provincial Liberal party in the house, and I hope that he will carry this proposal a step further along the lines suggested by the Prime Minister. I am quite satisfied that, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a matter concerning both the provincial and federal authorities. Now that we have that pronouncement I think it will help in the settlement of

A Canadian Flag
this question. Like the Prime Minister, I, too, agree with the member for Weyburn (Mr. Young)-God forgive me.


Edward James Young: I will.


Arthur Edward Ross: The first step towards bringing about what we are striving for is to set a date for the closing of navigation. But what Prime Minister will dare do that in the face of this great question of wheat transportation? None will. This question has been before us for years, and no Prime Minister yet has been prepared to advise such a step. As the Prime Minister has said, certain shipping interests do voluntarily set a date when in the interests of their seamen they lay up their ships.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And they set that date when the season opens.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes. But because they do so other shipping interests plead it as an excuse for continuing their ships in commission, stating they must do so to meet a national necessity.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is a matter of pure greed.


Arthur Edward Ross: Yes, but my hon. friend's opinion will not settle the matter. \Ve feel that these shipping companies should contribute to an insurance fund, but as long as the law remains in its present form we may be certain that the matter of residence and every other possible objection will be raised by the shipping companies.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask my hon. friend a question?


Arthur Edward Ross: I will not promise to answer it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I may tell him I am in sympathy with his resolution. But would it not be possible for him to take steps to amend the criminal code and so achieve the purpose that he has in view?


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker, I am accepting the word of the Prime Minister that this matter really can be settled by an amendment of the shipping act. We ask that that amendment shall be made as soon as the other question that he referred to has been settled. I am glad to accept the advice of the Prime Minister, for I regard what 'he has said this afternoon as a distinct advance towards realizing the object of this resolution.
Motion withdrawn.



A CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, and in which the British flag shall occupy the position of honour, thus symbolizing the Dominion as an equality partner in the commonwealth of British nations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset may I thank the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) for the statement he made. last Friday to the effect that one more day would be allowed for private members to discuss certain resolutions. I understand the house is adjourning to-night at six o'clock, and in view of the Prime Minister's statement, perhaps at the close of my remarks he will advise the house that the three hours we are going to lose to-night will be made good some other day, in order that hon. members may have an opportunity to express their views on what I think is as important a resolution as any that has ever been brought before this house.
Now, I trust that this resolution will appeal to all hon. members. I should like to see those who sit behind the right hon. Prime Minister give expression to their views. I would not be afraid of doing so if I were one of his supporters. Being afraid gets you nowhere-nowhere in life or in any other place. I should also like to see the members of the Labour party, the Farmers' party and the Liberal party, making up His Majesty's loyal opposition, express their opinions on this subject. I hope the discussion will be on a high plane, that it will be reasoned and logical throughout; not parochial nor provincial, but national and Imperial. I hope that the opinions expressed will not be those of impatience but of patience; not illogical but logical; not impractical but practical; not superheated or jingoistic and noisy, but calm, courageous and dignified. If-
Paul Mercier: May I call
the hon. gentleman's attention to resolution No. 30, standing in the name of the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne), that the official name of Canada be changed from "Dominion of Canada" to that of "Kingdom of Canada." I am afraid that if we pass that resolution we shall be obliged to change the Canadian flag again.

A Canadian Flag


Mr. McINTOSH:: Not necessarily. Now,
if our deliberations are loyal and patriotic they will harmonize with the splendid history of the empire, and we, Canadians and Britishers, always venerate our great national, political, imperial and religious heritage. Realizing the great contributions to civilization that have been made by the British Empire, we shall by sane and sensible advocacy safeguard, unify, extend and symbolize the great ideas for which the British Empire stands-here in Canada our national home.
The people of the Dominion from one ocean to the other are watching this debate. All loyal and patriotic Canadians will be anxious to learn the reception of this resolution at the hands of hon. members and the Prime Minister. This being Victoria or Empire day, it is perhaps the most fitting day for a discussion of such a resolution; the discussion is also appropriate in view of the fact that this is the first regular session of the seventeenth parliament of Canada. On this remembrance day, when we should remember the undying splendours and imperishable legacies handed down to us from the Victorian era; when we should remember our responsibilities and our duties to Canada and the empire, and when we should rededicate and reconsecrate ourselves to that continuous labour for freedom, without which freedom is not won, it seems to me the time for our discussion is rather short, but that with a further discussion permitted later on we may be able to go into the subject more fully.
Now, on this day of empire, there are certain calls that come to us, calls of love for the God of nations, honour to the king, obedience to the law, advancement of the highest interests of the empire in peace and war, the cherishing of patriotism, the paying of scrupulous regard to the rights of other nations, the mastery of the principles of citizenship, the following of duty, the acquiring of knowledge, the practice of discipline, the work for others and the considering of the poor and afflicted. These are the commands that come to us on this empire day, the watchwords of which are responsibility, duty, sympathy and self-sacrifice.
With regard to the resolution, Mr. Speaker, which stands in my name on the order paper, might I say that it was inspired by my own national conception of Canada, and that it was not inspired by any province making up Canada. It did not come from Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick or Quebec or Ontario or Saskatchewan, or any other province making up this Dominion.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Winnipeg?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Or from Winnipeg
either. It will be seen that the resolution is made up of five major parts. First, the opinion of the house is required on this important resolution; second, a special committee should be appointed to deal with the question, just as the government deals with other resolutions, not only with regard to government measures but also coming from private members; third, the advisability of adopting a Canadian flag; fourth, choosing a suitable symbol to stand for Canada in the flag, and fifth, the placing of the union jack in the union or position of honour to indicate our allegiance to the British crown. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that eighty or ninety per cent of the people of Canada are favourable to this action, and the opposition that comes to this progressive move on the part of the Dominion comes only from a few noisy individuals and a few noisy organizations. The same noisy individuals and organizations will fight us if we decide to amend our constitution; they will fight us as they have fought us in days gone by in the evolution of government, and we may expect their opposition in days to come in any progressive step in the direction of adopting a national flag for Canada, but I do not think we need pay very much attention to opposition of that kind. I believe this flag should represent Canada as a political unit, made up of nine provinces reaching from sea to sea, with the union jack occupying the position of honour -that is the vital position; that is the position of union in that flag, thereby showing the cooperation of Canada with the motherland in the building up of our empire and in making it more permanent than ever.
This being the case, Mr. Speaker, it might be well to say a few words on the Dominion of Canada, with which this resolution is concerned in the way of a national flag. Canada has been defined as consisting of three thousand miles of territory made up of one thousand miles of inland lake and river and sea, plus one thousand miles of boundless prairie, plus one thousand miles of mountain. That is the land from the border northward which is being extended day by day; that is the land for which we want a Canadian flag. Again, Canada has been defined as a mighty potential giant, the head of which rests upon the broad Pacific, whose arms make up the Rockies and the Selkirks, whose body is the great plains of the west and whose limbs are the two great water

A Canadian Flag
systems, the St. Lawrence and Hudson bay. Our duty, as Canadians, is to develop and make out of that giant on the northern shoulder of this continent one of the great nations of the world. And we will do it.
What do the poets say about this great Dominion, this young giant, this Canada, our native land? Poets have a habit of saying a thing and saying it well. Here is what Charles G. D. Roberts, one of our leading poets in the maritimes, says:
O Child of Nations, giant-limbed,
Who stand'st among the nations now
Unheeded, unadored, unhymned,
With unanointed brow,-
The Saxon force, the Celtic fire,
These are thy manhood's heritage!
Why rest with babes and slaves? Seek higher The place of race and age.
O Falterer, let thy past convince Thy future,-all the growth, the gain,
The fame since Cartier knew thee, since Thy shores beheld Champlain!
Montcalm and Wolfe! Wolfe and Montcalm! Quebec, thy storied citadel
Attests in burning song and psalm How here thy heroes fell!
Then in rising splendour the last verse:
But thou, my country, dream not thou! Wake, and behold how night is done,-
How on thy breast, and o'er thy brow,
Bursts the uprising sun!
The uprising sun of freedom and of nationhood. Surely in this Canada of the present day we ought to have a flag, of a national and a Canadian nature, that will symbolize our Dominion throughout the world. Surely! Then what does Pauline Johnson say about Canada? Here are a few lines by Pauline Johnson:

(Acrostic)
C rown of her, young Vancouver; crest of her, old Quebec;
A tlantic and far Pacific sweeping her, keel to deck.
N orth of her, ice and arctics; southward a rival's stealth;
A loft, her Empire's pennant; below, her nation's wealth,
D aughter of men and markets, bearing within her hold,
A ppraised at highest value, cargoes of grain and gold.
Then again Pauline Johnson shows the association of Canada with the empire, in her poem entitled "Canadian Bom":
We first saw light in Canada, the land beloved of God;
AVe are the pulse of Canada, its marrow and its blood:	.
And we, the men of Canada, can face the world and brag
That we were born in Canada beneath the British flag.
And lastly Grant Balfour says-and these lines are also beautiful, I think:
Dominion of the North, how vast; Unequalled in the distant past By proud imperial Rome.
The sister zones o'er thee unrolled Two giant belts of white and gold Fair Canada, my home.
It is for this fair Canada, my home, that I am not afraid to stand up this afternoon and tell the members of this house and the people of Canada that the time has arrived when we should, in association with the other selfgoverning units of the empire, have a typical national or Canadian flag.
Now, Mr. Speaker, let me come to the imperial conferences of 1926, 1929 and 1930. At the imperial conference of 1926 a certain amount of splendid work, imperially and nationally, was accomplished, and the work of that conference and the conference of 1929 has been practically endorsed by the conference of 1930. This being the case, it might be well for us to consider for a moment just what that means. In the summary of the proceedings of the conference of 1926 we have the following statement:
There is, however, one most important element in it which, from a strictly constitutional point of view, has now, as regards all vital matters, reached its full development- we refer to the group of self-governing communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions.
Their position and mutual relation may be leadilly defined. They are autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.
Further on the statement is made:
And though every Dominion is now, and must always remain, the sole judge of the nature and extent of its cooperation, no common cause will, in our opinion, be thereby imperilled.
In other words, the day has arrived in the history of the empire when there is no longer force or compulsion; and if there is any appearance of compulsion it is only in form and not in fact or reality.
This empire of ours is, of course, the greatest the world has ever seen. It is not a centralized empire; constitutionally it is rather a decentralized one. And since it is decentralized it would, of course, be impossible to have what we might call a federation of the empire because of the differences in characteristics, the varying stages of evolution, the wide spaces geographically dividing one section from another, and our different histories. The pathway to empire greatness, empire solidarity and empire permanency that of self-govern-
A Canadian Flag

ment or autonomy, founded on positive and not on negative ideals, is therefore the pathway to greatness and security.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that free cooperation and free institutions are the life blood of the empire. Free cooperation is the instrument which makes possible the functioning of its different parts, and the high objectives ever before the empire, of peace, prosperity and security, will most assuredly lead us into greater epochs than we have known in the past. Since there is an entire absence of compulsion in empire building, it means that from now on the empire must adjust itself to new conditions, and new conditions must become subordinate to new ideals.
That brings me to the question of the Union Jack, the flag of the United Kingdom- in other words, the red, white and blue, which signify all that is brave, pure and true, and what it symbolizes in the life of the empire. The Union Jack is the flag of the United Kingdom. It is made up of three crosses, St. George's, St. Andrew's and St. Patrick's, eight blue triangles plus white borders, all of which .is fraught with sacred meaning to the citizens of the empire.
Now, as regards these patron saints, whose lives typify great sacrifice, it might be well to realize just what the flag has stood for in the past. The flag in history has stood for the following:
The flag of the great union of Scotland and England up to 1603, and since 1707 and 1801- the Union Jack, floated on high when the victorious Marlborough went from victory to victory in France and Spain in the war of the Spanish succession.
It was the settled flag of the union when Bonnie Prince Charlie struck for Stuart power once more in Scotland.
It was the flag of Scotland and England when Walpole was named for the first time Prime Minister of Britain.
It waved in the breeze during the Seven Years' war in India, Europe and America; at Plassey, Rossbach, and over Wolfe and his men at the plains of Abraham; battles in which the supremacy of Britain was settled on three continents for good.
It stood for greater freedom of thought and expression when Wilkes dared the authorities in the last half of the eighteenth century to stem his criticism of the government of the day without which liberty of opinion would not have been able all along t'he line for generations to make democracy as stabilized as it is at present.
It blew in the breeze at Trafalgar, Corunna, Waterloo and Khartum, over Nelson, Sir John Moore and Wellington and Gordon.

It was the flag of the United Empire Loyalists and the other bands of courageous pioneers in the wilds of the Canadas and the maritimes when the Canada of the future was taking form on the northern shoulder of the new world.
It was the symbol of the French Canadians of Quebec when they fought with superb courage for local liberty in 1812 against the United States.
It was thrown to the winds of France when the French Canadians led the van at Cour-celette for world freedom.
It waves over India, after centuries of bloodshed and oppression; over the sands of the Soudan, the historic monuments of Egypt, over the cedars of Mount Lebanon, over the hilltops of Palestine, the plains of Mesopotamia and the as yet untamed regions of the northern world and Antarctic wastes.
It was the emblem of freedom that stemmed the advance of tyranny in the world war, and still sweeps the seas in the interests of world peace, world development and world progress and cooperation.
I have described what the flag has stood for in history. Let me now say what it stands for among the nations. It further stands for:
International honour.
National liberty.
Individual freedom.
Empire fellowship.
Maintenance of law and order under democratic institutions.
Constitution in which every man and woman has a voice, in accordance with franchise acts that will in time, we hope, be modernized to the last limit of representative and responsible government requirements.
A system of monarchy providing a vita! link of peace, progress, cooperation and unity among the nations making up the British commonwealth of nations circling the globe.
The traditions and history of the British race in peace, commerce, art, science, literature, law, education, industry and war.
Symbol of the common sentiment animating the British people throughout the centuries.
Rallying point of the common force during the emergency periods in our racial development and without which defeat would have rendered impossible a destiny potentially equal to, if not the superior of, any other world power.
The symbol of law, order and discipline in all military and naval movements, making possible the extension of our empire frontiers from century to century.

A Canadian Flag
Past resolves, past deeds and past heroes, apart from which the finest enthusiasm on behalf of home, family pride, family honour, personal devotion, patriotism or religious zeal; all of. which, in addition to leadership, numerical forces and discipline have been needed in the past to wrench victory from many a haughty and gallant foe.
Distinguishing mark of armies, fleets, departments of government, parties, rulers, officers, families, clans, dominions, kingdoms, empires, commonwealths and nations.
National growth, power, influence, unity and advancement in the cause of liberty.
National pride, glory, honour and protecting power from wrong, within and without our empire and nation's boundaries.
The unity of ideals and righteousness imperially and nationally which shall unite the world in freedom and justice.
And what about a Canadian flag? A Canadian flag would stand for all these things, since Canada is a self-governing unit in the British commonwealth of nations, and for many more-the developments in Canada since 1801.
The vicissitudes and upheavals nationally from -which we have emerged as a portion of the British Empire prior to and subsequent to confederation.
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.
Institution of representative and responsible government as factors in the development of the country internally, imperially and internationally.
Canada, the Canadian people, their aspirations and visions of continental and world greatness.
The crown and the laws that bind us by golden chains in allegiance to the throne of Britain.
That spirit of sacrifice and sendee 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.
The further sacrifices comparable with anything in the way of sacrifice in the history of pioneers; sacrifices of the intrepid French missionaries and martyrs of early Canadian history, British missionaries of the Cross, and the mutual sacrifice, courage, cooperation, service, forbearance, devotion and Canadian and
British comradeship that must characterize us as a people if we are to aspire to and attain the great objectives placed wdthin our reach by a thoughtful and beneficial Providence.
All these things would a Canadian flag stand for-a Canada up to date and yet to be.
And may I point out now, Mr. Speaker, that New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Newfoundland have flags of their own, and India will have a flag of its own under its new constitution. Ireland has a flag of its own and so, I believe, have all the self-governing dominions of the empire. The question then arises, what about Canada?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	We had a flag of our
own in 1904.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am coming to that.
What about Canada? We have now a king closer than ever constitutionally, therefore dearer than ever. We have a royal standard which suggests the United Kingdom. We have an empire flag; we have a British white ensign; a British blue ensign and a British red ensign. We have a new governor general's flag, not made up of the union jack as if was a few years ago, but made up in an entirely different way because the governor general now represents His Majesty and not the British government. How terrible our super-loyalists must feel about this. We have a merchant marine flag which is our flag on the seas, since 1892, simply a red ensign with the arms of Canada in the fly. We have a government service flag, tne British blue ensign with the coat of arms of Canada in the fly. On the government buildings outside of Canada such as in Washington, Paris, London and Tokyo, we fly the red ensign as our Canadian flag. We have therefore a Canadian flag in London, but we have not a Canadian flag in Canada. We have a flag which we fly on the Canadian government buildings in Paris and the other world capitals, but we cannot fly that same flag on our own parliament buildings in the Dominion of Canada. That is the situation exactly.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	We used to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman
must be mistaken in what he is saying.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: As I go along perhaps
the right hon. gentleman will see that I am not so much mistaken. W.e have not a Canadian flag to be flown ashore except the union jack, which in 1912 was made the official flag of Canada. Before 1904 we had the red ensign with the coat of arm? of Canada in the fly, which flag was our lag from
A Canadian Flag

the days of Sir John A. Macdonald down to 1904. That flag was flown across this country from ocean to ocean, it was the national flag from the Atlantic to the Pacific. However, it was hauled down in 1904. Why? The circumstances surrounding the taking down of that flag have never been made known to the Canadian people, but it was taken down and from 1904 to the present day the union jack has been flown in its place. In 1912 the union jack was made the official flag of Canada by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and from 1912 to 1931 as from 1904 to 1912 the union jack has been flown in Canada as our Canadian flag-something distinctly it can never be. The red ensign, differenced by the Canadian coat of arms, is flying outside of Canada, but it is not the official flag in Canada, it was hauled down and has never been put up.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	It was hauled down by
the Liberal party.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I am not concerned so
much with the party that took it down as with the party that will put it up. The time has come when some distinctive flag should be sanctioned by the parliament of Canada. My resolution does not suggest tampering with the union jack, it neither adds to nor subtracts from it, neither divides nor multiplies it, neither squares nor cubes it; it has nothing whatever to do with it. Let the union jack be supreme and let it fly in this country from ocean to ocean but let it be used as an empire flag. I submit that that cannot be considered as a national or distinctive flag for Canada. If it is to be considered as such, why do we use the red ensign in Tokyo and on the government buildings in London? We cannot use the union jack because it would not be distinctive enough. I would like to see adopted a national flag which would be sufficiently distinctive to be used at home and abroad, a flag that would be an honour to us and which -would increase not only the self respect of Canadians at home, but also the self respect of Canadians abroad.
The missing link in our flag chain is the fact that outside of Canada we have what we call a flag

I would not say it is as distinctive as it should be-but inside of Canada we have not a distinctive Canadian flag; our official flag is the union jack. It would appear as though the Canadian people have not as yet awakened to the flag problem because when they do I am satisfied its solution will be almost immediate.
I do not intend to-day to pin myself down to saying what the design should be, my

argument is for a distinctive or a national Canadian flag. That flag should fly all over this country with the union jack, and no loyalist, royalist or patriot in Canada has any business mixing the union jack with the purposes of this resolution. This resolution calls for a distinctive flag, and if I am not mistaken the time is not far distant when we will have such a flag. If one government does not give us this flag, another one will.
Suggested designs of flags received may be divided into six classes. First, we have the flag with the union jack as a base and a maple leaf or some other Canadian emblem superimposed thereon. We should not superimpose anything on the union jack, we should not put on it a maple leaf, a beaver, a wild goose or anything else; we should leave it alone. Hands off the union jack, as our loyalist friends say. Second, we have another set of flags consisting of the blue ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly. Third we have the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms on the fly. Fourth, we have the white ensign with the same coat of arms. Then fifth, we have other flags containing the union jack in part, and then sixth, another group with no union jack at all. I say however that any proposed distinctive flag should contain the union jack and in it I believe the union jack should be in a position of honour.
This flag question should be taken out of politics altogether. A special committee of this house should be appointed to consider the question, and hear representations made by the leading citizens and organizations in Canada. By doing that there is left in the hands of parliament the control of this important symbol, and I am satisfied that the problem could be solved satisfactorily to ninety-nine per cent of the people of Canada. All it requires is a little attention, a little courage and the utmost cooperation. When this is done the College of Heralds in London is ever ready, when a design is submitted, to take that design and evolve from it a suitable flag. All we have to do is to tell the College of Heralds what we want and we will soon have a flag for this Dominion.
There are three alternatives for the future of Canada. One is absorption by the United States, but I give an unqualified no to that alternative. There should not-and never will-be any absorption of this country by the great republic to the south. Second, there is the pathway of independence, but my answer to that also is an unqualified no. We are now independent, we are free and we are laying the foundations-under the union jack and within the empire of a great

A Canadian Flag
and significant future. What is the last alternative? It is an autonomous community within the British Empire owing allegiance thereto and freely associating with the other self-governing communities thereof. By cooperating with those communities, by building up a great empire, by giving Canadians an opportunity to develop and to be free, and by giving them a national symbol that will indicate their aspirations, objectives and beliefs nationally and imperially, I am sure a brighter day will dawn for Canada.
In conclusion, might I say that if I had time this afternoon I could read resolution after resolution passed at meetings held from ocean to ocean. The weekly newspapers of Canada in national convention, assembled in 1929 in London, Ontario, to the number of lour or five hundred, passed this resolution, unanimously endorsing a national flag:
Whereas we believe it is desirable to adopt a distinctive Dominion flag for Canada, the design of which should include the Union Jack, resolved that we appeal to the parliament of Canada to treat this matter on a non-party basis, and we further appeal to all Canadians, irrespective of race, creed or origin, to cooperate towards the solution of this vital national question.
Even among our Conservative friends on the opposite side, the question of a national flag has been brought up. Some years ago at their national convention in Winnipeg a resolution was submitted, although it did not come to anything-it did not get into the light of day. The conviction of those who framed that resolution, if I remember, from the constituency of South Winnipeg, was that the time had come for the Conservative party to take action on this very important matter. But it did not.
A year or two ago the Canadian Legion in convention assembled at Regina passed the following resolution:
Whereas the question of the adoption of a distinctively Canadian flag is at present agitating public opinion throughout the Dominion of Canada.
And whereas it is believed that the general feeling of the members of our organization is that the Union Jack, under which we fought and under which our comrades died, should be retained as the flag of the Dominion.
Yet, nevertheless, the pressure of public opinion may be such that the adoption of an individual flag will become a question which has to be decided.
It will become more and more every day a question which has to be decided. The resolution continues:
Therefore, be it resolved that this convention instruct the Dominion council that in the event of any concrete proposition for the adoption of a distinctively Canadian flag being presented to parliament, that parliament be advised that no
device will be acceptable to the ex-service men of Canada in which the Union Jack is not the predominant figure, and if the question is to be decided that we strongly recommend the retention of the Union Jack, with some device such as the maple leaf or the Canadian coat of arms superimposed thereon.
We desire to retain the union jack as explained. We should not however interfere with the union jack. We should however have the union jack in the upper left hand corner of any flag in the position of honour-absolutely. The problem boils down simply to this: that we must work out a suitable symbol which wall be emblematic of all the provinces of Canada, Canada as a whole. And in this flag-at no distant date

the union jack will symbolize our association with the empire. Then we can evolve a flag with a suitable symbol and background that will indicate to the world and the nations making up the empire that Canada is a national unit. Such a flag will be a powerful factor in developing national sentiment, in the growth of national opinion from ocean to ocean, in -the building up of national ideas, in inculcating in the minds of our new nationals a love for the Dominion and the empire. And if it succeeds in accomplishing any of these things, we as Canadians ought forever to feel gratified.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny): I am glad to rise in support of the motion moved by the hon. member for North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh). I agree with pretty much everything he said. I was, however, rather surprised to hear it come from that side of the house. When I was in the house many years ago as a young member with the hon. member for Quebec East, the very flag that my hon, friend speaks of, which had been floating at the time, was pulled down by the party then in office.
Mr. MeINTOSH: I do not care who pulled it down; I want it put up.
Mr. LaVERGNE: So do I, but I am trying to make clear the history which my hon. friend says is very mysterious. It was not very mysterious. One day we walked up to the house and we discovered that the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms had disappeared and had been replaced by the union jack. I think it was the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) who protested and the then Minister of Public Works said that he had given orders to have this done. Probably it was incompatible with the nationalistic doctrines preached at that time by my hon. friends from Quebec on the other side, and since then the flag was replaced which had
A Canadian Flag

been floating since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald. That is probably the mystery of which my hon. friend has been speaking. In any case, the flag such as is mentioned in the resolution floated doubtless on all the public buildings of Canada from confederation until 1904 under the Laurier government of the time.
I agree with what the hon. member has said in that I think Canada should have a national ensign. I do not, however, see that it needs very much courage to say so. I do not think it is treading on dangerous ground to assert, and so far as I am concerned, I am not afraid to assert that I am a Canadian first; I believe in Canada first, and I believe, to quote the words of, I think, Sir Wilfrid Laurier: "If the interests of my native land come into conflict with those of the motherland, I would turn to my native land." But now that we have won our liberty and that under the British flag we have the most practical independence and equality as a sister nation in the commonwealth of nations, I do not see why anybody should be afraid to assert that he is a Canadian. As my hon. friend has rightly said, Australia has her flag; South Africa is going to have her flag. The question is now before a committee.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: She settled that question on November 11th, 1927. and May 31st. 1928.


Ernest Lapointe: She has her flag.
Mr. LaVERGNE : Ireland has 'her flag and New Zealand has hers. Unless in our country there is lack of pride somewhere, I fail to see why we should not assert all over the empire, all through the world, that we are Canadians and proud of our Dominion of Canada.
The proposition put forward by my hon. friend is most wise. The union jack, the flag of the empire, the flag of our king, has a part in his project and he wants a symbol to link together all the different provinces. We have that in the escutcheon of Canada as it exists to-day, because all the great races of this country are represented in our coat of arms which, with the exception of the maple leaf, was practically the flag of the English kings until the Georges. I think the fleur-de-lis was in the coat of arms *of the English kings until then; it was only under the Georges that it disappeared to be replaced by the repetition of the British lion: lions passant et regardant. I think this proposition should be considered favourably by the house
This is not a criticism, but my hon. friend may have injured his argument somewhat because he has given such a eulogy, and a well
[Mr LaVergne.]
deserved one, of the union jack that I am afraid some of our friends on this side of the house may be inclined to retain it. I think in this project the union jack should remain. There may be some timid people or some very loyal organizations who may protest against a change, but those organizations not very long ago, if we go back in our history, were quite willing to put away our flag because the Prince of Wales, when he first came to Canada, did not recognize it. When we are loyal to the empire, we should first be loyal to Canada. The best way to be a good British subject in the empire is to be in Canada a good Canadian, or in Australia to be a good Australian.
It is strange that questions of this kind are not discussed in any of the dominions of the empire except Canada. It seems to me that here the moment we discuss anything which is purely Canadian we are open to the suspicion of disloyalty. Of course, loyalty has been exploited in this country to a very great extent, and I do not put the blame wholly on one side of the house or on only one party. I see my friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) smiling at me. I remember, and I am sure that- he does, when the Liberal party was making a tremendously loyal campaign in the province of Quebec in the good old days of 1911, when the Tories of Ontario were quite willing to be allied with the rebels, the so-called nationalists of that day.


Ernest Lapointe: Why should my impartial friend, the Deputy Speaker, mix up politics with a question of this kind?
Mr. LaYERGNE:	I am not mixing up
politics; I am just giving history. "
Mr. ST-PERE: Was it at that time that somebody was going to shoot holes through the British flag?
Mr. LaYERGNE:	I am not afraid to
answer that. Yes, it was, and after that he became a member of the cabinet. I do not see why he should deny having said that. He did not invent that phrase; it was first used by Sir Adolphe Chapleau, and it was true. The right hon. leader of the opposition, 1 am sure, is not going to deny the good old days of Papineau and William Lyon Mackenzie. I am not, as a Canadian. The men who shot holes through the British flag in those dark days won for us the liberties of which we are so proud to-day, which liberties, now that we have them, have made us loyal subjects. I do not see why my hon. friends opposite should make any reproaches.

Agriculture Committee


Jean-François Pouliot: We are not making reproaches, but we are very much surprised that afterwards that gentleman swallowed his words.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I am not making any reproach, and let my hon. friends opposite have the same courage and approve those words. Here we are in the days of radio, and we cannot say one thing in one province and deny it in another. Those days are past, and I am asking my hon. friends opposite to have the courage of the hon. member for North Battleford, (Mr. McIntosh), for instance, and if they approve of a Canadian flag, let them get up and say so.
Mr. ST-PERE: Of course we do.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I am glad to hear it, but I notice that when my 'hon. friend from North Battleford sat down, not many on that side of the house got up to support him.


Mr. BRADETTE:: There was no cheering on the other side of the house.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 6 p.m.
Tuesday, May 26, 1931