1935-01-23

[Stage Direction]
On the orders for motions:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition) [DOT] As the order for "Motions" is called may I avail myself of this moment to ask the Prime Minister if he has considered favourably the suggestion that I made the other evening that government orders be given precedence over all other orders and especially those relating to the motions of private members, so that this house could have before it at as early a moment as possible those measures of the government which relate to social and industrial reform.
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: I tried to make quite clear to
the right hon. gentleman that I had no intention of depriving any members of this house of their rights, and further, in answer to a question which the right hon. gentleman asked yesterday, I tried to make it abundantly clear that until the report of the price spreads commission had been made it would be impossible to conclude the matters that we had in hand with respect to legislation.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: May I say,
Mr. Speaker, that as far as the price spreads investigation is concerned I am not referring to it at the moment, but to the legislation on social insurance of which notice has already been given. As to depriving private members of their day I realize that any motion to give government orders precedence must be by unanimous consent. I believe if it were understood that private members' motions were simply being postponed in order to let the government proceed with its own reform measures, such a motion would receive unanimous consent; at least I can speak for the official opposition when I say that we would be unanimous in our acceptance of such a motion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are not unfamiliar
with tactics such as these, and we have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of departing from the rules of this house.
[Mr. Maclnnis.l



MAIN ESTIMATES, 1935-36 RESTORATION TO CIVIL SERVICE OF HALF OF TEN PER CENT SALARY DEDUCTION

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1936, was presented by Hon. E. N. Rhodes (Minister of Finance) and read by Mr. Speaker to the house.
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance) :: Mr. Speaker, in moving that these
estimates and the accompanying message be referred to the committee of supply, as I now do, I beg to say that to facilitate the preparation of -these estimates and to enable them to be presented to the house at the earliest possible moment, they have been prepared on a basis of the current year containing a provision for a salary deduction of ten per cent for those who receive salaries in excess of $1,000 per year.
As stated to the house on previous occasions, it is the desire of the government to make complete restoration at the earliest possible moment, the governing factor being the revenues available.
In view of the present state of the revenues, the government proposes to submit a measure which will provide for a restoration of one-half of the deduction from April first next.
The government is fully aware that salary deductions have in many instances caused inconvenience and in some cases perhaps hardship, and it is, therefore, most appreciative of the manner in which on the whole the position has been accepted by the civil service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 2, to amend the Precious Metals Marking Act 1928.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as every hon. member is aware the Precious Metals Marking Act is a very technical piece of legislation and has to do with the protection of the public in connection with the markings on articles made of precious and other metals. There are a number of changes all of which are technical and minor in character, and one section relative to the subject matter of evidence.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Questions

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 3, to amend the Interpretation Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to amend the section of the Interpretation Act which defines the word "holiday." In the definition in the present act Remembrance day is omitted and this bill is merely to place Remembrance day on the list of public holidays.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first, time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 4, to amend the Representation Act, 1933.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of this bill is to amend that section of the Representation Act which deals with the two ridings known as East Hamilton and West Hamilton appearing in the act passed in 1933. At the time of the passage of the act in that year it was assumed that the boundaries of the city of Hamilton were those which had appeared in the former act passed by this house. As a matter of fact the city of Hamilton had changed its boundaries in the interval, and the division made of the city of Hamilton in that act is not in accordance with the actual boundaries of the city. This amendment is to correct the error.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 5, to amend the criminal code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the object of the proposed amendment to the criminal code is to adopt in the province of Saskatchewan in criminal cases a jury of six instead of a jury of twelve, the provision which pertains in all provinces save in the province of Alberta. Because of an amendment to the criminal code, for a period of about fifteen years a jury composed of only six members has been used in the trial of criminal offences in the province of Alberta. The attorney general of Saskatchewan has requested on behalf of his government that a similar amendment be made to the code providing for a jury of six in the trial of criminal cases in that province.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of Pensions and National Health) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 6, to amend the Pension Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, under the Pension Act as it now stands there is power to appoint up to twelve pension commissioners, but for a period of only seven years. The pension commission tell me the work is such that more help is needed, but they do not think it will be necessary to have that help for seven years. In this bill power is asked to appoint a certain additional number of commissioners.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF*
['1.\t240 yards.\n2.\t$1.05 per yard.']
Richard Bedford Bennett: The question should not be on the order paper. It is not a proper question.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stands.



Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What quantity of stone was used for the repairs to the wharf at St-Roch des Aulnaies, county of L'Islet, Quebec, during the year 1934?
2.	What price was paid for the said stone?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	240 yards.
2.	$1.05 per yard.



ADMIRALTY ACT

Mr. BOULANGER:: Has the Admiralty Act of 1934, chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada, 1934, been put into force?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: No.



TISDALE, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What was the contract price for the post office at Tisdale, Saskatchewan?
2.	To whom was the contract let?
3.	If sublet, to whom and at what price?
Questions as Orders for Returns


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$25,247.
2.	Wilson & Wilson, Ltd., 1363 Albert st., Regina, Sask.
3.	Contract not sublet. Final estimate paid to Wilson & Wilson, Ltd.



MELFORT, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	What was the contract price for the post office at Melfort. Saskatchewan?
2.	To whom was the contract awarded?
3.	If sublet, to whom and at what price?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	$37,900.
2.	J. McDiarmid & Co., Winnipeg, Man.
3.	Contract not sublet. Final estimate paid to J. McDiarmid & Co.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the total amount of subsidy and steamship subvention paid from April 1, to December 31, 1934. to shipping concerns, agents or others, operating from the Pacific coast ports of British Columbia?
2.	What are the names of the firms to which such money was paid, the amounts paid to each, and for what service in each ease?


Mr. HANSON:: Return tabled herewith.


PENSION COMMISSION
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: 1.	How many cases have been heard by the
Canadian Pension Commission since its inception to date:	(a) by quorums in the field;
(b) by full commission?
2.	How many cases are now awaiting: (a) hearing; (b) decision after hearing before quorums in the field or before the full commission?
3.	How many cases have been appealed by
the reviewing officer to the Pensions Appeal Court since he was appointed? Of such cases, how many appeals have been: (a) allowed by the Pensions Appeal Court:	(b) rejected by
such court; (c) referred back to the Canadian Pensions Commission?
4.	How many appeals have been heard by the Pensions Appeal Court since the date of appointment, and of such (a) how many have been allowed; (b) how many rejected; (c) how many referred back to the Canadian Pensions Commission?
5.	How many eases are now before the Pensions Appeal Court awaiting (a) hearing; lb) decision after hearing?
6.	How many pension cases is it anticipated that will require adjudication: (a) by the Canadian Pensions Commission; (b) by the Pensions Appeal Court, during the calendar years 1935 to 1936?
{Mr. Woodsworth.]



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. LACROIX:: For a copy of all correspondence, documents and report of the auditor general, respecting the wharf (crib-work) at Beauceville, on the Chaudicre river in the parish of St-Frangoie, Beauce county.



ANTIGONISH, N.S., POST OFFICE

Mr. DUFF:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents, as well as reports from officials of the department during the year 1934-35. regarding the dismissal of John C. McDonald of St. Josephs, Antigonish county, Nova Scotia, from the position of postmaster at that place, and all correspondence and documents regarding the appointment of his successor; also reports giving the reasons for the removal of the office to the south end of the district.



HORNBY SETTLEMENT PLAN

Mr. STEVENS:: For a copy of the following schemes for local settlement under the Hornby plan for empire migration:	(a) Nova Scotia:	Cumberland
county Amherst district; (b) New Brunswick: York county, district of Harvey; (c) Quebec: Compton county, Richmond county, Missisquoi-Brome; (d) Ontario: Stormont county, Oxford county, Brant county (municipality of Burford); Glengary county; (e) Manitoba: Birtle district; (f) Saskatchewan:	Wolseley district,
Melfort district, Lashburn district; (g) Alberta: Brooks district, Mayerthorpe district, Grande Prairie district.



FIRST NARROWS BRIDGE, VANCOUVER

Mr. MUNN:: For a copy of all correspondence between any member of the government and any other person or persons or corporation, with reference to the application made under the Navigable Waters Protection Act for the construction of the First Narrows bridge at Vancouver, British Columbia.



TRANSPORTATION OF WHEAT

Mr. REID:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters and telegrams exchanged between the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways from October, 1934, to date, relative to the carrying of wheat for export and sale to the United States, either through the port of Vancouver or any other port.



FRASER RIVER BRIDGE

Thomas Reid: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, reports, including reports, if any, made by the district engineer of New Westminster and the harbour commissioners of New Westminster, from January, 1934, to date in connection with an application made by the

A Canadian Flag
provincial government of British Columbia for the construction of a bridge across the Fraser river at New Westminster.



TRACADIE, N.B., LAZARETTO

Mr. VENIOT:: For a copy of all correspondence, reports and other documents, including a statement of the results of any examinations by the Civil Service Commission during 1934, in connection with the appointment of an assistant engineer at the lazaretto, Tracadie, New Brunswick.



SHIPPEGAN, N.B., WHARF

Peter John Veniot: For a copy of all tenders in connection with the construction of a wharf or extension of wharf at Shippegan, Gloucester county, New Brunswick, during 1934.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. BOULANGER
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse): I rise to a question of privilege which concerns not only myself but every member of this house. I refer to the right of members of the House of Commons of placing questions on the order paper, and I have in mind two questions which appear under my name, No. 13 and No. 14, in which I ask whether the Admiralty Act of 1934 and the Canada Shipping Act of 1934 have been put into force. What appears on the order paper is only half of the questions which I sent to the clerk of the house to be placed on the order paper. Half of my question has been removed. The questions have been amputated and mutilated without my knowledge or consent. Of course, I understand that any question of mine oi of any other member of the house must conform to the rules of the house before it appears on the order paper. But whether any question is in conformity with the rules of the house is for you, Mr. Speaker, to decide and for no one else; and it is for you to decide the matter in the House of Commons and not in camera in order that, if I am not satisfied with your decision, I may appeal from you to the house. I was not interested in ascertaining whether these acts had been put into force or not-I knew that already. I was interested to know why, for what reasons they Lave not been put into operation; and that part of my inquiry has been omitted from my question without my consent or knowledge. I submit that this practice, which has obtained for a long time in the house, is not a proper practice; it is not the regular practice, it is not the legal practice, and it is not the courteous practice.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: With much of what the
hon. member has said I quite agree. I thank
him for calling the matter to my attention, and it will receive the consideration which it deserves.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is a good decision.



A CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. II. DICKIE (Nanaimo) moved:
That, in the opinion of this house, a national flag representing the Dominion of Canada should be adopted; and that in any design for a Canadian flag the union jack must be conspicuous.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that objection will be taken to this resolution by some hon. members, by contending that the union jack is ample for the requirements of Canada. The seconder of this resolution, the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White), and I have lived at least as long as anyone else in this assembly under the aegis of the union jack and there is in the house no one who has a greater appreciation of and a more profound regard for the union jack than have the mover and seconder of this resolution. We consider, however, that having reached the full status of nationhood, Canada should have a distinctive flag of her own. People will say that the union jack is good enough. This does not detract in any way from our regard for the union jack, but we think we should have a distinctive flag that we can call truly Canadian.
Australia and New Zealand under practically the same conditions as we are, years ago decided that they should have distinctive flags of their own, and no objection was raised to their doing so. Each of them has now a beautiful, artistic flag of which they are very proud. New Zealand and Australia have each a blue flag with the union jack in the upper corner and the beautiful constellation of the Southern Cross on the fly. I contend that we have a perfect right, without any regard to the College of Heralds, to have a flag somewhat along those lines. At the present time the only flag we have for Canada is that known as the red ensign. In 1892 the Dominion government passed a regulation allowing the arms of Canada to be placed on the red ensign for mercantile purposes. It has since been contended by many that we have no legal right to fly the red ensign on land as we are doing at present, so why not have a flag that we can be proud of, that we can fly on all occasions, and especially when our doing so will not detract one iota from our regard for the union jack?
A Canadian Flag
[Stage Direction]
Obviously, if this resolution should carry, as I hope it will, a committee will be appointed to consider the design of a flag. It is premature at this time to consider what that design would be more than what I have suggested in the house. I am, however, impelled to say that my opinion would be that a flag consisting of a bright delphinium blue ground on which would be placed the union jack in a dominant position in the upper corner next the staff and on this blue fly an autumnal-coloured maple leaf, would be artistic and beautiful, would appeal to all our citizens, and would be a source of inspiration to our school children. We would be pleased indeed to see a flag along some such lines adopted. The design however is to be a matter for further consideration and it is not necessary to take up any more of the time of the house now. When this debate closes I of course reserve to myself the right to make explanations and perhaps enlarge further on arguments in favour of the resolution before the house.
Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I can add little to the remarks of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) and to those addressed to the house on this subject in previous sessions. I am well aware that in a matter of sentiment that dearly touches the heart of every British subject, logic has a poor chance of success. But I would say to those who think so, it is not proposed by the resolution in any way to destroy, weaken or detract from the flag under which we have lived for many centuries and which we reverence in our hearts.
There is nothing new in this suggestion. Canada to-day has a Canadian flag floating upon the sea and differing in appearance from the union jack of Great Britain by reason of having upon the fly the dominion coat of arms. If there be no objection in sentiment or for any other reason to a distinctive flag upon the sea, what objection in logic can be made to a distinctive flag upon the land? Other parts of our empire have their own distinctive flags. South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and for all I know, possibly some other parts of the British commonwealth have their own distinctive flags, and if we in Canada desire to have a union jack which, upon some part of it will indicate that it represents that portion of the British commonwealth which we call Canada, we are certainly not parting with a flag we reverence and we certainly are not breaking the bonds of empire.
I recall, in speaking of the flag, a remark of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie who for

five years was Prime Minister of this country, and who attended a dinner given in the city of Saint John in 1876 to the United States consul of that city. At this dinner was present Mr. James G. Blaine, subsequently a Republican candidate for the presidency of the United States. Behind the head table was displayed the flag of the United States and the flag of Great Britain. Mr. Mackenzie in referring to them said, I hope that the amity and peace which the two countries have enjoyed for so many years will continue in perpetuity, and their flags .be entwined in harmony, the one bearing upon it the evidence of the might of the Creator, the starry heavens, and the other the emblem of His greatest work, the redemption of man. A very beautiful description, it seems to me, of the flags of the two countries. I would be among the last to suggest or approve any action that would in any way whatsoever mutilate that flag.
The union jack itself is a product of evolution. It has not always been the flag that it is to-day. Cross upon cross has been added. All that is proposed is that upon the union jack there shall be placed, instead of the coat of arms of the dominion, which is indecipherable and not by any means a thing of beauty or a joy forever, some emblem such as the maple leaf that will typify Canada, so that the flag will proclaim to all who view it that it represents that part of the British empire which is called Canada.
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie) and seconded by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. White) is not anything new in the way of a flag resolution in the House of Commons of this country. Practically the same resolution has been before the house for years. Last year there was a vote taken on the question. In 1933, and for years before, I had the honour to move a resolution with regard to the same subject. The position I took in 1933,-the same as the position I take to-day,-was that because of the economic situation prevailing in Canada the question of a distinctive national flag for Canada might remain in abeyance at least for a year or more. My reason, as put on record at that time, was that we ought to devote ourselves with all earnestness and expedition to ameliorating social and economic conditions in the country. To-day all I desire to do is to draw the attention of the house to the fact that the resolution is not a new resolution. I might say that in one regard the resolution

A Canadian Flag
now before us is weaker than the one last year, because in the last line the hon. member for Nanaimo would appear to be compromising on the position of the union jack in Canada's national flag. I wonder if that is part of the government's reform program.


Mr. ERNST:: Do you want the resolution
carried in regard to a Canadian flag?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What I want is, as
expressed in the resolution of other years, that the union jack occupy the position of honour. With that view practically every member of His Majesty's loyal opposition voted last year for the resolution as moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo, but this year as I have mentioned it would appear that he is compromising on the importance of the union jack in Canada's national flag.
In conclusion may I say that I am not going to debate the matter at present, all I want to say is that the program of social and economic reform mentioned by the Prime Minister and backed apparently by the government should be brought down in this house without a moment's delay, and that we are ready to back that platform as far as it is correct and in the interests of all the Canadian people. I am in conformity with the statement of my leader when I say that there should be no time lost, that program of reform ought to be brought down promptly, and because of the urgency for action in this regard, this flag resolution should be held in abeyance for the time being.


Miss AQNES MAGPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: Mr. Speaker, just in order to make it unanimous I wish to say how very heartily I approve, and I am sure all in this corner approve, of a national flag for Canada. The fact that we have not had one I think is an indication of our lack of nationhood, that we are still toddling and not walking. If we were not afraid of being ourselves I think we would have bad a national flag some time ago. I for one do not think that it would have affected Canadian loyalty to the British empire. I think that now everyone has arrived at that conclusion, that we really can have a flag of our own and still not declare to the world that we fear that by doing so we shall endanger the British empire. Therefore, I just wish to say these few words in support of the motion. Possibly to take a vote on it will occupy such a little time that it would not unduly delay the reform program.


Mr. J. R. MacNIOOL (Toronto Northwest) :: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before
the house is, as the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh) said, one that has been introduced here before for a number of sessions. It is getting to the stage of becoming a hardy perennial. If this country were not in the state that it is at the present time, along with all the rest of the world, such that we should be devoting every moment of our time to the consideration of matters designed to relieve unemployment and other pressing questions, it would be all right to spend time on a resolution of this nature, one that is more or less educational. However, as the resolution is on the order paper I believe that it should be discussed, and I say right at the beginning that I am opposed to the resolution.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is from Toronto.
Mr. MaoNIOOL: Some hon. gentleman on the opposite side said something about my home city. It is a great city, and I do not need to rise in this house and express its sentiment in this regard. That sentiment is for the union jack, as I believe is well known. Each city has as much right to its own opinion in regard to our flag or in regard to any other matter as any other city. I do not look upon this as a question to be discussed from the standpoint of the city from which a member comes, or from the standpoint of patriotism either.
A moment ago it was said that logic will not enter into this discussion. I propose to use only logic in arguing that the situation in Canada, so far as the flag is concerned, should remain as it is at present. I have made some study of the origin of flags, as perhaps other members have. So far as I can ascertain the first mention of flags, emblems or ensigns is in the second chapter of Numbers, verses 1 and 2:
And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying. Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father's house-
As I see it, the flags that we fly in Canada pertain to the flags of the houses of the fathers of at least the two great major races in this country, and there is nothing on those flags to offend any other race.


William Duff: They might put on a burning bush.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Such a design might be
offered if this question went to a committee. Later on I will point out what happened when resolutions of this nature were sent to committees of other houses, and designs came from those committees.
A Canadian Flag

What was the reply to that letter? The Sons of England Benefit Society wrote under date of February 5, 1934, as follows, in reply to the letter from the Native Sons of Canada:
The copy of the proposed Canadian national flag was duly received and considered, and I was instructed to advise you that the members of the supreme council of the Sons of England Benefit Society are strongly opposed to any change in our flag, feeling that the union jack is good enough for Canada and is a flag that we are proud to live under.
I should like to read a letter in reply to the foregoing which may give an insight into what may be behind this agitation, although I should like to have it understood that I am not imputing any particular motive. I would ask hon. members to listen to this letter:
Toronto, February 6, 1934. Supreme Secretary,
Sons of England Benefit Society,
Toronto.
Dear Sir:-
We wish to thank you for your letter of February 5 in which you state that you are strongly opposed to any change in our flag, feeling that the union jack is good enough for Canada and is a flag that we are proud to live under.
So far, we have not raised any question in regard to the union jack but, as you bring the matter up, we would like to point out to you that there has been a change in the constitutional position of Canada in the past few years because on December 11, 1931, was passed the statute of Westminster which established the British commonwealth of nations and as a result of which Canada is no longer a part of the British empire.
Canada, Mr. Speaker, is a part of the British empire, and I hope it will long remain part of it.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who signed the letter?
Mr. MaoNIOOL: It is signed by Frank G. J. McDonagh, national secretary. But I have not read all of it; the rest of it may provoke further questions. The letter continues :
Canada is no longer a part of the British empire but is a nation member of the British commonwealth of nations and an equal partner in the same. There is a distinct feeling in Canada that there is nothing in the union jack in any way Canadian in the sense that a national flag should represent the sovereignty of the people.
Our flag goes back a long way into the history of the two great races which early formed this country. The first cross on our flag, St. George's, came from Normandy and was placed there in the year 1194 by the Norman King of England, Richard I. The letter continues:
(Mr. MacNicol.l
The union jack represents the sovereignty of the people of the united kingdom and neglects anything concerning Canada, when it is considered as a flag that is good enough for Canada.
Listen to this:
Some years ago, when there was a discussion as to a Canadian flag, certain organizations, among which I believe was your own, took the stand that the union jack should be the sole national flag for Canada and the thought occurs to me that possibly, because of the stand of your organization and some others, the union jack may be forced off the Canadian flag.
What would happen to a resolution of this kind if it were sent to a committee a principal member of which had in his mind forcing the union jack off the Canadian flag? I have great respect for the views expressed by other hon. members in this connection. I know that they are as loyal as any people could be, and I do not approach the subject from the standpoint of loyalty; that does not enter into the discussion. I take the stand that our marine flags are distinctively Canadian, perhaps more so than the flags of either Australia or New Zealand are of those dominions, and just as distinctive as one of the flags of India, One Indian flag has superimposed upon it what represents the sun, and the sun shines over the whole of the earth's surface. The two Canadian marine flags are not only distinctive of our national races but emblematic of Canada.
If the union jack which flies across Canada were in competition with the flags of other countries on this continent there might be some cause for agitation to pull it down and place another in its place. But there is not. The fact is that there is no competition in the north half of America with the union jack. We are told that because of necessities of our three legations we should change our flag. I communicated with the Department of the Secretary of State and was informed that our Canadian merchant marine flag, the red ensign with the shield of our coat of arms upon it, is the flag which flies over those legations, including the high commissioner's office in London. I should be very sorry, Mr. Speaker, to see pulled down that flag which has flown over this country for so long, merely to meet the fancied needs of our legations.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time simply to give to hon. members sitting to your right some advice which may shock the Prime Minister. I should like to tell them in this connection to follow the policy of laissez-faire. It is all very well to talk about flags and to advance a policy of flag waving for the next

A Canadian Flag
election, but to my mind there is something higher and more important than the emblem, no matter how interesting and worthy of respect it may be. We must think of bread and work, and money in the pockets of our Canadian people. If hon. members opposite have any flag to offer I will suggest that they place upon it a loaf of bread, a pie and a shovel.
It is easy to understand the tactics adopted by hon. member's opposite. I shall take my seat very shortly and they may proceed to do whatever they wish, but I must say it would appear that they are not prepared to proceed with their policy. Our revered chief urged them to proceed, but they have not done so. I say they have not because they are not ready. Hon. members sitting on this side are ready to do something for the Canadian people, but our friends opposite talk about flags because they are not ready. So far as the flag is concerned I would suggest that for the time being we let well enough alone. Let us at this time follow the policy of laissez-faire, so far as the flag is concerned and do something for our Canadian people. Some hon. members urge that this is not a government motion. Hon. members sitting around me know very well that our friends opposite are simply talking about nothing at all so thejr may have time to proceed with their policy. Why did they not adopt the motion of last year w'hich was presented by an hon. member on this side of the house?


William Gordon Ernst: He did not make it last year.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes he did.


William Gordon Ernst: No, he did not; it was made by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie).


Vincent Dupuis: He made it two, three and four years ago.


William Gordon Ernst: And before you were in the house.


Vincent Dupuis: During those years the
misery of the Canadian people was not as great as it is this year. We need work; we need bread; we need something that will rescue the Canadian people. Do it now and leave the flag alone.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto):: am surprised to see that a resolution of this kind should come before the house, and I am equally surprised that my old friend from Mount Royal (Mr. White) should second it. The old flag, the old leader and the old policy were good enough for the Liberal-Conservative party of this country and it should be good enough now. This house may pass all the
resolutions it likes with regard to changing the flag, but the people of Ontario will continue to fly the union jack whether this house likes it or not.
This is not a new subject in this house. It came up ten years ago when the Liberal government of that day appointed a commission of several civil servants to bring in a proposal with respect to changing the flag. There is no demand in Canada for a new flag. This is the first private members' day and it might as well be the last so that we may get down to the business of the country and do something to hoist the flag that will restore the hope, character and livelihood of thousands of farmers, industrial workers and miners and their families.
I am opposed to this resolution as I was opposed to a similar proposal thirteen years ago, and I am opposed to it especially at a time like this when the union jack should be Canada's only flag. At the present time Canada has only one flag, and she has only one national anthem, namely, God Save the King. We have these two essentials to-day and I hope it will be a long time before they are changed; because after all the country does not belong to those who inhabit it today: it is an inheritance from the past. It is a possession for the present and a trust for the future. I doubt whether some hon. gentlemen who are supporting the resolution to-day would be sitting in this house if they had advocated it in 1930.
Let us first get rid of the red flag of communism in this country; secondly, let us get rid of the black flag of unemployment; and let us restore Magna Charta. I often wonder whether there is any real Magna Charta today, when I see on York street and on many other streets in the city I come from the red flag of the bailiff hoisted up not only over retail stores but in the homes of the people in York and in many other counties throughout Ontario.
It would be far better for this house to get down to business and do something practical than trying to discuss academic theories such as this. The old union jack was good enough for 500,000 Canadians who went to France and Flanders, and of whom 100,000 lie buried in that land; and if it was good enough for the soldiens who fought the battles of this country, for you and me, it should be good enough for those who stayed at home and now propose a new flag.
I find no demand in the country for this resolution. We have been told that our wonderful merchant marine-part of the bank-
A Canadian Flag

ruptcy of the Canadian National Railways- has a distinctive flag. Well, it has also a red flag, written in red in the bookkeeping of the Minister of Finance. Let us get down to brass tacks and do the thing for which parliament has been called, namely, to solve the economic abuses that exist in this country. Everyone is agreed that the old world has got itself into the greatest muddle in its history. We are all full of complaints and want changes; no one is satisfied; people all want to be reformers and each has a different solution. We have proposals to coordinate, nationalize, internationalize and denationalize all at one and the same time, and to many people in this house the past is nothing but error.
As I said before, this is not a new question. It came up on June 17, 1625 as will be found in Hansard of that year at page 4364, from which I quote the following:
National Flag for Canada
Mr. Church:
1.	Will the government lay on the table of the house the text of a copy of order in council appointing a committee to select a distinctive Canadian flag for use ashore?
2.	Who is asking for such a Canadian flag and for such a change, and why?
3.	Is the union jack not Canada's only official flag, and was it not the one used by the Canadian expeditionary forces overseas in France, and since Canada has been a British possession?
4.	Will an opportunity be given to the house to discuss such an unnecessary innovation in view' of Canada having no land army and no fleet whatever except the proposed Petersen fleet?
5.	Is such a change of policy not for parliament to decide instead of the governor general in council?
6.	Will any legislation be introduced as to such a proposed change this session?
7.	Will the government also introduce legislation or rules to regulate the use of American and other foreign flags in Canada?
Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King: No committee has been appointed for the purpose of selecting a Canadian flag. A committee of public servants has been appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for a Canadian national flag, but the government has taken no action of any kind towards committing either the government or parliament to the adoption of a national flag. I will read to the house the text of the order which it has been requested to have laid on the table:
Certified copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the Privy Council approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 23rd April, 1925.
The committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report, dated 21st April. 1925, from the Minister of National Defence, stating that a distinctive Canadian flag has been authorized to be used by Canadian government-owned vessels and by other vessels of Canadian registry, and that there is throughout the country a desire that there should also be
TMr. Church.]
adopted for use ashore a distinctive flag which shall be recognized as the flag of the Dominion of Canada.
The minister, therefore, recommends that a committee be appointed to consider and report on the most suitable design that should be adopted for a Canadian national flag for use ashore, and that this committee be composed of the following:
G. J. Desbarats. Esq., C.M.G., Deputy Minister of National Defence, Chairman.
Thomas Mulvey, Esq., B.A., K.C., Undersecretary of State.
A. G. Doughty, Esq., C.M.G., LL.D., Dominion Archivist.
Commodore Walter Hose, C.B.E., A.D.C., Director of the Naval Service.
Major General H. A. Panet, C.B.. C.M.G., D.S.O., Adjutant General.
Group Captain J. S. Scott, M.C., A.F.C., A.D.C., Acting Director of the Royal Canadian Air Force.
The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
The leader of the Liberal party is in the house at the present time and it is only fair to read what he said then, because I do not believe that he would have supported such a change at that time.
Hon. members will see that all that has been done has been to refer to this committee of civil servants the question of considering a suitable design for a national flag. Representations have been made to the government from different quarters that there are throughout the country a considerable number of people as well as various organizations who feel that Canada, like Australia, South Africa and other of the self-governing dominions, should have ashore a distinctive Canadian flag as she already has on the high seas.
She may have a distinctive Canadian flag on the high seas, but she has no fleet to protect us in time of trouble, no fleet to protect our trade routes.
The government has simply referred, and intends to refer to this committee, for purposes of study and report, the different suggestions that have been or may be made in that regard. I might mention, for example, that the Native Sons of Canada, an organization, I understand, having headquarters in British Columbia, has offered a prize_ for the best suggestion as to a suitable Canadian national flag. A short time ago, during the present session. I had a letter from the Right Hon. Mr. Fielding. Minister of Finance, expressing very strongly the view that Canada should have a flag of her own and accompanying the letter was a flag which Mr. Fielding himself had designed and which he said he would like to have considered when any discussion with respect to the possibility of a Canadian national flag might come up. I think I need only mention Right Hon. Mr. Fielding's name in this connection to indicate clearly that those who have views with respect to a Canadian national flag along lines similar to those adopted by other of the self-governing dominions are not to be assumed as in any way -wanting in sympathy with, or loyalty to, the mother country in the matter of the flag.
Le me make it clear that this committee is simply a committee to study and report.

A Canadian Flag
Well, we will be reporting on the black flag before long if we do not do something to aid employment. I was glad to see this party the other day hauling down the old flag of laissez faire in this country and adopting a flag for doing something for the workers. After all is said and done, the Conservative party, the founders and authors of protection, should not see it made the farce it is, and the consumer and labourer should be protected. We want something more practical like that, a flag emblazoning as a party policy the old square deal flag of Theodore Roosevelt and the new deal flag of Woodrow Wilson.
I am absolutely opposed to any change in the flag we have. It is only fair to the leader of the opposition (Mr. King), the then prime minister, that I should read the last two or three paragraphs of his reply, because I might be doing him an injustice if I did not read them at the present time in view of what has gone on before. He said:
Let me make it quite clear that this committee is simply a committee to study and report. The government has no intention of taking any action in this matter without taking parliament fully into its confidence. Any report that is made will be submitted to parliament at a time when this matter may come up for discussion. There is, I think, on the order paper at the present time a resolution in the name of an hon. member suggesting that the house should consider this matter. It may be of advantage to the house to have before it, when a motion of this kind is being debated, the different suggestions that may have been made, and something in the nature of a report on the part of a representative committee such as the one here referred to. That is the sole and only object of the order I have read to the house. I do not hesitate to say that the government would not for a moment consider adopting a national flag other than by resolution of this house and the full sanction of the parliament of Canada. But surely that question can be referred to in a calm manner as one worthy of consideration. . . . Speaking for myself, may T say that while I am able to sympathize with the point of view which would have for Canada a distinctive national flag, just as Australia. South Africa and other of the self-governing British dominions have their national flags, I would be proud and happy to have Canada continue in the future as in the past to have the union jack recognized ns the national flag, moreover. T would not lend my support to any proposal which did not include the union jack as the most distinctive feature of any national flag that at any time it might be proposed to adopt.
Those are the views of the Liberal leader. This putting of the union jack on a new Canadian flag is simply the thin end of the wedge; it is what has been done in this country in the past ten or fifteen years and what in this house some twelve years ago I called separatism. The only ties that bind us to the mother land are those of race and blood; that is all.
I might also mention the appeals to the privy council which some would like to eliminate as well. We are not a nation. It was said that Sir Wilfrid Laurier made us a nation. We are not a nation because we cannot protect our trade routes. We are to-day sponging upon the British taxpayers for our maritime freedom; we are depending upon them for their boats to keep open our trade routes. While we are talking of getting more trade, in time of trouble we have to run to the motherland. Nearly 100,000 Canadian ex-soldiers last August were in the city I come from for a week, and it was said in the hotels that S5 would cover all the damage they did while they were there. They were consulted on this matter and they were practically unanimous against making any change in the flag which they carried in Flanders and France for the people of this country.
I am absolutely opposed to the resolution and I doubt even if this parliament passes it, whether it would be recognized by any large body of public opinion in this country. I doubt whether the}' will even fly the flag on St. James street, Montreal. There are more important matters that might be considered instead of wasting the time of this honourable house in academic discussions about a flag, especially when we are not a nation and we have no navy to protect our shores except a few boats about the size of those one sees in the canal outside the Chateau Laurier. That is the type of boat the people of Canada have for preserving maritime freedom, yet we are talking about adopting a flag for our merchant marine. I have never been on the high seas. True it is, many hon. members have taken the opportunity in the recess of parliament to become international statesmen by going over to the League of Nations and possibly they have seen the flag of the merchant marine flying on the Atlantic, the Pacific, the South Australian ocean and all the oceans aordering on the seven seas, but this is no time for the passing of this resolution and if it is passed I -believe the new flag will never be flown to any extent in the soldier province of Ontario.


William Gordon Ernst: Mr. Speaker, the only consideration that impels me to take part in the debate at this time is the attitude of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) and the hon. member for East. Toronto (Mr. Church). May I first make a passing reference to the specific suggestion made by the hon. member for East Toronto? He said in. his rambling address, "Let us restore the Magna Charta
A Canadian Flag

to this country," and I noticed that those across the way applauded, led by the exPrime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I can quite understand that, because I know the leader of the opposition is familiar with the Magna Charta and the whys and wherefores of it. He knows it has long since been disproved that the Magna Charta was a charter of liberty to the people at large and that it was only a written guarantee for the privileges of the barons. I understand the applause of hon. gentlemen opposite.
With reference to the attitude taken by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest and by the hon. member for East Toronto, they tell us that they are interpreting public opinion in the city of Toronto. I prefer to believe and to hope they are not, but if they are, I can only say: Good Lord, deliver us!


John Ritchie MacNicol: On a point of privilege, I did not at any time during my remarks say that I was representing public opinion in Toronto. Someone on the opposite side said something about Toronto and I said that the question was not one of Toronto at all.


William Gordon Ernst: I am glad the hon. member says that he was not representing Toronto public opinion, because I am satisfied he was not.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. gentleman may like to quibble a little bit, but I did not use that expression at all. I represent a riding in Toronto. What I said was that I was not speaking as representing the public opinion of Toronto. Toronto has its own public opinion and the people there can speak for themselves.


William Gordon Ernst: 
Mr. COTNAM:: How do you explain that?


William Gordon Ernst: I do not want to elaborate. They are identical in that they are Canadian, but I am speaking now in a purely and technically economic sense. The interests of Ontario or British Columbia are not identical with those of the prairie provinces. And when those interests conflict, as they sometimes do, it is necessary, and must be as long as Canada is to remain a country, to bind it together by compromise. Under these circumstances I conceive that a common symbol which we all recognize as Canadian is something worth while, and a flag is such a symbol.
The same thing applies to race. We have in Canada two great races. Much of the tradition behind them differs, but the future which lies ahead ought to be a common future. If we had a flag to which they both could look, typifying Canada, it would help to weld those two great races in Canada into one. No policy can work in this country if, as has happened in the past-some of us here are not free from sin, and some hon. gentlemen on the other side also have tried to do it-we play one part of this country against another. If we go on doing that we shall destroy it. I for one want a flag to make my people realize that they are part of Canada and not of Nova Scotia alone.
When I hear the hon. member for Toronto Northwest talk about the five hundred thousand Canadian troops overseas, may I say that I was one out of the many. It is true we marched under the union jack, but of all the tunes to which we listened there was none that gave the thrill or throb of O Canada. I venture to say further that had we had a flag which was typically Canadian we would have been proud of it, and would have carried it with the same distinction with which we carried the maple leaf upon our shoulders. I do not want to discard the union jack; I believe firmly in the empire as being a benefit to the world and necessary to peace, but if Canadians are to be Canadians they must be Canadians as well as British citizens. If this country is to endure we need some symbol which is Canadian and Canadian only.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: Mr. Speaker, I had no desire to intervene in this debate but at the same time there are a few words I wish to say. The previous speaker has given only one reason why there should be any change in the flag of this 92582-9
country. He says there are four legations in foreign countries which fly a flag which is not rightly nor legally theirs. Who is objecting to this? The people in Japan or France or any of these other countries? I have heard of no objection from any of them. They are quite content to use the Canadian legation in those countries whatever flag flies over it.
For many years this proposal has been a hardy annual in this parliament-a great many more years perhaps than I care to look back upon. It has always been brought forward by hon. gentlemen who had some particular flag in their mind, and we have been pressed and harassed for years by people seeking our approval of their designs. Well, I do not claim to represent people as intelligent as they perhaps have in some parts of Nova Scotia, who can teach us how to speak English and that sort of thing, but I have yet to find a man in my riding who has any desire for a change in this flag. It is recognized in Canada that on our merchant ships we have the emblem sanctioned by parliament, and that our flag for use on the land is the union jack. We who went overseas were glad to go under that flag, we were proud of the flag, as are Canadians and Britishers the world over. A man who has been in a foreign country, and who, on approaching his own, sees for the first time the flag waving on the shore, is proud of his British connection. If he is a Canadian he does not need any distinctive flag for that purpose. With all this in my mind, and the union jack having been our flag for so many years, I still admit that something might be done to ease the mind of those who are so anxious for a change. Consequently I personally would be agreeable to amend the motion now before the house. Therefore I would move, seconded by Mr. Garland (Carleton):
That the motion be amended by striking out the last paragraph; and
Adding to the first paragraph the words "which shall be the union jack, upon which for use on marine vessels and for extraterritorial places the word 'Canada' and/or such national emblems as this parliament may approve may be placed, but such word and/or emblems shall not occupy more than one-eighth of the surface of the flag.


Mr. DAVID SPENCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is regrettable that so much time should be lost in this house in discussing unimportant questions of this kind, and I call this matter unimportant. It has been introduced repeatedly since 1921 from both sides of the house but, as some hon. members

A Canadian Flag

have said, I do not think there is any demand for a change except from one or two hon. members themselves. I very much regret having to go against the two estimable gentlemen who moved and seconded the resolution, but I have opposed this proposal on all occasions and I intend to oppose it again today, without regard to who moved and seconded it. Some may have thought that because the resolution was moved from the other side of the house in other years I was opposed to it for that reason only, but that is not so.
I have travelled over a large part of this world by land and sea; always I have been proud to be a Britisher and under the old union jack. I see no reason why we should not be satisfied with that flag. I do not think anything of an irritating nature should be introduced in this house at this time. This is the wrong time for that sort of thing. Changing the flag is not going to bring better times. We should be devoting our time to improving the conditions of the good people of Canada. God knows they need it. This depression is lasting too long. I do not believe it is with the approval of the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) that so much time is being lost in the discussion of the question of whether or not we should change our flag. We should be satisfied with what we have, as the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) and the hon. member for Bast Toronto (Mr. Church), have Said. My hon. friend from Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) made a very good speech, but I cannot agree with all he said. I think we should get down to business and do something ih the interests of Canada instead of losing tide talking about a new flag that will not put'a bite in the mouth of anyone who is hungry.


Mr. GEORGE SPOTTON (North Huron):: Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity let me congratulate you on your appointme'ilt to the position of Speaker of this house, for which you are eminently fitted by training, talent and temperament.
I do feel that if I remain silent at this moment I might be misunderstood by the people of my county. I have heard no one in the county of Huron suggest that he was t0o good for the union jack or that the uniofi jack was not good enough for him. While I have remained silent year after year when this question was under discussion, believing there was no danger of any action being taken, because of the temper of the chamber to-day I feel that I must place myself on record on this occasion. It is only too true that we might be better engaged in doing something which would relieve the suffering [Mr. Spence.J
of our people, instead of being engaged in this discussion, but since this matter is under consideration I feel that it is of sufficient importance to warrant my taking up some of the time of the house.
I notice that hon. gentlemen opposite arp very impatient and, indeed, are determined that they shall direct the course of this house. They forget, of course, that there was an election in 1930; they think they are still in the saddle. They are trying to tell this house what it shall take up and when, and during the recent by-elections in the province of Ontario they were trying to tell this government when the next election should be held. I well remember in the session of 1930 that when the then Prime Minister gave notice that he was going to dissolve the house and appeal to the country I said to one of his ministers, "Do you not think you are making a mistake in going to the country now, when conditions are not good?" He said, "Oh, no-


Mr. SANDERSON:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


George Spotton: -"we are just on the slide down, and conditions will be much worse next year. Therefore we are going to the country now."
Mr. SANDERSON; I rise to a point of order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


George Spotton: Then when it comes


Frederick George Sanderson: My point of order is that the hon. member for North Huron (Mr. Spotton) is entirely out of order in discussing, on the resolution now before the house, when an election will or will not take place. He is not speaking to the resolution at all.


George Spotton: I am explaining the attitude of the speakers on the other side of the chamber.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think the hon. member has been out of order as yet.


George Spotton: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, that I presume this government will settle the matter of an election when they get ready. It is their job.


Frederick George Sanderson: On another point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the hon. member for North Huron is entirely out of order in discussing when an election may take place, on a resolution such as this.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am still of the opinion I expressed a moment ago, that the hon. gentleman is in order.

A Canadian Flag


George Spotton: Consequently, after we have sat here for the last four years and allowed His Majesty's loyal opposition to fill the press of this country, to poison the wells of information, to scatter about this land misrepresentations of my leader, during this session I propose on every occasion to tell the people of this dominion what this administration has done. Hon. gentlemen opposite went to the country because conditions were going to be worse.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


George Spotton: Now they wish us to go to the country because they fear conditions are going to be better later on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The resolution-*


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member will please speak to the resolution before the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the point.


George Spotton: Having finished that, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I am proud to be a citizen of Canada, if that will meet with the approval of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am also proud to be a citizen of the British empire, and having a dual citizenship, of which I am thoroughly proud, and having lived under no other flag, I cannot follow two flags. The union jack is good enough for me and I propose to do everything I can to oppose any insidious attempts to weaken the British connection. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I shall be called to task for this, but since we are discussing the flag, and since members of the opposition are trying to direct me in the manner in which I shall speak, let me say that we have long been told that trade follows the flag.


Mr. POULIOT:: The manner or the banner?


George Spotton: Trade follows the flag.
A wayward child who leaves a good rural
home and goes to the city may forget to write home or to visit his parents. Having found new friends with whom he dines and wines, everything is fine as long as he has money to spend, but it usually happens that when he gets out of work he starts to write home and-I am not ridiculing him for it- comes back and puts his feet under the parental table. During the last regime practically all the trade routes of this country were closed. We lost the market to the south of us; we lost markets all over the world. Nation after nation erected trade barriers, quotas and the like, and then in times of dire distress we as a nation, which is just a collection of individuals, did like the individual of whom I have spoken-we turned our eyes to the motherland and the union jack. When the outside world turns its back upon us we can only look to the motherland, and, sir, they came over, with the union jack. I suppose, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to do like the radio announcers do, call out the station now and then in my remarks, but my subject for the moment is that trade does follow the flag. Consequently trade follows the union jack. As a result of the bringing together of the family of nations of the British commonwealth, first in the old land and then here, we had the empire trade agreements, and the union jack was the flag that was flying over them.
To prove that trade follows the flag, and particularly the union jack, so far as Canada is concerned, I wish to compare our exports to the motherland in 1934 as against 1933, to prove as I say that trade follows the flag. I did not propose to take this strain until my speech was attempted to be directed for the first time in my life by friend or foe, and so I think I am perfectly within my rights.
The answers are inspiring in so far as Canada is concerned ; and very significant in so far as the Imperial Trade Agreements go. It is enlightening to deal item by item with several of these scheduled commodities, showing the increase in values of exports to the United Kingdom in the period of a single year:
Commodity-	Exports, 1933	Exports, 1934Fresh apples	. bids.	1,677,000	bbls.	3,057,000$	6,930,000	$	11,400,000Canned pears	. lbs.	3,900,000	lbs.	7,180,000Canned salmon	. $	1,985,000	$	2.600.000Bacon and ham	. $	3,430,000	$	12,360,000Eggs	. $	4,000	$	400,000Butter	. $	350,000	$	665.000Fish (fresh and frozen)	. $	410.000	$	790.000Timber (including partially mnntifnct m od wood).	. $	5,066.000	$	11.950.000Copper (primary forms)	. $	4.460.000	$	6.635.000Copper (rods, sheets, etc )	. $	1.370,000	$	3.170,000Pig lead	. $	1,810.000	$	3.280.000* $	],9(10,000	$	4,300.000Asbestos	
92582-9^	. $	85 000	$	315,000
A Canadian Flag


An hon. MEMBER:: What about lobsters?


George Spotton: They mostly remained at
home. Then mark this:	Of bacon and ham
we exported $3,430,000 worth in 1933 and $12,360,000 worth in 1934. Of eggs we exported $4,000 worth in 1933 and $400,000 worth in 1934. Of butter we exported $350,000 worth in 1933 and $665,000 worth in 1934. Of timber we exported $5,000,000 worth in 1933 and almost $12,000,000 worth in 1934. Now if there is no further suggestion as to the direction of my speech I shall finish that part of it, but if not, I shall leave it aside for the moment. We might be better engaged at the moment if there was no danger of unholy hands being laid on the union jack.
I think, sir, that Tennyson in the long ago, looking beyond the hills, foresaw the recent drawing together of the commonwealth of nations. You know there have been Liberal speakers in the recent by-elections who twitted some of us because we never mentioned the name of Bennett. Well, if that did happen it certainly did not happen with me. As an old Presbyterian I believe that the Lord has always raised up a man in every crisis in the British empire who has been big enough to pull that part of the empire through, and I believe verily that he always has a man in the making. It may be that Bennett's work might be soon finished, like Lloyd George or Kitchener, or many other .men I might mention, but for the moment let me just say this. The mover of this resolution said how enthusiastic it would make the school children of this dominion for Canada to have a flag of her own. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the mover and seconder of this resolution have not been in touch with school houses or school children for a long time because love of the flag and loyalty to the flag is interwoven in all our school literature. Tennyson long ago said:
Sharers of our glorious past Brothers must we part at last?
Shall we not through good and ill Cling to one another still?
Britain's myriad voices call Sons be welded one and all,
Into one imperial whole,
One with Britain, heart and soul;
One fleet, one flag, one throne Britons hold your own!


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the hon. member permit a question? I would ask the hon. member for North Huron, now that he is travelling all over the map on this resolution, to tell us what he has to say about the restoration of titles.


George Spotton: Mr. Speaker, I was going
to say that our school books would have to be rewritten-


Frederick George Sanderson: I asked the hon. member about titles, not school-books. He made a speech two years ago.


George Spotton: Children and other people ask a lot of questions.


Frederick George Sanderson: Titles.


George Spotton: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for South Perth will allow me to proceed I shall do so. When interrupted I was proceeding to say that our children love and have been taught to love the songs in our school-houses and the union jack which floats over every public school in my county. That love will not be supplanted by any newfangled flag. The pioneers who came to my county never thought they would raise a generation which for one moment would even suggest or hint that the union jack which they brought with them was not good enough.
There is a danger I should like to mention, Mr. Speaker I have not a word to say about any person who has come to this country from any land. Every citizen of our country has been permitted or invited to come consequently we should treat them as brothers and sisters; but I do say if it had not been for the million of immigrants who came in between the years 1921 and 1930, and particularly the half million which came during the last three years of the King administration we would not have as great a problem as we have to-day. We talk about assimilating races. Well, you start first with your sons and your daughters. Start in a practical fashion and then talk to me about the assimilation of races. It will come, through a long period of time, but the point is that most of these races do not wish to be assimilated. I do say however they should know that when they come to a part of the British empire they will have all the privileges afforded by our flag, the union jack. The new member from Toronto has stated that we have unprotected trade routes. Speaking in a church not long ago I discussed the flag, a subject which has been brought up many times and a returned missionary said the only protection he carried was the union jack on his breast. I must say that at this time I have more sympathy for the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. McIntosh') than I had before. I thought he was perhaps the only man in the house who would bring up this subject. I believe I told him once that as an old teacher he should look up the old school-

A Canadian Flag
book where I believe it was Barbara Frietchie who loved her flag so much that:
She leaned far out on the window-sill,
And shook it forth with a royal will.
"Shoot, if you must, this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag," she said.
I would to God that that might be the spirit which could be inculcated in every youth in our country.
Upon other occasions in this session I propose to do my full measure of battling, I have decided we should not let these foolish arguments go unchecked this session as we have done in the past four years.


Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, this question seems to
have centred about the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario. I have not practised flag waving at all. As other hon. members have said I hope I am a good British subject and a first class Canadian citizen. It seems to me that what we require in Canada is cooperation in extending and building up a finer Canadian spirit than has sometimes been exhibited.
This motion is for the purpose of establishing a national flag. I must say I do not know the particular object which could be served by having another flag. People of this country so far as I can ascertain have not in any way shown any dislike for the union jack. For many years the dominions in all parts of the globe have spoken imperially and in the different conferences we have always stressed the point that we desired to continue to remain a part of the British commonwealth of nations. Up to the year 1926 we had considered our status in the empire from a legal and constitutional standpoint. It appeared to many people including myself that the tendency was toward separation rather than a continuation of a connection with the British empire. I think that feeling was apparent throughout the empire. The result was that when in 1930 representatives from various parts of the commonwealth assembled in London there was a desire, as evidenced by the addresses, to strengthen the British connection. It was urged that we had attained a certain amount of national or inter-imperial independence which greatly extended the powers of the dominions. There was a feeling however that something was lacking, and the result was that all the representatives at the conference stressed the necessity fbr something to bind the various parts of the empire together. It may be that that conference did not produce a great deal, but we find that later on those same dominions joined in an effort to strengthen their connection with the
result that the agreements of the year 1932 showed conclusively the dominions desired to remain closely connected with the motherland and with one another. In all our conferences and throughout our history our progress has been made under the union jack as it exists to-day.
For a few moments I should like to refer to those tragic days between 1914 and 1919. We saw a large army, to a great extent voluntary, proceeding across the seas to assist the motherland in her efforts to establish what she considered right. Those 500,000 men were assembled under the flag of Great Britain. So far as they were concerned there was no desire to have a distinctive flag over them. That was not necessary in order to ensure their loyalty and allegiance to the principles of British institutions and British justice. They did their best for the empire and in their great effort probably did more to advance Canadian sentiment or Canadian consciousness than had been done previously in our history. It is unfortunate that an event of such a tragic nature was necessary in order to bring about that sentiment. An observer whose statements I have read recently has said that one day he was standing near Poperinghe in the war region when a division of the Canadian army was marching towards the Somme. He states that for the first time in his life he felt a real thrill when he saw those men marching along to Canadian tunes and Canadian songs with the union jack at their head. He then began to feel that Canada had a sentiment. And that is the sentiment we ought to try to continue to-day. In my riding, which is part of the city of Toronto, there is no desire for a new flag. The sentiment is that the union jack is quite sufficient for all purposes; it represents the best there is in British traditions and in the history of the British people. It represents the best that is meant by the words Britain and British.
As regards the proposal to make the flag distinctive, we do not need anything of the kind in Canada. It might be advisable and in the interests of this country, for the sake of distinctiveness, that on the union jack there should be some design that would not to any great extent encroach upon the design of the flag as it stands now-merely something to bring out the distinctiveness of the flag as appropriate to Canada itself. But that would apply only to extraterritorial purposes, for instance, for use overseas by our embassies, in legations and so on. At any rate, so far as my own constituency is concerned, the sentiment there is that the union jack is quite
A Canadian Flag

sufficient for Canada and that any change that might be made should be simply an addition in a small way to make it distinctive of our country when it is flown abroad.


Mr. W. F. GARLAND (Carleton):: I second the motion of the hon. member for Parry Sound for this reason. I am very much in favour of the union jack 'being left as it is, and speaking for the county of Carleton I can say that there has been no agitation to have the flag changed. In fact, if there has been any agitation in the county the feeling has been that the flag should be left as it is. I deem it my duty as the representative of that county to voice the opinion of the electors to this effect.
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Parry Sound in which he strikes out the last paragraph provides:
That the motion be amended by striking out the last paragraph; and
Adding to the first paragraph the words "which shall be the union jack, upon which for use on marine vessels and for extraterritorial places the word 'Canada' and/or such national emblems as this parliament may jpprove may be placed, but such word and/or emblems shall not occupy more than one-eighth of the surface of the flag."
That to my mind would cover everything that has been stated this afternoon. So far as Canada is concerned, the union jack would remain as it is, except that for marine and extraterritorial purposes some emblem could be added as suggested. That would cover some of the objections raised by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst).
I do not want to take up the time of the house because I realize that we have more important matters to discuss; indeed, I do not see why this subject was brought up at all. The flag as it stands is good enough. It has been good enough for every Canadian since 1867 and before, and as the hon. member for East Toronto said, it is the flag under which the soldiers fought, and the flag under which they will fight again should the occasion arise.
I am very much in sympathy with the amendment and I will support it. Should the amendment be lost I will oppose the resolution as it stands.


Mr. H. A. MULLINS (Marquette):: I
have lived under this old flag probably as long as any man in this chamber, and God forbid that there should be any change in it or that we should have any new method or doctrine such as is proposed by the younger men like the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Dickie). While I was travelling in the United States a short time ago I was asked to address

a service club and in the room the union jack and the stars and stripes were placed side by side. I then quoted these lines;
Your flag, my flag-how much they hold.
Your land and my land are safe within their fold.
The union jack stands at the top of this tower and God forbid that the day should ever come when it is taken down, at any rate so long as I occupy a seat in this chamber.
I am going to be brief because I do not want to take up the time of the house, but I do not want any change in the old flag- certainly not during the period that is left to me to be a member of this house.


Mr. W. E. TUMMON (South Hastings):: Notwithstanding all the arguments that have been advanced by those who have spoken in favour of a change in the flag, I am yet to be impressed that Canada needs a change in the flag, even though in any design that might be chosen it were provided that the union jack must be conspicuous. The argument put forward by hon. gentlemen that other parts of the empire have adopted a national flag does not carry great weight with me. Because one person does a certain thing is no reason why I should do it; because my neighbour intends to keep up with the Joneses is no reason why I should do the same.
I have seen numerous designs submitted by those who are in favour of a national flag for Canada but I have yet to see a design for which I should be content to vote, even if I were in favour of a change, which I am not. If those who advocate a national flag for Canada are sincere why should they not submit to this house a design and let the house decide between that design and the union jack? If that were done then we should have something definite to vote upon. But why ask this house to vote for a resolution which, if carried, implies that the house is no longer satisfied with the union jack, when those who propose the change offer nothing to take the place of our flag. Let me say to those who submit this resolution year after year that until they bring forward something better than the union jack I for one will continue to vote against their proposal.


Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: Mr. Speaker, before this resolution goes to a vote, I wish to register my protest against any change in the union jack. In the part of the country from which I come there is no agitation for a change; there is only an agitation by an organization of persons calling themselves the Native Sons of Canada and if anybody could see the abortion of a flag

A Canadian Flag
they have there to take the place of the union jack, he would be surprised; it is enough to make the majority of hon. members in the house vote against the resolution. From reading reports of their meetings I am convinced the Native Sons of Canada is an anti-British organization; it is certainly not a Conservative one. In South Africa they have had a bitter controversy about the flag and the result is that now it is the law of that country to fly the British flag with the South African.. We do not want to have any of that bitter controversy in this country. I may say that there are very strong social organizations and especially the returned soldier bodies who are bitterly opposed to any change in the union jack and unless there is a more pronounced agitation than there is at the present time for a change, I do not think we should vote in this house on the resolution which has been brought before us this afternoon. If we do so a wrong impression may go out of the country and, as the previous speaker has said, the world will think we are dissatisfied with the union jack.
In 1929 I went up the Peace river a hundred miles beyond Head of Rail and what impressed me in that country more than anything else was that during the two or three days I was up there I never saw a flag flying from the masthead anywhere except the union jack. AH foreigners who come to this country know what the union jack stands for and they are glad of its protection. If we make some new design of a flag for this country, it will take centuries to know what it stands for.
The hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst), speaking about the legations, mentioned the foreign legation. London, England, I would like to inform him, is not a foreign legation; it is a British legation. I do not know that there is anything more I can add to what has already been said against the resolution.


Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I'did not intend to take part in this debate, but I am more or less prompted to do so by the speech of the hon. member for West Essex (Mr. Robinson) who has preceded me. Referring to the development of public opinion which in Canada is certainly very great in favour of the adoption of a national flag, he said something which was not very complimentary to the order of the Native Sons of Canada which he qualified as being an anti-British organization. I have in the past belonged to the Native Sons of Canada; I have no mandate to speak for them, but I believe they are as loyal as any
order to which the hon. member may belong. I may add this: not only the Native Sons of Canada but many other associations have expressed themselves to be in favour of the adoption of a Canadian flag and I shall recall to the hon. member who represents the city of Windsor (Mr. Robinson) a convention of the Kiwanians held in that city in 1931 and attended by thousands of members coming from different parts of Canada. I have before me a resolution which was there and then unanimously adopted by the members present at that convention. With your permission, sir, I shall read that resolution:
Whereas, in the last few years, an ever increasing number of associations, public bodies and individuals have advocated the adoption of a distinctive national flag for Canada, which would distinguish our dominion from other parts of the British empire.
Whereas, the union jack is the only official Canadian flag on land and, among the majority of citizens, there is a widespread idea that the Canadian merchant marine red ensign is the flag of Canada, an idea formed by the action of the Dominion government in authorizing its official use on Canadian public buildings, outside of Canada, to distinguish Canadian from British diplomatic headquarters.
Whereas, all British dominions, except Canada, have officially adopted distinctive national flags, so as to distinguish their country from other dominions of the British empire, supplementing the union jack which stands for empire unity.
Whereas, the government of Canada, in 1925, has judged this question important enough to name a committee to study and report on the adoption of a national flag, but the project was indefinitely postponed, although over one hundred designs for a new Canadian flag were considered by the committee.
Whereas, the above facts reflect a powerful opinion, throughout the Dominion of Canada, for the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag, a flag which would designate Canada. Canadian institutions and Canadian people, and make for better Canadian citizenship one of the objectives of Kiwanis.
Be it resolved that the Kiwanis club of Quebec adopts the principle of a distinctive national flag for Canada, believing that it will promote Canadian citizenship, patriotism and goodwill among all classes, races and peoples of Canada and. without suggesting a design insists that no distinctive Canadian flag should '<e adopted which does not. in its design, give first place to the union jack, symbol of empire unity.
Be it further resolved that this resolution be presented to the members of Kiwanis in convention at Windsor. Ontario, and sent to committee on public affairs for Canada, so that necessary steps will be taken to ask the Dominion government to reconsider the question of adopting a national flag for the Dominion of Canada.
That resolution was moved by Mr. Owen Callary, president of the Montreal club, and seconded by Doctor A. A. Hicky of the Ottawa club.
A Canadian Flag

Not only did the Kiwanians unanimously pass a resolution in favour of adopting a national flag for Canada, but the Association of Canadian Clubs which, if I understand aright, is not at all a disloyal institution, has also approved of the adoption of a national flag. I happen to be vice-president of the Association of Canadian Clubs, and therefore I know whereof I speak. In 1929 in the Canadian Nation, published by the Association of Canadian Clubs in Ottawa, there is the following article:
Flag Question
_ There are, it is said, some sixty-four flags in the British empire. One of them is the marine flag, the red ensign of Canada. But on land. Canadians have not a flag of their own, though they frequently use the marine flag for land purposes. What reason is there that makes it impossible for Canada to have a flag which may be properly and legally flown? Surely, there is no reason which would not also apply to the royal navy, to the commonwealth of Australia, to the province of Nova Scotia, to the crown colonies? In Canada, the reason there is no Canadian flag is. it would appear, the totally unfounded fear held' by a minority that any combination of the union jack with some Canadian symbol means a weakening of Canada's attachment to the British empire. Essentially, and, as a matter of course. Canadians want the union jack to be a major part of their flag on land, as it already is on sea. That being so, there is no argument that holds water against having such a flag. What argument is there that would not also apply to sixty-four other British flags? To the fact that Canadians have a flag so soon as they leave Canada? If. as the dubious feel, the empire, which has withstood the onslaughts of Louis. Napoleon and imperial Germany, will totter the moment Canadians have a flag as much their own as the Australian flag is Australian's, why did the empire not totter when the red ensign floated from the parliament buildings, as it did for many years? Why were Canadians not accused of a want of imperial loyalty when the Canadian corps in France flew a distinctively Canadian flag? When Bernier carried a Canadian flag to explore the arctic? There is no weight in the argument of disloyalty.
Canadians are proud to be British subjects and always have been. But do they not also want a flag, a symbol of their own to show their own pride in their own part of their own empire? We are not speaking categorically on this subject. We are only attempting to reflect an opinion which is undoubtedly powerful throughout the dominion.
In 1933 I had the honour of being invited by the Canadian Bar Association to address their annual convention at Ottawa. I chose as the title of my address, The Evolution of Canadian Autonomy, and I beg to quote a passage from what I then said:

Who has forgotten the stand taken by Sir John A. Macdonald in selecting a Canadian flag which, as you know, was
"The red ensign of the British merchant ships with the Canada coat of arms in the fly."
There I quoted Mr. John S. Ewart, a distinguished lawyer of Ottawa, who in The Kingdom Papers wrote as follows:
After floating for thirty years over every dominion public building in Canada it was through foolish misapprehension displaced and the union jack restored.
And I went on:
South Africa, New Zealand, the Irish Free State have each a national flag. Canada has none yet. So long as it has none, can it be said to be a sovereign state? Mr. Ewart says no. I do not quite agree with him, but I submit that it is not indicative of much national pride. It is, therefore, opportune that appropriate steps be taken to satisfy the aspirations of the majority of Canadians who are desirous of having a national flag which will embody the aspirations of the French and English elements and be symbolical of the heroic deeds of our great dead' and the great aspirations of our young generations.
Mr. Speaker, I do not want to compliment myself by saying that that passage received the unanimous applause of all the lawyers present, irrespective of race and party. I desire only to show that really there is in many quarters in Canada, in every province, a strong sentiment in favour of the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag. I need not say that those who are in favour of the adoption of a national flag are not at all desirous of displacing the union jack in the love and affection which every Canadian citizen feels for it, but they wish, as did the citizens of Australia, South Africa and of all the British autonomous dominions, that Canada shall go forward, that Canada adopt a national flag which, as I said before, shall be symbolical of the heroic deeds of our great dead and of the aspirations of the young generations.


Mr. J. H. MYERS (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have to disagree for once with my hon. friend the member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). In the province from which I come we have bodies that are very active: we have a branch of the Canadian legion; we have also boards of trade that take a very keen interest in any and every question affecting the welfare of our province and of Canada in general. But never on one occasion have I yet heard this flag question raised in the province of Prince Edward Island. Down there we are satisfied to go on as we have for many years under the grand old union jack, and I cannot see that any good purpose would be served by mutilating the surface of that flag either by additions or by taking anything away. It is a well known fact

Housing Policy-Mr. Church
that Canada is entirely under the protection of the British navy, over which the union jack flies, and it is my impression that at least for many years to come we should remain as we are and keep the grand old union jack as the flag of Canada.
I shall therefore feel it my duty, in view of the fact that no move has been made in our province, so far as I am aware, to change our flag, either by additions to the union jack or by the substitution of an entirely different flag, to oppose any move towards a change in this matter.


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: The department over which I have the honour to preside is called upon very frequently to decide on the use of the flag on official occasions, and we have received during the past four years more or less correspondence with regard to the adoption of a national flag. In the hope that if the consideration of this question is further deferred-not postponed indefinitely-during the present session I may be able after consultation with my colleagues to make some definite constructive suggestion in the matter-in the hope but not in the sure confidence that I may be able to do so- I move, seconded by Mr. Guthrie, the adjournment of this debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Get on with social reform.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it is reasonable to call it six o'clock. I therefore move that the house do now adjourn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not see why we should adjourn. The next motion on the order paper is one that relates to housing and the necessity of some program of reconstruction-


Hugh Guthrie: Then I withdraw my motion. We will go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we ought to get ahead with the social legislation as fast as we can.


An hon. MEMBER:: For ten years you did nothing.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: This is not an adjournment session; this is a business session.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Adjourn and go to the country.



HOUSING POLICY


Thomas Langton Church: That in the opinion of this house Canada should inaugurate at once a national housing, building and reconstruction policy adapted to its circumstances, and that such a policy is an economic and social necessity and in the best interests of the people of our country.
He said: I think this resolution is a most important one for the house to consider at the present time. It proposes that Canada shall inaugurate at once a national housing, building and reconstruction policy, adapted to its circumstances. I do not propose that we should go as far as they did in England or the United States, but rather that a survey might be made by the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Labour to find out in what way the federal authority could deal with this problem. Such a policy is at the present time an economic and social necessity in the interests of the people of Canada. Unemployment is linked up with this problem, so is the health of the community. One of the reasons for the mother country recovering far faster than either the United States of America or Canada is the fact that she has taken up many of these economic problems in a big way. For example she has had sickness and unemployment insurance and old age pensions for twenty-three years, with the result that when the depression came on she was better able to deal with the evil. Also nearly one hundred years ago Lord Shaftsbury introduced his legislation to eliminate child labour and sweat shops. Those are among the main reasons why the mother country is recovering to-day more rapidly than either the United States or Canada, although they have largely the same problems.
It is the duty of a Christian country, a Christian community, to do all in its power to see to it that its citizens live in healthy homes. Housing cannot in any locality be separated from the problems of roads, light, water, sanitation or other similar questions.
One of the evils of to-day is the high mortgage rates that are charged. They are retarding progress and recovery. As I say, I cannot emphasize too strongly the necessity of the government taking some action to reduce these mortgage rates which are bearing so heavily on the poor people. In the city from which I come many old workers are losing their little homes because they cannot pay the high mortgage rates which are asked. I hope that in some way perhaps through the provinces and the municipalities, the government may take some action so that loans may be made at reasonable rates of interest to aid the reconstruction of old buildings and the construction of new houses. I believe such a step will be in the right direction, that it
Housing Policy-Mr. Church

will stimulate the building industry and create more jobs and greater employment. If such a step should be taken I believe property owners should be given the right to renew their mortgages at lower rates without the payment of any bonus. Obviously it is unfair to permit people to borrow money on new buildings at lower rates than are charged on existing mortgages. Such an arrangement in my opinion would give an unfair advantage to one class of people in selling their property in competition with others. It stands to reason that if lower rates of interest were provided a great majority of the existing mortgages would not be disturbed; the mortgagees would renew the mortgages at lower rates.
In Great Britain the Tory administration has done a great deal towards solving the housing problem. The government has definitely accepted responsibility for providing adequate housing for every working family in the land at rents within the ability of the worker to pay. There the objective is to put every family in an adequate house, and to abolish all slums. The things that Great Britain has done since the war in regard to housing are simply amazing. Local authorities and specially chartered private enterprises have built houses for 1,160,294 families of workers in the last few years, while unassisted private enterprise has built 1,150,520 more houses, some of them, though not all, for workers. So we find that nearly 3,000,000 new dwellings have been put up by old, conservative, slow-going England since the war. In Washington there are hundreds of these wretched shacks within sight of the capitol dome, occupied at very high rents, many of them unfit for human habitation, yet nothing is being done.
I believe that housing will do more than any other agency to put men back at work. In the constituency of East Toronto which I now represent there are some 300 large and small industries. I was asked to bring this question to the attention of parliament. I admit that under the British North America Act it is hard to solve any of the economic problems of this country. I think it might very well be called the passing the buck act, because that is about what it amounts to in regard to getting anything done in a practical way to relieve the workers of this country under the economic conditions from which they have been suffering for years. Among those who have been driven to the wall in these days of economic stress and strain are many skilled workers, bricklayers, plasterers, carpenters, lathers, plumbers and others. Many of these

men are losing their small homes through lack of employment. This question has been studied very carefully in many of the cities of this country, as well as in the United States and in England.
Since it is almost six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I should be glad to postpone the remainder of my remarks until to-morrow, if it is another private members' day, though I am ready to go on now. I am just coming to a report of housing conditions in the city lof Toronto, to which I should like to refer for a few minutes. In Toronto a committee was appointed to make a survey, and that committee found conditions which should not exist in any large city, though the city council of Toronto is one of the most active and progressive councils to be found in any part of the British empire. I move the adjournment of the debate until to-morrow.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thought what the bon. member meant was to call it six o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, January 24, 1935