1946-04-04

Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour) :: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I promised a reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) as to whether a request had been received from the united steelworkers union to convene a joint conference of the steel manufacturers and representatives of the steelworkers union to discuss the matter of wage increases. I think the best answer would be for me to refer my hon. friend to Hansard of September 12, 1945, page 111, where my colleague the Minister of Reconstruction (Mr. Howe) answered a similar question put by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell).
I feel that I should, however, state that negotiations are going on in respect to em-

Judges Act

ployees of the Steel Company of Canada of Hamilton. At the suggestion of the Minister of Labour for Ontario, Hon. Charles Daley, a conciliation officer was appointed and reported that a conciliation board should be constituted.
The board has been established, the members being His Honour Judge M. A. Millar, Mr. J. S. D. Tory, K.C. and Mr. J. E. McGuire.
I have not as yet received a report from the conciliation board. However, I have every expectancy that a solution will be found.
Of course, the conciliation board will not be dealing with the question of wages. The employees are asking for increases and will, of course, apply through the regional board for Ontario, and, if dissatisfied with the decision, may appeal to the national board.
I am informed the situation is that the application is under consideration by the regional board at Toronto.
I should mention that negotiations are going on in connection with an application for an increase in wages of certain employees of the steel mill at Sydney. In this case a decision of the Nova Scotia regional war labour board has been appealed to the national board and a hearing is scheduled to take place in a few days.
Under the regulations those doing the collective bargaining for the employees in the various steel plants are as far as I am aware conducting their business through the boards established for this purpose in the regular way, and I am very hopeful that a mutually satisfactory settlement of all differences will be reached.
While I am answering the question of the hon. member for Vancouver East on this subject, I deprecate "strike talk". Every once in a while I read in the papers or hear on the radio that someone, and I often wonder who the someone is, is predicting a strike. In my judgment it would be much better if the predictions were all to the effect that a settlement was going to take place. Indeed it might not be out of place, Mr. Speaker, to mention that out of 3,478 cases which have been before the national and regional labour relations boards, strikes have only taken place in eight cases which in my judgment is a very good record, and I compliment both labour and management for this record.



JUDGES ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) moved for Aave to introduce bill No. 13, to amend the Judges Act.
Hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. CHURCH:: The proposed bill amends what is known as the Judges Act, chapter 105 of the revised statutes of 1927. The amendment consists of two sections. Section 1 provides that judges appointed by the parliament of Canada are not to act as commissioners or arbitrators on any commission or inquiry. The frequency of recent years with which judges are drafted for all kinds of such work impairs the efficient administration of justice and sojne-times causes congestion in the law courts, and, as they are largely only fact-finding commissions when appointed, they duplicate the efficient powers and functions of parliament, of the committees thereof, and of the many outside boards of recent innnovation in war work. This causes delays; and they are slowly building up a system of judicial commission government in Canada.
The second section deals with judges to be bound by decisions of the courts of final appeal-the privy council or any other court of final appeal; the decisions of such courts are authoritative. The legal maxim or doctrine known as stare decisis is adopted in this amendment, and this bill will be law for all Canada, notwithstanding the provisions of any law, statute, usage, custom, or doctrine of law to the contrary. Decided cases which lay down a rule of law are authoritative and must be followed. Decisions of the judicial, committee of the privy council, as the court of last resort, will be binding on all Canadian courts.
Motion agreed and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many applications, by provinces (a) have been made; (b) have been granted, for loans under thie Industrial Development Bank?
2.	What is the total amount, by provinces, of loans so granted?


Mr. MAYHEW:: 1 and 2: The Industrial Development Bank is not a branch of the dominion government but a subsidiary of the Bank of Canada.
Section 29 (1) of the Industrial Development Bank Act requires that "The bank shall, within twenty-one days following the end of each calendar month, make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance in such form as he may prescribe, a statement of its assets and liabilities at the close of business on the last day of the preceding month." This statement as at February 28, 1946, appeared

Questions
in the Canada Gazette of March 23, 1946, and showed loans and investments (excluding dominion government securities) at $1,794,472.07.
In addition, section 29 (2) provides that "The bank shall make up and transmit to the Minister of Finance at least once in its fiscal year or more frequently if so directed by the minister, in such form as he may prescribe, a classification of loans and investments and of the loans guaranteed by it." This return, tabled in the House of Cdmmons on December 6, 1945, showed that on September 30, 1945, there were 80 authorized credits on the books of the bank totalling $3,198,050, of which $871,752 was outstanding as shown by the balance sheet!
The classification of loans and investments by provinces at September 30, 1945, was shown by this return as follows:
Authorized Outstanding
Prince Edward Island $	 $
Nova Scotia 			 115,000	
New Brunswick	.... 200,000	66,064Quebec 	.... 1,052,500	459,912Ontario 	.... 1,192,550	212,189Manitoba 	.... 335,000	105,000Saskatchewan ...	.... 30,000	17,100Alberta 	
135,500	British Columbia	and	Territories ..	.... 137,500	11,487$ 3,198,050	$ 871,752



WAR ASSETS


Mr. PROBE:: 1.	What surplus commodities have been sold by War Assets Corporation or other agencies to or for foreign accounts since V-E day and what unit amounts of each have been disposed of to each country involved and at what sate price?
2.	Where paid for other than by cash, what amounts are now owing .to Canada by each country involved?
3.	What firms or individuals, if any, have received or will receive commissions on the sales mentioned in question (1) and to what amounts each?


Mr. HOWE:: This question comes in the class of those which can be more conveniently and more fully answered in the committee which is dealing with War Assets Corporation. The hon. member who asked the question is a member of that committee, and the officers will be in attendance there who can give firsthand answers to the questions asked. In addition I would point out that we have large contracts being negotiated with two or three 63260-35J
countries, and it would be very difficult indeed to bring down a reply at this particular time. I hope the question can be dropped.
Question dropped.



SALES TAX-CALEDONIA FARMS LIMITED

Mr. PROBE:: 1.	Has the Caledonia Farms Limited made restitution of the $40,000 sales tax deficiencies claimed by the Department of National Revenue following the companies breach of the Special War Revenue Act?
2.	If not, what was the settlement arrived at with respect to the unpaid sales tax?


Mr. McCANN:: 1.	The case tried on February 3, 1944, was not instituted by the excise division, of the Department of National Revenue, but apparently by wartime prices and trade board.
An assessment for sales tax amounting to $41,808.76 against Caledonia Farms Limited was made in October, 1944.
The company was adjudged bankrupt on January 26, 1945, and a claim filed with the trustee on February 10, 1945, for the outstanding indebtedness. No dividend has yet been paid by the trustee.
2.	No settlement was arrived at with respect to the unpaid sales tax.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD-FILMS WITHHELD FROM DISTRIBUTION IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Mr. DORION:: 1.	From November 1, 1929 to August 1, 1944, were any films produced by the National Film Board banned in the .province of Quebec- for the reason they constituted communist propaganda?
2.	If so, how many?


Mr.   GLAXTON@: 1 and 2. No, but, out of the five or six hundred films in the French and English languages issued by the national film -board in Quebec since the board was established in 1939, one film was withheld from distribution in Quebec at the request of Quebec authorities. Neither this -nor any film had any communistic propaganda but objection was taken to this film -because of the picture presented of the Russian revolution. The film showed the fighting achievements of Russia at a time when Canadians were glad Russia was fighting on the same side we were on, and it was a definite function- of the national film board to Show what all our allies were doing. As the first function of the board under its act is to produce films "designed to help Canadians in all parts of Canada to understand the ways of living and the problems of Canadians in other -parts," a very large number of films has been made about Quebec and its people and these have

Questions as Orders jor Returns
been distributed throughout Canada and in many parts of the world. Among many of the finest films produced are "Alexis Tremblay, Habitant," "Pays de Quebec," "Pays de mon Coeur," "Chercheurs de la Mer," "Vallee des Dynamos," and "Sept Peintres de Quebec." Even now films are being prepared to show the beauties and resources of the eastern townships and the Saguenay.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	How many manufacturers, if any, have been allowed to .add a surcharge to the sale of their .products?
2.	To what .products do these surcharges
.apply?	. .
3.	What was the date on which permission was granted to add each of these surcharges ?
4.	What was the amount of the surcharge in each case?
5.	In what instances were .additional surcharges .permitted (a) what did they amount to; (b) from when did they date?
6.	Are these surcharges absorbed or passed on to the consumer?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-STAFF
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many (a) investigators; (b) other officials, officers and staff, are now in the employ of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board?
2.	What amount has .been paid out since the
inception of the hoard to date, in respect of such employees, for (a) salaries; (b) fees; (c) expenses?	.
3.	What .is the total expenditure to date since the inception of the board for (a) rentals; (b) other expenditures excepting salaries, fees and expenses ?


WARTIME PRICES AND TRADE BOARD-PROSECUTIONS-LEGAL FEES
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	How many prosecutions, by provinces, have been proceeded with to date for infraction of any of the regulations of the Wartime Prices and Trade Board?
2.	What is the total amount of fines and costs that have been recovered?
3.	(-a) What is the total amount of legal fees *and disbursements that have been paid to counsel .and solicitors in respect of such prosecutions; (,b) what .amounts are still due?


CANADIAN PRISONERS OP WAR-RED CROSS
Mr. PROBE:: 1.	How many Canadian prisoners of war were in enemy hands in each year from 1940 to 1945?
2.	How many food parcels were sent from Canada from the Red Cross or other account for distribution to Canadian prisoners of war in
[Mr. Claxton.l
each enemy camp in each of these years and w-hat was the cost of awards in each stated year ?
3.	How many Canadian Red Cross personnel .are at present overseas, in what countries are they stationed and what is the nature of their present duties?


RADIO BROADCASTING-PROGRAMMES SPONSORED BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	What departments, or agencies, of the dominion government sponsor programmes over the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, or any other broadcasting stations throughout Canada or the United States?
2.	What .are these programmes?
3.	What is the object in each case of such a broadcast?
4.	What is the cost per week for each of these .broadcasts ?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. JACKMAN (Rosedale):: I should like to ask the Minister of Reconstruction if he is prepared to supply housing accommodation to the fifty-three Canadians in Toronto, living in one house equipped with one bath, who are now threatened with eviction if the house is condemned, which matter I brought to his attention in a speech in this house on Monday, March 25.


Clarence Decatur Howe: The question should more properly be asked of the Minister of Finance, who operates emergency shelter.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I address the question, then, to the Minister of Finance. There are fifty-three people living in one house in Toronto, which house is about to be condemned, and there is no place for these people to live. I mentioned this matter on March 25 in the house, and have had no answer.


Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the speech made by my hon. friend on March 25, but I will bring the case to the attention of the emergency housing authorities.


Mr. ROWE:: Or the Minister of Reconstruction.



ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Will the Minister of National Defence announce the closing date for applications for entrance

Canada Day
to the Royal Military College? My question is prompted by to-day's press release giving similar information about Royal Roads.


Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of National Defence):: I did not receive notice of the question. The whole matter of the future of the Royal Military College is now under consideration and I hope to be able to make a statement in that regard in the very near future.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Cariboo):: May I ask the postmaster general a question? I am informed that it takes five months to send a parcel from British Columbia to Norway and it costs a small fortune. Is there any likelihood of quicker transit and a cheaper rate in the near future for parcels dispatched to foreign countries?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I shall have to look into the question as regards Norway. I know that we are sending parcels there to-day but I do not know exactly what time it takes. I shall give an answer within a few days.



AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask a question of the Minister of National Defence for Air? In a Toronto newspaper there appeared a report that air force buildings at the foot of Yonge street-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. The rules forbid
the reading of quotations from newspapers in asking questions on the orders of the day.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: May I ask the minister
whether air force buildings at the foot of Yonge street, which have formerly been a storage depot, are to be wrecked, or whether they will be used in helping the housing crisis now facing my own city.


Hon. COLIN GIBSON (Minister of National Defence for Air):: When any buildings are no longer required by the air force they are turned over to the war assets allocation committee, and if not required by other government departments they are then turned over to WTar Assets Corporation, which makes the decision regarding the disposition of such buildings.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I would ask the minister to apply that very general principle to the specific case which I have given him? May I have an answer?


James Horace King: The hon. member knows
that the minister is not obliged to answer.



REPRESENTATION OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. CHESTER S. McLURE (Queens): Arising out of a Canadian press dispatch in the Hamilton Spectator-
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mr. McLURE:: May I ask the Secretary
of State this question:	Is it the intention of
the Secretary of State to reduce the representation of Prince Edward Island in the House of Commons from four to two members?


James Horace King: Order. The question is
not one that should be asked on the orders of the day.



CANADIAN ARMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ALAN COCKERAM (York South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence: Will the minister advise the house if and when the report of the committee of inquiry, headed by Lieutenant General Price Montague, into the administration of Canadian forces in the Netherlands will be tabled?


Douglas Charles Abbott: These reports are never tabled in the House of Commons and therefore this one will follow the rule.



CANADA DAY

[Stage Direction]
SUBSTITUTION OF WORD 'CANADA* FOR WORD
"dominion"
Mr. A. P. COTE (Matapedia-Matane) moved the second reading of bill No. 8, an act respecting Canada day.
He said: In proposing the second reading of the bill I shall not venture upon any remarks which will give rise to a protracted debate. When Dominion day was established by law as a national holiday our country was, for all practical purposes, and I have reference particularly to the 49th parallel as well as the whole expanse of the ocean, regarded as a possession or as a colony or as a plantation of the British crown, at least according to some constitutional and legal authorities,
Canada Day
[Stage Direction]
among whicli is a unanimous judgment of the Court of King's Bench delivered by Lord Chief Justice Mansfield in 1774.
But since by the statute of Westminster in 1931, which statute constituted a new charter for the nations comprising the six kingdoms, Canada has achieved a new status, from the constitutional point of view the most important event since confederation. And quoting . Dr. Maurice Ollivier in his book entitled "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty":
The statute of Westminster was therefore the confirmation of the Balfour declaration at the imperial conference of 1926 to the effect that the dominions had now become "autonomous communities witiiin the British empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another, in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the crown and freely associated as members of the British commonwealth of nations."
Therefore the appellation which may have been considered appropriate before 1931 cannot any longer be used to designate properly either our country or the day devoted to its national holiday. Furthermore, "dominion" is surely not an identification which is proper to make Canada known in its true perspective, or in 8ny way at all either to Americans or to other peoples of the world. May I quote here my best authority, our distinguished Prime Minister:
Incidentally, may I say that the time has come to cease speaking of "the dominions" as if they were some peculiar half-fledged type of community, and all alike in their interests and views. Such a usage leads to confusion at best, and to alibis and misrepresentation at worst. South Africa is South Africa, New Zealand is New Zealand, Australia is Australia and Canada is Canada'.
Replacing the word "Dominion" by the word Canada, as far as our national holiday is concerned, will at least provide Canadians travelling outside of our country with * an answer when quizzed about our national holiday-that there is a Canada day and it is on July 1, and on no other day; because for so many strangers Dominion day may as well mean New Zealand day.
The time has come, I firmly believe, our valiant men of the three armed forces having put Canada in the limelight all over the world during the conflict which has just ended, when the name of Canada should be kept in the ears and in the eyes of mankind, and at least of Canadians. Because, for a great many loyal new Canadians and perhaps for a greater number of our older citizens and their posterity, Dominion day means no more than an ordinary bank holiday. Surely it is not too early to try to give the idea to all Canadians that on July 1 they commemorate their

national holiday in a true Canadian way, and that their citizenship is being given a significance on that day. I believe that Canada day bears out that message better than Dominion day.
Thomas Langton Church: Bill No. 8 proposes to amend a general act regarding public holidays which has been in force since confederation. In the first meeting at Charlottetown of the fathers of confederation they were unanimous in agreeing that the proposed confederation be called the "Dominion of Canada". From time immemorial we have been a dominion. We are part and parcel of the British empire. There is no reason why this bill should be introduced at this time. If the bill passes, all the history books will have to be changed. Moreover the bill is ultra vires of this parliament, because the original provinces came into confederation on a definite bargain. Speaking at Kingston in 1844, Sir John A. Macdonald said that it has always been the policy of Canada that as a dominion we are part and parcel of the British empire. Long may it continue. Had it not been for that fact we would have had the awful horror of war on our own soil. As I pointed out the other night, not only in Ontario but in Quebec and the maritime provinces we owe it to confederation that that did not happen.
I see no reason for this bill at this session of parliament. There are many bills being proposed with regard to a change in status, autonomy and sovereignty. A large body of public opinion in this country is very much alarmed at what this parliament is doing in that regard. I believe a large body of public opinion in all the provinces is against this bill. We have good history books in Quebec and in all the provinces. Confederation was brought about with the cooperation of the French people of Canada.. Sir John A. Macdonald, Cartier and all the others, Liberals and Conservatives alike, made confederation possible. We have got on very well together. Like Your Honour, I have always believed in confederation and the doctrine of the old Cornish battle cry, "Each for all and all for each". What is good for one province is good for all.
The words "Dominion of Canada" were wisely selected after a great deal of consultation and thought. While we are part and parcel of the British Empire the ties are invisible under our status of autonomy and sovereignty. A million men went from the dominion in the first great war. One hundred and thirty thousand died on the field of battle. We shall always remember France, where several thousand of my own citizens

Canada Day
are buried until the resurrection morning. I plead with hon. members from Quebec to pay-tribute where tribute is due-to Britain for saving our shores from invasion. I see no reason why we should bring up such matters as this at the present time. There are more important economic matters to be decided by this parliament so that a lead can be given to the health, peace and prosperity of all our citizens. We are wasting our time on a lot of secondary matters for political purposes that could very properly be left over until the more important matters affecting the poorer classes of citizens in all the provinces, namely, housing, health matters, fuel, clothing, food, employment, and so on, have been dealt with.
I am prepared to move in amendment, seconded by the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Ross), that the bill be not now read a second time but that it be read this day six months hence.


James Horace King: Mr. Church moves,
seconded by Mr. Ross (St. Paul's):
That bill No. 8, respecting Canada day, be not now read a second time but this day six months hence.
Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. D. G. ROSS (St. Paul's):: I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). At the present time I see no reason why we should repeal the Dominion Day Act. We are the Dominion of Canada, and Dominion day signifies something; it signifies the bringing together of all the provinces of Canada in one great country, the Dominion of Canada.


William Irvine: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood Your Honour had put the motion and that it was voted down.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The debate is continuing.


James Horace King: The house has before it a bill proposed by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote). I read the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church).


William Irvine: Is the six months' hoist
debatable?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: For seventy-five years we have had Dominion day. All our history springs from the joining together of all the provinces of Canada, one by one, and
that is the day which we celebrate. We celebrate the bringing together under Macdonald and Cartier of the two great races of this country. I see no reason why this controversy should be injected into oui national life. Many people will take sides on this matter. All of our children know Dominion day; they have been brought up to know what it means. Our history books show what it means. To me Dominion day means that we have a great nation. I have much pleasure in seconding the motion.


Mr. J. E. SMITH (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I wikh to congratulate the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote), who introduced this bill. We in Ontario have known the hon.. gentleman for many years as an advocate of real, virile Canadianism and a true friend of Canadian unity. I also appreciate the views of hon. members from the city of Toronto, and give them credit for sincerity in their attitude toward this question. However, I do take issue with them when they state that this is not an important matter.
I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to rise in support of this bill, because I sincerely believe that by its adoption we can make a real contribution to Canadian national life. To-day we look out on a troubled world, a world bleeding and suffering after six long years of war. Here in our own country we have problems so perplexing and of such magnitude that sometimes I confess to a feeling of discouragement. I submit that in dealing with our national problems and in facing up to the problems of the world we must get down to a consideration of fundamentals. One great need in Canada to-day is for a patriotic siprit of determination to win the peace, comparable to the splendid spirit of patriotic determination shown by the people of Canada in the winning of the -war. During the war years the Canadian people met every challenge with which they were faced during the most trying period in Canadian history. It did not matter whether the challenge was in connection with men for our armed services, whether is was in connection with money for victory loans, for the Red Cross, for munitions and supply, for food or for whatever cause it may have been; the challenge was successfully met, no matter what the sacrifice. That was the spirit in which we made our splendid contribution toward the winning of the war, and I submit that is the sort of spirit we need to win the peace.
During the long, trying years of conflict we spoke freely and hopefully of the new era which was to come after the war. The men in our fighting forces on the far-flung battle lines throughout the world were encouraged and buoyed up by the belief that they were
Canada Day

fighting for a new world, a new era which they, their comrades and their loved ones at home would enjoy. They looked forward to that new day which would come when the forces of evil, as represented by our enemies, would be destroyed. Those enemies 'have been destroyed, and now we must face up to the fact that the post-war era of which we spoke so much is here. Many of the boys who fought our battles have returned; more are returning, and there are still more to come. But as we welcome them back to our communities; as we talk with them about their reconversion problems and the difficulties they face in reestablishing themselves in civilian life, we cannot help being impressed by the sincerity of their concern for our national future. And I think if we are completely honest we must admit that as we talk with them they tell us the truth when they say that so far they see more signs of the old era than of the new.
It is true that our government has made a valiant reconversion effort in the face of most difficult world conditions. It is true that this effort has been successful to such an extent that with pride and truth we can declare that we in Canada are better off than people anywhere else in the world. But this is not enough. We are still far short of the ideal of a better life and that new era which we pictured during the years of war. In attaining that ideal we must not be hampered by an unwillingness on the part of our people to make sacrifices for peace comparable to the sacrifices they were willing to make for war. I regret to have to confess that I can see signs of a tapering off of our national willingness to make sacrifices to overcome the problems of peace. It is indeed sad, if it be true, that we in Canada need the threat of falling bombs to inspire our best national endeavour; but unfortunately there is evidence that this is so. In plain language, what we need is a substitute for falling bombs to inspire the best efforts of our people.
I do not suggest that by the simple adoption of this measure designating our national holiday as Canada day we can perform a national miracle, but in all sincerity I do submit that the taking of this step at this time can be made the basis of a crusade for a revitalized national spirit which can contribute a great deal to the future well-being of Canada. Thanks to the sacrifice of our people, the name "Canada" to-day stands high throughout the world. In this, the greatest conflict of all ages, our fighting men went into battle bearing on their armour the name "Canada". The bill the house is now asked to approve simply provides that 
our national holiday shall bear that same glorious name, "Canada". It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, most fitting, following the measure passed by this house decreeing that Canada should have its own distinctive national flag, and following the bill so ably and eloquently introduced the other day by the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) providing a new status of Canadian citizenship, that this house should follow through now and adopt this bill designating our national holiday as Canada day.


Mr. DANIEL McIVOR (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, it did my heart good to hear a good Presbyterian from the city of Toronto support this bill. When the word "Dominion" came into existence I do not think it had the approval of one of the greatest Canadians to have adorned the history of this country; I refer to Sir John A. Macdonald. I quote from the Encyclopedia of Canada:
Dominion, the term adopted in 1867 to describe the status of Canada in the British empire, and now used to describe also the status of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Newfoundland. The story is told that the adoption of the term was due to a suggestion of Sir Leonard Tilley (q.v.) When the delegates from Canada, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia, were discussing in London, in December, 1866. the details of the British North America Act, some difference of opinion arose as to the proper term to be used to describe the new federation. Sir John Macdonald, the leading Canadian delegate, was in favour of styling it "the Kingdom of Canada"; but Lord Derby, the British foreign minister, was afraid that the word "Kingdom" would wound the tender susceptibilities of the people of the great republic to the south of Canada. The Canadians, on the other hand, were firm in rejecting the term "colony." The night of this debate, Sir Leonard Tilley, who was in the habit of reading a chapter of the bible before retiring to rest, stumbled on the verse in the seventy-second Psalm which runs, "He shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth." The next morning he suggested that the new federation should be called "the Dominion of Canada."
To me the name Canada has music in it. To me it represents the greatest country on earth. If there are any here who have made Canada their home, but who think that old England, Scotland or Ireland are superior to Canada, then I wonder why they left there. Ireland to me was a tender spot on this earth, but I left it and came to Canada because I thought it gave the greatest possible opportunity to the young man, greater than any other country on earth. We had lots of opportunity.
To me the name of Canada is emblazoned across the world, and stands out as the country that is going to lead in a great many things. We cannot be too careful in changes we make, but some of us are not as conser-

Canada Day
vative as we were forty years ago. I believe we should pass this legislation, and have our children sing of Canada-not only of the Dominion of Canada. Therefore I support the bill.


Thomas Langton Church: There is the British North America Act, first.


Mr. W. GARFIELD CASE (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope that this does not develop into an issue which will divide the house along party lines. I should like to make some practical observations, and would state first that all the good things which have been said about Canada have come to pass at a time when we have paid tribute and reverence to the name "Dominion of Canada." So it is difficult for me to see where there would be any advantage in a change of this kind.
I listened to the hon. member for York North (Mr. Smith) say that he has noticed a tapering off in our enthusiasm. I have not been able to see that among my people. I know North York pretty well too, because there I cut my political teeth, and I am pretty well satisfied that the people in North York are not lacking in their enthusiasm.
I think the hon. member who introduced the bill did not consider the matter fully. I challenge him or any other member in the house to name any country in the world which calls its national day by its title. I have not heard of any other country-and of course I may be wrong. But at the moment there come to my mind names of such countries as the United States, Mexico, Russia and France. I believe the title we already have, that of the Dominion of Canada, is all right.
Replying to the hon. member who introduced the bill, may I say I am not so much concerned about what strangers may think of us. After all, we have our own lives to live. They will come to know us from our contributions, as they have in the past, and from the contributions we shall make in the future. I am inclined therefore to support the view offered by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) in his amendment, when he points out that there are items far more important to be discussed and determined than the mere changing of a name, and especially a name which has been used and enjoyed since we became the Dominion of Canada.
Dominion day is well known to Canadians generally, and to those who have any regard for us. I hope there will be others who will feel as I do-not in any partisan sense, but in the belief that we are well designated now, and that our national day should remain Dominion day.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended speaking on this bill, but I do so because I' have a sentimental reason for saying a few words. My good friend the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor), mentioned that it was Sir Leonard Tilley who first recommended that our country be called the Dominion of Canada. Sir Leonard Tilley came from my native province of New Brunswick, and was born in the village of Gagetown, which happened to be my own birthplace, and my own home.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Two great men from the same town.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: We love Canada:	Canada is our country.
But we do not want to break our link with the past, or to dim the traditions of other years. And I say we are fast doing it.
One other hon. member said that we have perplexing problems. True, we have. And I would ask that hon. member how many jobs it will give returned soldiers if the name of, Dominion day is changed to Canada day. How many houses is it going to build for the thousands of men who are coming back to this country to change the name of Dominion day to Canada day? It is absolute nonsense to suggest that it will do anything of the kind.


James Horace King: Order. The motion before the house is for the second reading of bill No. 8, ap act respecting Canada day.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Mr. Speaker, I claim the same right as the hon. member who spoke a moment ago and who suggested that our great perplexing problems could be solved by changing the name of Dominion day to Canada day. I shall say no more. Canada is steeped in the traditions of the past, and if we are to sever all the links with our past history, Canada will never be the great nation we all hope she will become.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, this bill seems to be engendering a good deal of heat. I cannot understand why it should, or why there should apparently be conflict between one side and the other.
What I have been asking myself is whether the bill is in order. When confederation was established, four provinces entered into it; the British North America Act records their names and states that they became united into one dominion forming the Dominion of Canada. Those provinces were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario. Would it not be necessary to have the consent, first, of the province of Ontario and of these other provinces before we could pass a bill such as this? I know you would not easily get the consent of Ontario; it may come some time, but I do not think Ontario would jump hastily and accept this change holus-bolus without careful consideration. I do not know that the province of Quebec would. The province of Quebec played an important part in forming c<*nfederation; in fact, confederation could not have been formed if Quebec had not consented to it. Has the province of Nova Scotia consented to this bill? Has the province of New Brunswick consented to it? I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, if the bill is in order and whether it would have any effect if we did pass it without the consent of the provinces having first been obtained. I should
Brooks.]
think that one of the ministers, perhaps the Secretary of State, under whose department this matter comes, would be able to tell us whether the provinces have been consulted and whether they approve this change in the name of the country of which they agreed to form a part. If they have not been consulted, perhaps the hon. member should withdraw his bill.
I want to sa.y a word about the hon. member. I compliment him on his ability. I have been greatly pleased since this present parliament assembled to note how many splendid bright and capable young men we have in it representing the province of Quebec. I know of no other parliament since I came here in 1930 in which there have been so many able young men from the province of Quebec, and that is all to the good. They are doing well for their province, and will continue to do well. And so I do not want my hon. friend to think that in opposing his bill I am in any way finding fault with his proposal, but I still ask myself how can we pass this bill if the provinces have not first been consulted. If the bill moved be given its second and third reading to-day, the legislature of Ontario is now in sesion, and would it not be reasonable to expect that some member of the Ontario legislature would ask the govern-of this province if they had consented to changing the name from the Dominion of Canada to Canada-because the British North America Act, Mr. Speaker, all the way through, refers to the Dominion of Canada.
When Manitoba came into confederation it was as a province of the Dominion of Canada, and the same is true of British Columbia. Those two provinces, and later Saskatchewan and Alberta, but particularly Manitoba and British Columbia, which entered confederation quite early, all entered the Dominion of Canada. Have they been consulted? Have their legislatures approved the changing of the name of the country of which they became a part?


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: This does not change the name of the country.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Yes. We are going to change the name "Dominion day" to "Canada day". The Dominion of Canada is the name that I have known every since my childhood. When the first of July was celebrated in the small town in which I was raised it was always celebrated as Dominion day, and so Dominion day has become a part of me. I would have to change my whole fifty odd years-I am not going to say how many, Mr. Speaker, but

Canada Day
will say fifty or fifty odd years, of my life's thinking to celebrate Canada day instead of Dominion Day.
I yield to no one in my love for Canada. I am of the fourth generation here. My hon. friend the member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) is perhaps of the seventh or eighth or tenth generation. I cannot go back that far, but I am of the fourth generation, and I love Canada.
I really cannot understand why my hon. friend the member for Matapedia-Matane brought in this bill, and further I cannot understand how it comes before this house if the Secretary of State or whoever draws up these bills did not first consult the provinces which originally entered confederation, to find out whether they wished to make this change from Dominion day to Canada day. It is a matter of importance, and therefore, Mr. Speaker, although I have a very warm regard for the capable young man who introduced this bill, I must say that I cannot vote for it.
Mr. J. S. SINNOTT (Springfield)':	Mr. Speaker, I have a veiy friendly feeling for the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), who has always been most cooperative in this house, but coming from Manitoba as I do I must say I feel that we are a part of Canada. We are no longer in the days of 1867, when confederation was formed. I think we should be progressive. A year or so ago the Conservative party in this country progressed by adding the word "Progressive" to its name. I think we should progress, too, by making this change from Dominion day to Canada day and letting the outside world know that we have something. There is no harm in letting the outside world know that there is such a place as Canada, and there is no harm in letting the western part of the dominion know that we are a part of Canada. Coming from the western part of this dominion I shall give whole-hearted support to this bill.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I would not have risen to speak on this bill had not the hon. member for York North (Mr. Smith) said that it was a great bill, and the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Sinnott) said that there was no harm in letting the world know that there is such a place as Canada. If the idea of a great bill is to change the name Dominion day to Canada day, and if by that change we are going to let the whole world know that there is such a place as Canada, one must think very little of Canada; for ever since confederation we have been known as the Dominion of Canada. Dominion day to me represents the accomplishments of a great people, in a great country 63260-361
under great leadership, who formed this dominion in the year 1867, and the word "unity" has always been the keynote in the celebration of Dominion day. Dominion day has been taught, to me at least, to represent the day on which the people of Canada celebrate the union which made Canada, the accomplishment of the great men who achieved its unity. For an hon. member to stand up and say it is a great bill which does away with the word "dominion", a word1 which appears in every one of our statutes, marking the significance of Canada as a dominion-because the word "dominion" means unity, cooperation, amity and friendship on the part of us all-makes me wonder what is in the minds of those who want to change the name. What is wrong with the word "dominion"? Certainly "Canada" is a great name. Certainly Canadians are proud of Canada. But surely before we become proud of Canada we must be proud of the union which made Canada, of the idea of a dominion in and of Canada.
I do not like to hear hon. members say that those who do not wish to abolish the word "dominion" are not progressive. I do not like to hear them say that those who do not wish to supersede "Dominion day" by "Canada day" think any less of their country than others do. I do not believe there is anybody in the country who does not feel that "Canada" and "dominion" are two different thoughts, both to be held with reverence, with esteem, with love, and with pride. But I do not think we should be "little" about it, either. When I see the hon. member for York North (Mr. Smith), that old historic riding, that community which has done so much for Canadian history, which has been so loyal to the Canadian union and to the Dominion of Canada, get up and suggest, at least by inference, that the word "dominion" implies something inferior, something sinister, something undesirable, something unprogressive, I believe other hon. members should rise with pride and insist that we stick to the word "dominion", show our pride in the word, show our reverence for Dominion day as a day symbolizing unity, confederation and friendship. If you want a Canada day, surely you can pick another day. If you want to tell the world that Canada is a great nation, do so, but without changing the thought which commemorates reverence, friendship, and the historic things which Dominion day represents.
I heartily support the amendment and would oppose changing the word "dominion", because it means much to the people of Canada; it has a significance which we would lose if we changed .the name.
Canada Day


Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MaeNicol) I would refer him to the British North America Act, section 3:
It shall be lawful for the Queen ,by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that, on and after a day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be one dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that day those three provinces shall form and be one dominion under that name accordingly.
Also section 5:
Canada shall be divided into four provinces, named Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.
Those four provinces were Canada. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) asked, what is wrong with the word "dominion"? When we refer to the dominion we refer to a member of the British commonwealth of nations, but not particularly to one country; the idea implies a plural; it includes such dominions as Australia and South Africa as well as Canada. But if we. have the name "Canada" it will refer to our own country, our beloved country, and will not be a name which applies to other countries. I support the motion.


Mr. RALPH MAYBANK (Winnipeg South Centre):: Before the question is put I desire to say just a few words, and in the course of my remarks it is my desire to ask permission to move the adjournment of the debate, but not at this precise moment. That motion is one that I am sure, when I do put it, I shall not need to write out and present to you, Mr. Speaker, fhe difficulty which occurred in the case of another lawyer's handwriting when he wrote "second" and it looked like "third." Probably if I were to write it you would have as much difficulty in reading my writing as you do in reading that of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church). But it will not be necessary.
A few remarks have been made to which I will advert for a moment. The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MaeNicol) remarked that this debate seemed to be engendering a great deal of heat. I agree. And he said it did not seem to be necessary that that should be so; and with this, too, I agree. For my part I believe I have had and have now as much pride in this country as has any person in the house. I do not suppose I am preeminent in that respect; I think all of us look upon ourselves first, last and all the time as Canadians. I have not found it difficult to develop that pride in my country

because it was called the "Dominion" of Canada. I do not think there is quite as much importance in this name as some have said. Nevertheless I agree with the bill; I agree that it would be better to make the change, as the bill sets forth. I think the word "Canada" is a more appropriate one for our national holiday than the word "Dominion."
Some people have spoken as if the Vord "dominion" suggested that some person else had dominion over us. It never had that meaning for me. I have never felt that "Dominion of Canada" carried the idea of some people remote from here exercising dominance over us. I do not know whether it is because of the story of how the word came to be chosen that I have been free from that idea. My recollection of the story as it was told to me is that one of the founders of confederation, in considering what would be a suitable name for our country, either was praying or was thinking of God, and the words came into his mind. "He shall have dominion from sea to sea"; and thereupon he took that as an inspiration and brought the word into the conclave, and so "Dominion" came to be adopted. As I recollect it, some such sfory as that is the basis of the choice of the word "Dominion". I do not know whether that is the particular kind of dominion which some would like to escape by discarding the word. I do not fancy that it is.
The truth of the matter is that we should not confuse the word "dominion" with dominance, and there is no dominance of any person or any power to be considered as a concept in connection with that word. At the same time, I do not think that some of the expressions that have been used this afternoon are apt. The member for Broadview spoke of our having been a dominion from time immemorial. That, it is self-evident, is not so. We have not been a dominion from time immemorial, nor have we been a dominion during most of the existence of organized society on this northern half of the continent. We have been a dominion because that was the name decided upon in 1867. That is all there is to it. It looked like a suitable name at the time, and it served well enough over the years. We have developed much pride in our country in the use of that name, but it does not carry the idea of autonomy which is the fact respecting Canada at the present time. It would be better, I submit, that we should try to keep our terms in accord with the facts of our situation. We are an autonomous country, all our partners in the British empire agree with that, and it would be well in the use of all expressions to convey the

Canada Day-Division
idea which does express the truth of the matter. For that reason I submit that we would be wise to change the name. There is no thought, nor need there be any thought, that in making the change there is any attack upon the British connections or any disrespect for the crown, or any flying in the face of tradition or anything of that sort. It simply appears to me that we would be nearer to the truth if we used the expression "Canada" in naming the day which is our birthday.
I revert to what I said at the beginning about there being some heat in the debate. I submit that we would probably be well advised to wait a few days and come back to the question rather than settle it now, and for that reason I move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion negatived.


Mr. RINFRET:: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mac-donnell). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. MacDONALD (Halifax):: I was paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (.Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BROWN :: I was paired with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Henderson). Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.
Canada Day-Division


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ASHBY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I Voted I would have voted for the amendment.
^ Mr. R. W. GLADSTONE (Wellington South): Mr. Speaker, my inclination is to support the motion, but I do not think there is any occasion for undue haste at this time. We have before us a bill respecting Canadian citizenship, and we have established a committee for the purpose of recommending a distinctive national flag for Canada. I think we can well afford to give time, through the press and on the radio, to consideration of this matter. Therefore I respectfully move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I should like to say a word before the motion is put.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: May I second it?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: There is no seconder for the motion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I think I am entitled to speak before the question is put.


William Ross Macdonald: Do I understand that the hon. member is seconding the motion to adjourn the debate?


George Alexander Cruickshank: I was told I was out of order in doing it. If I am in order in doing it] I am.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member is in order in seconding the motion.


George Alexander Cruickshank: And I am entitled to speak on it, then, am I?


Mr. CASSELMAN:: Speak now.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) is not entitled bo speak to the motion. He may second it if he sees fit.


Arza Clair Casselman: There is no seconder for the motion.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: ; Question.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I don't know what I can do and what I can't do.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: The hon. member may second it, but not speak to it.


William Ross Macdonald: It is moved by. Mr. Gladstone, seconded by Mr. Cruickshank, that this debate 'be now adjourned.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


William Ross Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for MuskokajOntario (Mr. Macdonnell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


William Chisholm Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: You might have had them all with you if you had an order in council.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Wh'en I need any
help from Souris I will let the hon. member know. I had thought of making a sub-amendment to declare April 1st Souris day.
I wish to make myself clear on this question. I was not born in Canada, but I am particularly proud of being a Canadian, and I have no objection to the name being changed to "Canada".


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Just a minute. But I do think there is a little too much haste. For that reason I was prepared to support the motion for a six month's adjournment, so that we could give the matter a little further thought. In particular, whether some hon. members realize it or not, in any legislation affecting my riding I am interested in the reactions of my riding. I make no bones about it; I should like to have a little more time for thought. The only recruit I really picked up from the Conservative party-and I wish to make this point perfectly clear for the record so that there will be no suggestion of bribery or otherwise-is the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), with whom my wife and I are having dinner to-night, but that was arranged long ago.
As I say, I should have liked to have time to give this matter more consideration, and I think we should have been supported in our move for an adjournment. May I point out to my hon. friends who are sponsoring this measure that I cannot see how they would have lost by an adjournment which would have given us further time for discussion. Particularly I cannot see that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church), which constituency I understand is in the suburbs of Toronto, would have lost anything.


James Horace King: Is the house ready for the question?


George Alexander Cruickshank: It should like to say a word now. Apparently I have lost some of my new-found friends from Ontario, or from Toronto, but at least I had the satisfaction of uniting those hon. members from Toronto with my good friends from Quebec. My batting average was not bad; I maintained four and a half of the cabinet with me although I lost my roommate.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am not out of
order. A man tells me that I am out of order; let me tell him that I do not need any assistance and he does not need to tell me that I am out of order.


James Horace King: Order. I think the hon.
gentleman is out of order. We are not now considering the adjournment of the debate; that question has been settled.
Canada Day-Division

The house divided	on the motion Mr. 1
(Matapedia-Matane)	which was agreed t
the following division	
YEAS	
Messrs:	
Abbott	Ilsley
Archibald	Irvine
Argue	Isnor
Arsenault	J aenicke
Baker	Jean
Beaudoin	Jutras
Belzile	Kirk
Bentley	Knight
Bertrand (Prescott)	Knowles
Bertrand (Terrebonne)	Lacombe
Black (Chateauguay-	LaCroix
Huntingdon)	Lafontaine
Blanchette	Lalonde
Boivin	Langlois
Bonnier	Lapalme
Bourget	Laurendeau
Bowerman	Leger
Bradette	Little
Breithaupt	McCann
Bridges	McCuaig
Brunelle	McCulloch (Pictou)
Bryce	McDonald (Parry
Burton	Sound)
Campbell	McGarry
Cardin	Mcllraith
Castleden	Maclnnis
C'hevrier	Mclvor
Claxton	McKay
Cleaver	Mackenzie
Cloutier	MacKinnon
Coldwell	MacLean
Cotd (Matapedia-	Maloney
Cote
Matane)
Cote (St. Johns-Iber-ville-N apierville) Cote (Verdun) Cruickshank Deehene L'enis
Dion (Lake St. John-Roberval)
Douglas
Dubois
Emmerson
Marier
Marquis
Martin
Matthews (Brandon) Matthews (Kootenay East)
Maybank
Michaud
Moore
Mullins
Mutch
Parent
Eudes Farquhar Fournier (Hull) Fournier (Maison-neuve Rosemont)
G agnon
Gardiner
Gariepy
Gauthier (Nipissing) Gauthier (Portneuf) Gibson (Comox-Alberni)
Gibson (Hamilton West)
Gillis
Gingues
Gladstone
Glen
Golding
Gour (Russell)
Gourd (Chapleau)
Grant
Hamel
Herridge
Ficard
Pinard
Powe>"
Probe
Raymond (Beauhar-nois Laprairie) Raymond (Wright) Richard (Ottawa East)
Robinson (Simcoe East)
Sinclair (Ontario) Sinclair (Vancouver North)
Sinnott
Smith (York North) Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Stuart (Charlotte) Strum, Mrs. Thatcher Townley-Smith Tremblay

Tucker
Viau
Warren
Weir
Whitman Wfnters Wright Zaplitny-129.
Aylesworth Barrett Blackmore Blair Bracken Bradshaw Brooks Cardiff . Case Casselman Church Cocker am Daniel Diefenbaker Drope Fraser Fulton Graydon Green Harkness
Harris (Danforth)
Hatfield
Hazen
Hlynka
Hodgson
J ackman
Johnston
Kidd
Kuhl
Lennard
McCubbin
++NAYS
Messrs:
McLure
McM aster
MacNicol
Marshall
Mayhew
Menary
Merritt
Mitchell
Murphy
Pearkes
Queleh
Reid
Robinson. (Bruce) Ross (St. Paul's)
Ross (Souris)
Rowe
Senn
Skey
Smith (Calgary West)
Stanfield
Stephenson
Stirling
Stokes
Tustin
Webb
White (Hastings-Peterborough) White (Middlesex East)
Wylie-59.


George Russell Boucher: I was paired with the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand), who is away welcoming the former Prime Minister of France. Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. CHARLTON:: I was paired, with the
hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Healy). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


William Ross Macdonald: I
was paired with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


William Chisholm Macdonald: I was
paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I was paired with the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. Mac-donnell). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Donald Ferguson Brown: I was paired with the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Henderson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MacNAUGHT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I not been paired, I would have voted for the motion.

Canada Day
Bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On the short title.


Thomas Langton Church: I doubt whether this bill is within the power of this parliament because it is contrary to the British North America Act, and the terms and principles on which the four provinces came into confederation, and if the word "Dominion" is changed, the change must have the approval of the provinces. There is no power to change it. The history books prove that, and we have the confederation debates and records. It was unanimous at confederation to name the country the Dominion of Canada.
We had a scene this afternoon unparalleled since I have been a member of this house. The members of the cabinet were divided. If the government followed the practice in the old country it would resign, because a government in the old country resigned at one time when it was defeated on a private member's bill or a motion at one stage of it.
Where is this going to land us? Where does Canada stand when one considers the motions we have had on the order paper in the past few months and the debates that have gone on? What was said regarding the future of this dominion by members of the government from the province of Quebec who are absent from the house to-day? Either we are a dominion or we are not. If not, we-are outside the British empire. We were a dominion at confederation when the four provinces came together. There was none of this bickering during the two wars. I referred to that earlier in the afternoon, and I shall not repeat what I said. I do not think the people of any of the provinces believe in altering the terms and conditions which were agreed to by the four original provinces at confederation. Those terms cannot be changed without the consent of the legislatures of the various provinces. This is a political bill, first, last and always. Either we are in the British empire or we are not. We do not wish to be like Eire. We are a dominion within the four corners of the British North America Act. If we do not wish to be a dominion we should say so. I am surprised at my hon. friends of the C.C.F. and the attitude they took on this bill this afternoon. There is a large body of public opinion which is alarmed and surprised that this parliament finds time to devote to all these matters which are frivolous and secondary. I voiced their opinion this afternoon. We have not time to attend to the primary matters which are facing this country to-day. There are some people without houses,
employment, coal, food and clothing. These matters should be primary and not secondary. That relates to all the provinces.
I have always been one of those who believe in the principles of confederation, of equality and each for all and all for each. I do not know who drafted this bill. Whoever drafted it has forgotten the act of confederation which constituted this country and the intention of the four provinces. The change cannot be made without a vote of the provinces. Hon. members can talk all they like about this, but we are still part and parcel of the British empire. We ought to be thankful for that, especially those who come from the eastern provinces. Britain, save for the dominions, stood alone for two and a half years. The people of Quebec have always been loyal and faithful to the British crown. They showed it in the revolutionary war of 1783 and have always shown it. I have a great deal of respect for Quebec and for France, where so many of the old soldiers of the city from which I come lie buried. They were quite ready to fight for that great country. France will always be a glorious nation. Mr. Churchill said that and I have said it in this house on many occasions. It is the hope of the world that France should be restored as a great nation which she has always been in the past. At a time when economic and social conditions are so critical in this country I object to debates of this kind, more especially when our people are suffering from the after effects of the war. It is inconceivable that we should waste time on bills of this description.
I think the afternoon was well spent, however, because the people in the mother country are wondering where Canada stands at the present time. Is she willing to help the mother country, where so many thousands of churches and public buildings, destroyed during the war, need to be restored? Are we to sit here as a parliament and not observe the handwriting on the wall? Are we not going to listen to those who are clamouring for us to deal with the great economic problems, to start production, to bring about adequate reconversion of industry, instead of wasting our time on things like this?


James Arthur Ross: I should like to say a word to account for the manner in which I have voted up to the present. I quite agree with the previous speaker that this procedure is unconstitutional. In spite of the fact that we have taken all afternoon to debate this matter, I do not believe the proposed change will be made. I think when we come to deal with the proper authorities the holiday will still be observed as Dominion

Canada Day
day. Those who feel we have to change the name in order to advertise Canada to the world certainly cannot know what has been going on during the past few years. I can assure them that anyone who has been in the midst of what has been going on since the fall of 1939 will readily realize that the young men and women of our three armed services have certainly advertised this dominion in no uncertain terms in all parts of the world.
I repeat that in my opinion this procedure is quite unconstitutional; therefore I do not believe this parliament should take time to debate a matter of this kind when, if we are really concerned about changing the name, We might easily adopt the proper procedure.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Vancouver North):: Which is what?


James Arthur Ross: First of all, I think the British North America Act probably will have to be changed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


James Arthur Ross: I am not a legal man, and I am not going into that question; but, as an hon. member said a few moments ago, at least we want time to consult our constituents. I am satisfied that if the people of this nation take the performance this afternoon seriously their reaction will come as a rude shock to many people here.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Arthur Ross: I am just as entitled to my opinion as any other member of this house. It may be that I am not able to judge properly the feelings of my constituents back home, but I am prepared to endeavour to do so, and am prepared to stand by their decision with no regrets whatever. I am one of those who believe this has been quite a political gesture this afternoon. I do not believe the name will be changed, but I wanted to make these remarks in order to explain the stand I have taken to-day.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: I am very much in accord with what has been said by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. For some reason or another an attempt has been made to rush this bill through, and I think the people of this country as a whole should be given an opportunity to decide, by their reaction, whether or not it should become law. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West, that the Chairman do now leave the chair and that the committee do now rise.
Motion negatived: yeas, 31; nays, 75.
[Mr. J. A. Ross.l


Mr. GREEN:: I am certain that this bill is of a great deal of importance in the life of Canada, perhaps more so than some hon. members realize.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is right.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Howard Charles Green: I have the right to be heard, and I do not propose to be heckled.


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Howard Charles Green: This bill is important
because it shows a trend which I think must be faced by the Canadian people and which I am sure will be faced. Taken by itself it may not mean a great deal whether our national holiday is known as Dominion day or Canada day, but we must take into consideration the circumstances under which this bill comes before the house. Here we have it brought in with many signs of a desire for haste, a great urge to put it through.


Mr. LALONDE:: No; you cannot say that.


Howard Charles Green: You can make your own speech. There were clear evidences this afternoon that the cabinet did not know what to do about the matter, that the cabinet were divided. No opportunity has been given to Canadians, certainly none to the people of my province of British Columbia, to consider this bill, and no request for this change has come from that province. I doubt whether any request for a change has come from any province in Canada. It must be taken, too, with the different statements that have been made in this house. To those of us who sit here it is only too obvious that an attempt is being made at this time to take actions which, while I know those sponsoring them believe they are in the best interests of Canada, at the same time may have a. serious effect on Canada if we look at the broader picture. We have just gone through a terrible war. At one stage of that war civilization was only saved by the British empire, and-


An hon. MEMBER:: "Only"?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Canadians?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
Americans?


Howard Charles Green: -because the empire stood together for a whole year, when nobody else was fighting the Germans and Italians but the British people of the world, and gallant little Greece.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about France?


Howard Charles Green: We have won this war, and it Was a close shave; everyone in the house

Canada Day
admits that. Since that time we have been faced with attempts only too obvious to break up the British empire from without-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Howard Charles Green: I said, "from without." It is just as plain as can be that there is an attempt by certain other nations to squeeze the empire out. If the empire should be squeezed out, if it should be broken up, then indeed that would be a tragic day for Canada as well as for other nations of the empire.
This is no time to be doing things that will weaken the empire, because the future of Canada depends upon the empire's being strong. I doubt very much whether my good friends who are cheering and shouting, and who are so keen to have this bill rushed through have ever had in mind the possibility that action of this type of necessity weakens the empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, you may not agree with me, but-


An hon. MEMBER:: We don't.


Howard Charles Green: -surely in a British
parliament a member who has been duly elected has a right to be heard, and not to be heckled.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have been elected too.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are listening.


Howard Charles Green: You are not listening with any measure of comfort. You are interrupting, which you have no right to do.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. May I remind all hon. members that an hon. member who is speaking must not be interrupted or questioned without his consent. May I also remind hon. members that when speaking they must address the Chair.


Howard Charles Green: For these reasons I suggest that we be very careful before we rush into a thing of this type.
I have listened to a great deal of talk in this and in the last session about colonially-minded Canadians. The challenge has been hurled across this floor on different occasions that those of us who believe in a strong empire are colonially-minded, that we are colonials. Let me suggest this to the house, that the shoe might be on the other foot, and that it might 'be those Canadians who refuse to recognize the value of the empire to Canada who are colonially-minded, and who have not got over the old colonial days which passed away many years ago.
It does not do for members who talk in that way to get the idea that they are the only Canadians in the world. Let them remember that there are many of the rest of us who are just as good Canadians as they are, and who come from a long line of Canadian settlers. Let them remember that we are just as good Canadians as any others in the country, just as much interested in the welfare of Canada, just as much determined that no other nation shall come first in our minds, whether that nation happens to be within the empire or outside it.
We are just as much in earnest about this question as any other people in Canada. I think it should be recognized by all Canadians, no matter of what origin, that those who sit in the House of Commons, no matter what side they may be on or what their beliefs may be, are all good Canadians, and are all working for the benefit of Canada.
Therefore I suggest that some hon. members be just a little careful in throwing out those charges, when they say, "Oh, you are only colonials; you are not good Canadians; you are Englishmen first"

or Australian-"and Canadians second." Those charges are not correct.
Since I have been a member in the house there has been much talk about unity. It seems the suggestion is always made that the English-speaking people in the country must be very careful or they will upset unity, that they will bring about disunity in Canada. Charges are always coming in that direction. Well, if this sort of thing is carried on much further, the shoe will be on the other foot. English-speaking people in Canada are going to think they are being attacked.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who made those charges?


Howard Charles Green: My hon. friend can read Hansard. I say they are going to think they are being attacked. If that should come about-and, fortunately, it has not yet-but if it should come about, and if it should develop that one great group is set up against the other great group, then there never will be unity in Canada.


An hon. MEMBER:: Imagination!


Howard Charles Green: There never will be unity in Canada, I say, if that should happen, and our troubles will become greater and greater; we shall never build a nation in this country if that should come to pass.
For that reason I make my appeal to all hon. members in the house-and I have friends in all the parties, friends of many years
Canada Day

standing. I would appeal to them not to keep pressing through measures of this type which can only make trouble. Yes, they can only make trouble, and especially when the attempt is made, as it was made to-day, to rush this thing through.


Mr. CLEAVER:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Howard Charles Green: No.


Hughes Cleaver: Why didn't you vote against it, then?


Howard Charles Green: An attempt is being made to rush this thing through. I wish the people I represent could have sat in the galleries here to-day to see just what has happened, because it is impossible to convey it in words. That sort of thing is bad for Canada. It will make all kinds of trouble in Canada, and I would-


An hon. MEMBER:: You are making it.


Howard Charles Green: -appeal to hon. members not to rush to put a measure of this type through the house.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Mr. Chairman, during the dinner recess I have had an opportunity of considering this bill further and I feel that there are some observations still to be made.
Throughout our whole history our thoughts and sentiments have been associated' with Dominion day, and not with anything of any semblance to Canada day. I made a challenge to this house this afternoon when the Speaker was in the chair to name any country which calls its national day after the name of the country. In the United States, for instance, their national day is called "Independence day," and the same holds good with respect to every other country which celebrates a national day. Dominion day has been associated with the birth of this nation ever since 1867, to designate that we were a dominion within the great commonwealth of British nations.
The word "dominion" means something to a Britisher. After all, you cannot have your cake and eat it. Either we are a part of a great empire or we are just an individual nation. I prefer to associate myself, as I believe the majority of the members of this

house do who think seriously on this matter, with the broadest application of the word "dominion."
A few days ago I had a commander in the navy visit me and he made this remark. I mention this in relation to what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South. This navy commander said, "If I lived a thousand years and' spoke or lectured every night I could not begin to tell of the great contribution made by the British people in those trying daj% of the war when Britain stood alone."
During my limited experience in public life, confined largely to municipal affairs where government had its beginning, I have never imputed improper motives to my fellow man. I have nothing but the highest regard for the hon. member who introduced this bill and for those who are supporting it, because I believe that they are imbued with a sense of loyalty to Canada and that they, too, have in their breasts deep affection for and a sense of loyalty to that one great nation in the world which stood between us and tyranny in the darkest days of the war. I do not believe that they would want to see any weakening of the ties which bind the empire together as a great world power, although I regret to say that there is a tendency in this critical hour to weaken those ties. But in unity there is strength, and the greatest strength we enjoy to-day is our association with the British commonwealth of nations. This great empire stands for something which Britishers and freedom-loving people throughout the world cherish. I could not find words to express adequately what the British empire has stood for and what it has meant in human relations throughout the world, but I am thinking of one thing in particular at the moment, and that is freedom. Unfortunately, never having been denied our freedom, we sometimes do not value our freedom highly enough; but if we were to travel throughout central Europe and talk with the thousands there who were deprived of their freedom and became a subjugated race, it would readily be appreciated what a great heritage of freedom is ours to enjoy. When the Prime Minister of this country, quite properly in my opinion, took a definite and determined stand with respect to espionage in this country, I wonder just what our position might have been had we been a small individual nation unprotected by our position in the empire. What answer might we have received from a great power at that time if we had been just a small nation standing alone? But because we knew that we enjoyed the protection and the support of one of the

Canada Day
greatest empires the world has ever known we were able to make our voice heard, and *even though criticism was heaped upon the Prime Minister of this country, Canadians generally I think gloried in the courageous stand he took. By that I am not implying any approval of the methods adopted. I am not a legal man and I am not going to argue legal points, but I say that in the main public opinion admired the Prime Minister for championing the nation's cause because the security of individual Canadians was at stake.
The other night the Minister of Mines and Resources, in reply to the hon. member for Davenport, who had a bill before the house to introduce a Jack Miner day, said in effect that it was a matter which involved the provinces because it touched upon education. He thought there should be a reference made to the provinces before the house should give its assent to that bill.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. njember
should not go farther into a debate which is completed.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: But it has a direct reference to what I wish to say.


William Ross Macdonald: That debate has been concluded and the hon. member should not refer to it now.


Thomas Langton Church: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is talking about a principle by which we should be guided in this debate.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member who is speaking must not refer to a previous debate on the same subject during the present session.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Mr. Chairman, you handicap me in what I intended to say, because, if that was important then, this is far more important now. When the provinces of Canada joined in confederation there was designated a day termed "Dominion day", "Dominion of Canada day", or any other like expression you wish to apply to it. Surely the provinces have now the right to determine whether this house should write upon the statute books of this country the substitution for "Dominion day" of the term "Canada day".


Mr. MARTIN:: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question? It is not correct to say that in 1867 Dominion day was designated as such. In 1867 the reference was to "Canada", but in 1879 a resolution was introduced in the upper house urging that July 1 be made "Dominion day". That resolution was subsequently dealt with in this house on motion of a private member!
I thank the hon. gentleman for giving me the chance to make the observation that in 1867, July 1 was not designated as "Dominion day", but simply referred to in sections 3 and 5 of the British North America Act as "Canada".


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I accept my hon. friend's explanation. I believe that it lends strength to my argument, for it indicates that in 1867 they were not in a position to determine a suitable day or a suitable designation for a day; but after some years had elapsed, they in their wisdom-and after all they were the makers of Canada and of confederation-determined that it should be called "Dominion day". I am glad to have the hon. member's explanation, but as far as I am concerned any sentiments I have with respect to Canada's national day are directly associated with Dominion day. I consider that the mover of this resolution would have had a great deal more support in this house if he had sought to have the day termed "Confederation day" rather than "Canada day". If we adopt and pass this bill we shall be the only country in the world which uses our national name to designate our national day. I leave that thought with the committee. The world is in a formative, unstable state. What we may do now in this direction may tend to weaken the strength we need in these trying times. I do not want to be misunderstood. I believe my Canadian friends of French descent from Quebec will give me credit for speaking from my heart, just as I believe they have spoken from theirs. Canada as part of the empire has played a great part; I cannot agree in in any way with the hon. member for York * North that an act of this kind would make it any greater. Canada's history is written in the contribution she has made to world affairs. Her sacrifices have been made under the terms of an act and are commemorated by a day which we are now seeking to change. I hope someone will see fit to amend this proposal so as to change "Canada day" to "Confederation day", as being something which better describes the purpose we have in view. I do not want to be bigoted in my views. I believe we have in this house a sense of common loyalty; we have all sworn allegiance to the same crown; we believe in British institutions, British laws and British justice. We are therefore not very far apart. I suggest that the title proposed in a wrong one and will be misunderstood, and this thought I leave with the Chairman and members of the committee.


Mr. PINARD:: I did not intend to participate in this debate, but I think it is my privilege to try to correct an impression which was made by the remarks of some hon. mem-
Canada Day

bers this afternoon. I do not for a moment question their sincerity. I do not for a moment doubt their good faith in their argument. But it seems to me that these remarks follow the same policy which has been adopted by members of the Progressive Conservative party, who always claim, whenever we try to enact legislation which has for its purpose to develop or better emancipate Canada, that we are trying to destroy our British connection. They have always followed that policy. Whenever any change was suggested or contemplated in the relations of Canada to Great Britain, those who are interested in having things remain as they are insist that we are trying to put an end to confederation. This has been said about practically every constitutional change since the conquest of Canada. In 1927, when the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, then leader of the Conservative opposition, opposed the appointment of a Canadian minister to Washington, he did so on this very ground. His actual words were:
ft the last great adventure in our relation to the British empire. It is but the determining of separation; it is but the end of our connection with the British empire.
And, Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Bennett jame into office in 1931 he appointed his own brother-in-law, Mr. Herridge, as minister at Washington. Mr. Herridge served his term, and I do not believe it is the opinion of my hon. friends that any material change was made in our relations with Great Britain.
It was also suggested this afternoon that before the adoption of the British North America Act there was an agreement by which this country was to be called the "Dominion [DOT] of Canada . I do not believe that this assertion is true. In order to substantiate my opinion I wish to refer first to a book entitled "The Constitution of Canada", by Kennedy, on page 314 of which the author states:	'
When the conference resumed after the holidays Lord Monck, the governor general, and .Lord Carnarvon, the colonial secretary, attended its meetings accompanied by Sir Frederic Rogers afterwards Lord Blachford, the permanent under-secretary. Attempts were at once begun to draft a bill. With the final resolutione before them, at least six drafts were drawn up. The seventh and last printed in imperial form was dated for revision February 9. 1867, and was the outcome of consultation between the imperial representatives and the members of the conference. Perhaps the most interesting fact about these drafts is that at first the name of the new federation was left to the decision of the queen. Later it appeared as "the kingdom of Canada," and in the final draft as "one dominion under the name of Canada." Macdonald was the ruling genius" with power in "management and adroitness." There can be little doubt with his strong bias in favour of a legislative union that he desired to f6rm an auxiliary kingdom out of the colonies, and he deplored in later [Mr. Pinard.l
life the lack of insight which rejected the title. He fought hard for its retention, but it was withdrawn at the instance of Lord Stanley, the minister for foreign affairs, who feared that "it would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees." It was appropriate that the name of Canada should be chosen in preference to the fantastic titles suggested by the press, but history does not relate from what source or for what reasons the word "dominion" was added.
May I now quote from one who, together with Sir George Etienne Cartier, may well be considered the founder of confederation. I refer to none other than Sir John A. Macdonald. I wish to quote from a book entitled "Correspondence of Sir John Macdonald," by Sir Joseph Pope. At page 450 there appears the following:
The declaration of all the B.N.A. provinces that they desired as one dominion to remain a portion of the empire, showed what wise government and generous treatment would do, and should have been marked as an epoch in the history of England. This would probably have been the case, had Lord Carnarvon, who, as colonial minister, had sat at the cradle of the new dominion, remained in office. His ill-omened resignation was followed by the appointment of the late Duke of Buckingham, who had as his adviser the then governor general, Lord Monck-both good men certainly, but quite unable, from the constitution of their minds, to rise to the occasion. The union was treated by them much as if the B.N.A. Act were a private bill uniting two or three English parishes. Had .a different course been pursued-for instance had united Canada been declared to be an auxiliary kingdom, as it was in the Canadian draft of the bill, I feel sure (almost) that the Australian colonies would, ere this, have been applying to be placed in the same rank as the kingdom of Canada.
I should like to quote the postscript:
On reading the above over I see that it will convey the impression that the change of title from kingdom to dominion was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. This is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then foreign minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees. I mentioned this incident in our history to Lord Beaconsfield at Hughenden in 1879, who said. "I was not aware of the circumstance, but it is so like Derby-a very good fellow, but who lives in a region of perpetual funk."


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Who wrote that? .


Roch Pinard: That was written by Sir John A. Macdonald and addressed to Lord Knuts-ford on July 18, 1889, and it is reported in Sir Joseph Pope's "Correspondence of Sir John Macdonald."	>
I submit, therefore, that it is not right, in fact it is definitely wrong, to assume that the title "Dominion of Canada" came into being as a matter of agreement. That is not the fact. The name "Dominion of Canada" came into existence as the circumstances which I have stated indicate.

Canada Day
There is another aspect to this matter, and I mention this in answer to the argument which was advanced this afternoon and which has been repeated to-night by the same hon. member, namely, that no other nation has adopted as its holiday a day bearing its name.
I do not think that is the purpose of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to attempt to clarify an ambiguity which has existed for a considerable time. When Dominion day is celebrated and the first of July is taken as the day of celebration it is apt to lead any one to think that the first of July might as well be the holiday of any other dominion forming a part of the British commonwealth of nations. When in the future any other country may become a dominion and form .part as an associate of the British family, this argument will again, I suggest, be advanced and we shall again be caught with the same ambiguity. It will then be considered that "dominion day" may be the holiday of any other dominion forming a part of the British commonwealth of nations.
Personally, it was with pride that I voted in favour of the second reading of the bill. It is with joy that I wish this country of mine, Canada, to have as its national day a day which, like the fourth of July in the United States or the fourteenth of July in France, will be known the world over as the holiday of our own country.
It is with confidence in the future of Canada that everyone in this country, all of us who in the near future will, I hope, become Canadian citizens by virtue of the new citizenship bill which has been introduced, should approve this all-Canadian and most progressive legislation.


Mr. McMASTER:: I did not intend to take part in this debate because I have been here only one session before and, in my short experience of bills introduced by private members, any such measure has been talked out. I did not know at the time that the government would rally so vigorously and enthusiastically to the support of this particular bill and therefore I did not take part in the debate prior to the time the vote was taken. Since the dinner recess I have made some investigation to find out when Dominion day was originally instituted, and I find that it was on May 15, 1879. On that date an act of parliament was passed which first introduced Dominion day. I should like to quote from the preamble:
Whereas it was on the first day of July that the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick became one dominion under the name of Canada; and
Whereas Rupert's land and the northwestern territory and the province of British Columbia became part of the dominion in the month of July, and Prince Edward Island became part of the dominion on the first day of July; and
Whereas it is expedient that such important events should be commemorated:
Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows.
Then appears what we find in the present bill. I find that in the old debates there was not one dissenting voice. The matter was brought forward in the house, and Mr. David Mills, a resident of western Ontario, made this remark:
Dominion day was, he believed, universally kept as a holiday, at least, it was in western Canada, but it was not kept under the authority of any act of parliament.
I suggest that this act, which has been in force for sixty-seven years and under which Canada has made great advances, should not be changed and that no change should be made in the name of this particular holiday.


Mr. COLDWELL:: I find it very difficult
indeed to understand why so much heat is generated over a proposal of this description. Surely we have come to the day when, setting aside all prejudices, we ought to be prepared to recognize this country as Canada. I look back over the years and I find that in 1867 the proclamation which proclaimed the union of the various provinces of this dominion into one great confederation referred to our country as Canada. I find that when Sir Robert Borden, the erstwhile leader of my friends to the right, signed the treaty of Versailles in 1919, he did not sign it in the name of the . Dominion of Canada but in the name of Canada. The various agreements that we have made over the last number of years have been made in the name of Canada. Surely the men and women who went overseas in this war did not carry on their arms any insignia of colonialism; they carried on their arms the name of Canada. For the life of me I cannot understand why there are hon. gentlemen who rise in this house and still desire to cling to the name "Dominion", when dominion has a connotation altogether different from that which is the connotation of the word "Canada" to-day. Canada is a nation. Canada has grown to nationhood in the last seventy or eighty years. Canada- has earned a place in the comity of nations and deserves to be recognized as such. It seems strange to me that nearly every other country in the world, including the United Kingdom, recognizes this country as a nation as Canada. Yet we have people in our own country who refuse to recognize it. I cannot understand it.
Canada Day

I came to this country as an immigrant from Great Britain thirty-six years ago. No one can say that I have no love for the country which gave me birth; but this is the country in which I have found my life, in which my children were bom. I want to see Canada assume that spirit and place ,of nationhood which is rightly hers. I cannot understand my hon. friends who continually cling to the outmoded connotations of colonialism.
A few moments ago a quotation was given from the writings of Sir John A. Macdonald. May I requote it? Sir John A. Macdonald was writing to Lord Knutsford on July 18, 1889. He went on to explain why it was the name of the kingdom of Canada was not accepted, as my hon. friend has placed on the record already. In the postscript which I should like to place on the record anew we find these words:
On reading the above over I see that it will convey the impression that the change of title from "kingdom" to "dominion" was caused by the Duke of Buckingham. This is not so. It was made at the instance of Lord Derby, then foreign minister, who feared the first name would wound the sensibilities of the Yankees.
My hon. friends Who are objecting to the use of the name "Canada" are apparently still carrying on the tradition that we must not wound the sensibilities of the Yankees. As far as I am concerned, I do not mind wounding the sensibilities of the Yankees or of anybody as long as this country may assume its proper place among the nations of the world. I continue with the quotation:
I mentioned this incident in our history to Lord Beaconsfield at Hughenden in 1879, who said, "I was not aware of the circumstance, but it is so like Derby-a very good fellow, but who lives in a region of perpetual funk."
I rather suspect that there are politicians in this house who live in a region of perpetual funk because they are afraid to assume the name of Canada.
As far as I and those who are associated with me in this party are concerned, while we want to retain the very closest friendship with the people of the United Kingdom and the people of the British commonwealth of nations, we nevertheless want to see to it that this country of ours, Canada, shall be known throughout the world as Canada and not as the Dominion of Canada with a colonial connotation. Therefore I support this bill; I want to se it go through.
There is no incompatibility between assuming a stature that one ought to assume on account of the long .history of this country, not the history of recent days in connection with the war but the history of this country ever since confederation. In this country we have 
been trying to build a nation. Persons from all over the civilized world have come to this country from time to time. Our boys who fought overseas were proud to bear the name of Canada. I hope that at this session this parliament will see to it that we place Canada among the nations of the world. This is not an unhealthy form of nationalism. We are proud of our families. Our families are a part of the community, and we are proud of the community. 'Our communities are a part of our nation; we are proud of our nation, and our nation can be proud of being part of the great world in which we live.
The men and women who served Canada in this war ought, in my opinion, to have had the opportunity of carrying the name of Canada and her flag across the world. I hope that this house will adopt this bill in order that the boys and girls now attending our schools, the men and women now celebrating the first of July, may celebrate it1 not as emerging from colonial status but as an indication that Canada has become a nation among the nations of the world. Let us pass this bill and teach our Iboys and1 girls, the men and women who have come or who are coming into this country from all over the world, that the first of July is the day on which we are proud to call our country "Canada."


Mr. HARKNESS:: I am one of those of whom the hon. gentleman spoke a few moments ago. I was proud to carry the name of Canada on my shoulder overseas, but I do not think that enters into this discussion in the slightest. Not one of us is afraid to assume the name of Canada; as a matter of fact overseas we were all proud to do so, but in my opinion that is not the question before us. I measure this bill by only one yardstick: will it increase the feeling and spirit of unity in our country? In my opinion it will not, and as a result I am opposed to it. As a matter of fact I think it will have exactly the opposite effect; it will tend to destroy some of the unity which exists at the present time. I Should like to urge all hon. members to use that same yardstick in considering this bill and in coming to their decision upon it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
On section 3-When 1st of .July is a Sunday.
Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I rise to speak for only two or three minutes in the very fervent hope that I may be able to debunk something which has just been said by the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation party. No one denies; no one will ever deny-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.

Canada Day


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member for Waterloo South is not here, but I see that the quaekers down in the far comer opposite are still with us. No one among us, I am sure, will ever say anything against pride of country as we have it in this Dominion of Canada. It is very easy to build up a straw man and then knock him down. The leader of the C.C.F. party is adept at many things, but in that he achieves the absolute tops among us all; I will give him first prize in that sort of business. But what does this amount to? We have used the words "Dominion day" since 1879, as someone told me a moment ago. I give my word of honour that it was news to me, because I was not born then. But this is the position. We have used it and we have never heard a suggestion anywhere, until now, that it should be changed. Now in this House of Commons for the first time, as far as any public discussion, or discussion in newspapers, magazine articles or anything of that kind goes, we hear this suggestion.


Mr. POULIOT:: There must always be a beginning.


Arthur Leroy Smith: The hon. member says there must be a beginning. There is an end of the beginning and a beginning of the end; that also is worth while contemplating. So that I put it in this simple way. As far as I am concerned I do not see any great difference in the use of the word "Canada" and the use of the word "Dominion."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, yes.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With respect, Mr. Chairman, through you may I say that I am going to take care of the problem of hon. gentlemen opposite right now. My answer is this. We have got along pretty well with this day and this name for a great many years. What is the reason for changing it now? Somebody says, because we have reached the stature of nationhood. The Statute of Westminister did nothing more and nothing less than declare an existing state of facts. That has been the growth of this empire, this commonwealth.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Is that not what the bill is doing, declaring a state of fact?


Mr. GRAYDON:: Just twisting the government's tail; that is all it is doing.


Mr. SINNOTT:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Arthur Leroy Smith: Yes, indeed.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: What was the reason for the Conservative party of that time changing its name at the last convention?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I am glad I have aroused at least this much enthusiasm and amusement, but may I answer the hon. member in this way. Our changes of name have not been any more than his changes of affiliation.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: May I ask the hon. member another question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. The hon. member for Calgary West has the floor.


Arthur Leroy Smith: With respect to the hon. member's further question I am going to adopt the attitude of the government and suggest that he put it on the order paper so that I may get along with what I have to say.
I am going to make this very, very plain. The first time I said anything in this house I said something I meant and felt very deeiply. I then said that, aside from economic problems and that sort of thing, I thought the -greatest problem we had and the mission we had was to do something about unity in this country; that is, unity between the two major races. I have not changed one bit since then. I. am now going to make this suggestion, which has already been made, and then I am going to make an admission for myself. I am seeking time in this matter. Someone may say, "Then why did you vote against the motion to adjourn the debate?" I did. I think I was wrong. I think this country should have more time to consider this measure. I am now going to help out the government. They are now in this position. A number of ministers, perhaps the ablest-


George Alexander Cruickshank: And private
members.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I will admit that the ablest private member is the one who spoke just now.
I have come clean; I have admitted I was wrong in a vote I cast, and I conclude my remarks by saying this. We have had some heat displayed here. I think the house will agree that I am not exhibiting anything of that kind. When I get mad at somebody it is going to be over something quite worth while. An hon. member over there from Quebec sent me a note this afternoon which might have generated heat had I not known
Canada Day

the great sense of humour he possesses. My position can be put in a sentence. Would it not be better to wait a minute? I told the house I was going to help out the government. Their position is this. They will have to. kill this bill in the senate; that is the spot they are in. There is no other place they can go, and I am trying to help them. I am merely suggesting that we cool off a little bit, and let reason rather than emotion govern.


Robert Wellington Mayhew: Mr. Chairman, I did vote against the first amendment which asked for a six months hoist of the bill, because in my opinion that was one means not only of killing it but of smothering it to death, and of preventing any discussion of this important matter. I thought it was not becoming of anyone to make a motion of that kind which would mean that we would not have a chance at least to consider the bill before us.
Then, when we came to the amendment to adjourn the debate, I voted for it. I did so for the very reason that that would give us time to discuss the bill, but not kill it. It could be referred back to the house later in the session, and we could then either kill the bill or adopt it, as we saw fit.
When it came, then, to voting for the motion itself, I voted against it, because it was doing the very thing that the first amendment did; that is, it was crowding something upon us which we had not had time to consider. Because it was crowding, and because I felt that they were pushing it on us, I for one put out my neck and said that I would not support it. I am not at all sorry that I took that position.
But I do resent it when the leader of the C.C.F. tries to maintain that anyone who voted against that bill was voting against Canada itself. I take second place to no one when it comes to a matter of loyalty for Canada, or pride in this country. But I did think it was too important a question to be settled in an afternoon in this house.
To my mind Dominion day has meant to me the birth of Canada, the birth of our nation. For that reason I have always taken it seriously. But this debate is going to do one thing, because in my opinion it is good for Canada. That day, Dominion day, was nothing more to us than another holiday. It was a civic holiday, but one which Canadians did not use. They did not emphasize that we were celebrating the union of two great nations into one country called "Canada". We just went off on picnics here and there. Nothing was organized, and there was no effort to bring it to the attention of young 
Canadians that that is Canada's day. Whether it should be called "Canada day", or whether it should be called "Confederation day", or whether it should remain "Dominion day", I am not certain. Because of that uncertainty I should have liked to have a little more time to consider the matter. I suggest that those who have pressed the bill upon us at this time have made a mistake in doing so.
I do not think for one moment that it will make one particle of difference in the loyalty of Canada, one part against the other. It is not going to affect us at all. Those who talk along that line are talking foolishly. We shall still remain Canadians-and if as small a thing as that will send them away saying something or doing something that is not Canadian or is not in favour of the British commonwealth of nations, then I think they have gone altogether too far.
I have said even more than I intended to say, 'but I hope I have put myself on record.


Humphrey Mitchell: Mr. Chairman, I will
not take up much time of the house. However, I wish to say this to my good friends in all parties in the house that the British people-and I speak, of course, in the broadest sense, because we have taken all the finest people from the world into the family of this dominion-are fully represented in Canada. The British people hold an umbrella of freedom. Yes, always remember that they hold that umbrella of freedom.
Before we pass a measure of this kind, basic principle of democracy is to go and talk the matter over with your own people. I am for Canadian citizenship. I talked' it over with my people, and they elected me. I am for a Canadian flag. I talked it over with my people, and they elected me.
I have no objection to this bill, but I think we must go back and talk it over with our people. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar this evening spoke about this Canada. I think Canada is what it is to-day because men were prepared to sacrifice their lives, if necessary, so that freedom, the British commonwealth and Canada might live. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is an Englishman, like myself.


An hon. MEMBER:: I hope not.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Humphrey Mitchell: Just a minute; let us be fair about this. My mind goes back to 1939, when his party, there, said to his own flesh and blood, "Cash on the barrel".


Mr. COLD  WELL@: Nothing of the kind. I invite the minister to prove that statement. It is absolutely false.

Canada Day


Humphrey Mitchell: I will put it in this way, if I may put it in the language of the street, so that they may understand it. I have a vivid recollection of the statement that we should send goods and munitions of war to the people of Great Britain-


Major James William Coldwell: Absolutely false.


Humphrey Mitchell: -and not any men.


Major James William Coldwell: Absolutely false. That is not correct. Never cash on the barrel head. The minister knows he is falsifying the record.


Humphrey Mitchell: Well, that is what I call cash on the barrel. Let me say to my hon. friend that I came in late. He made an impassioned speech this evening, and I did not hear all of it. But let me say this to him, that nations and civilization are not built by people who sit on the fence.


Major James William Coldwell: That is what you have been doing for years, so far as labour conditions are concerned-no bigger fence-sitter in Canada. What about Ford?


An hon. MEMBER:: What about steel?


Humphrey Mitchell: Don't get down in the gutter.


Major James William Coldwell: You asked for it, and you will get it.


William Ross Macdonald: I must remind hon.
members that they cannot make a row. The speaker has the floor, unless the hon. member who is speaking gives consent.	[DOT]


Mr. GILLIS:: On a point of order, is the minister discussing the present bill, or is he discussing the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


An hon. MEMBER:: Both.


Major James William Coldwell: I don't mind which he does.


Clarence Gillis: If you are going to allow that kind of latitude, you will get plenty of it. And that is giving you a tip.


William Earl Rowe: You have often contributed to it yourself.


Humphrey Mitchell: I will say-and the hon. member for Rosetown-BIggar is a personal friend of mine-that when we have been discussing this particular question he brings in the Ford strike. May I say to my hon. friend that I received a unanimous resolution from the workers at Ford for the contribution I made to the settlement of that strike.
I want now to get back to my previous point, and say that the British commonwealth of nations was built or developed, and evolved
the greatest science of government in history, as we understand it, upon a basis of free institutions and the right to express one's opinion, notwithstanding the fact that ninety-nine per cent of the people may disagree with you. I believe that we should take time on this thing, that we should go back to our people and-


Mr. PROBE:: But don't ride the fence.


Humphrey Mitchell: If my prairie chicken will keep quiet for a moment-


John Oliver Probe: I am not an overstuffed bantam rooster anyway.


Humphrey Mitchell: I should have said
"prairie statesman." I am quite prepared to go back to my people and discuss with them whether they are in favour of making this change, just the same as I did on the flag question and other legislation that has come before the house. I just wanted to say these few words to put myself on record.


Thomas Langton Church: The dominions should hang together or they will hang separately.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, on division.
James Horace King: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.
Other hon. MEMBERS: Next sitting.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I refer your Honour to standing order 77, which reads:
All amendments made in committee are reported by the chairman to the house, which shall receive the same forthwith. After report the bill is open to debate and amendment, before it is ordered for a third reading. But when a bill is reported without amendment, it is forthwith ordered to be read a third time at such time as may be appointed by the house.


James Horace King: When shall the bill be read a third time? .


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Now.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Next sitting.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Mr. Speaker, the rules
clearly make it possible to have the third reading of this bill now, but after what has been said by the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., (Mr. Mayhew) and others here to-night I wonder whether the government wishes to press for third reading now or whether it would not be better left over for a later day to give hon. members time to cool off. I respectfully make that suggestion to the government.
Canada Day


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In reply to the hon. leader of the opposition, may I point out that this is not a government measure. I was merely pointing out to His Honour that under standing order 77 it is quite competent for the house to take third reading of this bill forthwith.


James Horace King: Is it the pleasure of the house that the bill shall now be read a third time? Those in. favour will please say, yea; those against will please say, nay. In my opinion the yeas have it. Call in the members.


Mr. FRASER:: Mr. Speaker, I was on my feet.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, may I not be heard on a point of order?


James Horace King: I have put the question to the house. It was not for the Speaker to decide whether the bill should be read a third time now or not. I put the question to the house and I asked those who were in favour of the bill being read a third time to say yea, and those who were against to say nay, and I gave my opinion that the yeas had it. That having been said by me, more than five members rose, and according to the rules of the house I had only one thing to do, namely, to ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to call in the members. The hon. member knows perfectly well that that is established practice in this house.


Gordon Graydon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Order.


Gordon Graydon: Am I to be denied the right to speak even on a point of order?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Gordon Graydon: I am not going to sit down for any one over there, but I will sit down for the Speaker.


James Horace King: I would ask the hon. members on both sides to be quiet and preserve the dignity and decorum we should have in this house. The hon. member will recall that last session, after the members had been called- in, a member rose on a point of order and I gave the ruling that when the members had been called in no member should rise on a point of order. I have already asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to call in the members so that we may proceed to take the vote.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


James Horace King: Members having been
called in, no point of order could be raised now.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This is a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


William Chisholm Macdonald: I was
paired with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Black). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion. .


Donald Ferguson Brown: I was paired with the hon. member for Lambton Kent (Mr. Henderson). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Édouard-Gabriel Rinfret: I was paired wifh the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontanio (Mr. Mac-donnell). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


John Watson MacNaught: I was paired with the
hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Coyle). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


William Ross Macdonald: I
was paired, with the hon. member for London (Mr. Manross). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I was paired with the Minister of Trade and' Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time.


James Horace King: It has been moved by
Mr. Cote (Matapedia-Matane), seconded by Mr. Smith (North York), that the bill do now pass and that the title be as on the order paper.


Arthur Leroy Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have in my hand a large book. I am not familiar with every page of it, but I find on page 239 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, third edition, the following:
715. It is occasionally the custom to pass bills through their different stages at one and the same sitting. That course, however, is never taken except in cases of extreme urgency, and with the general assent of the house. (Speaker Brand, 1880). It is for the house to declare whether there is such urgency as to require the rapid passage of a measure; and whenever the sense of the house is to take more than one stage on the same day, the Speaker has permitted it to be done.
I am suggesting, sir, that you follow that and defer the third reading of the bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: On the point of order
raised by my hon. friend-


James Horace King: Order. If the hon. member will permit me, no hon. member may raise a point of order now that the bill has already been read the third time. The question was put to the house for the second reading of the bill and1 the motion carried, and for the third reading, which motion also was carried, and the house had many opportunities to act in accordance with the hon. gentleman's suggestion. The house has already determined, however, that the bill be read a third time. The hon. member for Matapedia-Matane now moves, seconded by Mr. Smith of North York, that the bill be now passed and that the title be as on the order paper. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: On division.
Motion agreed to on division.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bertrand (Terrebonne):
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of including in their social security programme a system of allowances to every person, without any income or means of support, who, by reason of any injury, accident or congenital
/
Social Securty-Mrs. Strum
[Stage Direction]
infirmity, is at a disadvantage in seeking or obtaining employment, or incapable of providing for his subsistence, and whose age prevents him from benefiting by the social security legislation now in force.
Mrs. GLADYS STRUM (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, in the face of the exhibition of ultrapatriotism which we have had to-day, I feel almost impelled to declare my ancestry. While that has nothing to do with the present motion, we have had such a marvellous display of ninety-nine and forty-four one-hundredths per cent pure Canadianism that I think I should let you know that my father was born on the first of July and my grandfather was a United Empire Loyalist.
The members of this house have now an opportunity to prove whether or not they are really good Canadians. Perhaps it is well to refer to the motion in order to establish the terms of reference, because I do not wish to explore the entire field of Canadian history or the entire territory included in the British empire. I wish to stick to the resolution, which declares:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should take into consideration the advisability of including in their social security programme a system of allowances to every person, without any income or means of support, who, by reason of any injury, accident or congenital infirmity, is at a disadvantage in seeking or obtaining employment, or incapable of providing for his subsistence, and whose age prevents him from benefiting by the social security legislation now in force.
I submit that the test of a good citizen is not being hble to brag about the number of square miles which happen to comprise our boundaries, or in the figures we establish in the field of trade, or on the goals that we have set in the fields of production. In Canada we have great natural beauty, great resources of power, great resources for the production of food; but I must insist that the test of Canada is in the field of her humanity. If in Canada we have people who are crippled and have no means of livelihood, people who must spend lives of pain, desperation and frustration, people who must depend on chance and charity, it is the greater shame in the face of our great wealth, and we have every reason to blush that we have delayed so long the passage of a bill of this kind.
If, through accident, through injury, if as a result of illness, or because of birth we have people who are handicapped they will need at least four things. They will need an allowance to pay for rent, clothing and food. In addition to that, perhaps they will need drugs and appliances. They should have medical care and a chance to take advantage of the

kind of education which might be to their benefit. We should generously endow research
institutes-and that is where we fall down_____
that would try to discover the reasons for their infirmities and alleviate their sufferings. I hope that we shall deal with this bill; I hope that all hon. members will prove that they are really good Canadians by voting for it.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I rise to support this resolution and to compliment the hon. member who introduced it. He has touched on a matter that has been too long overlooked. I hope that the government will accept the resolution and bring in legislation to implement it.
In my riding in Toronto I have come across many cases that are outside the pale of receiving assistance from any organization or source of which I know to-day. 'I have in mind a man who worked in a foundry in Toronto. Above him were large glass windows. In the course of time he caught a cold which settled in his lungs. In a foundry there is much heat -not the kind we had here this afternoon- and a good deal of draught. As I say, it settled on his lungs and he became quite ill. He went to the hospital. He applied to the workmen's compensation board for compensation and received compensation for some time. In my experience I have had a good deal to do with many men of that type. Many of them may work in factories. I myself was engaged in the foundry business for some time.
The workmen's compensation board was organized to take care of men injured in plants.
I am happy to say that I was one of those, together with organizations and industries with which I was associated, who supported the Ontario government when they introduced the workmen's compensation act. But it does not cover everything. After the man to whom I referred was released from the hospital he received compensation for some time, but ultimately the board's doctors declared him perfectly fit to go back to his work. In the course of time he became incapable of working because his lungs were affected. I did my best to have the compensation board take up his case again, but was unsuccessful. This is the type of case that this resolution would cover. Here was a man who was unable to work at anything to give him a livelihood. His wife took in sewing and after the greatest of effort was apparently able to eke out an existence. This resolution would cover a case of that kind, because among other things it says:
. . . without any income or means of support, who, by reason of any injury, accident or congenital infirmity . . .

Social Securty-Mr. Blair
I have another case in mind where a man riding to work on a motorcycle had the misfortune to be struck by a street-car and was very seriously injured with the result that he became badly crippled. Of course, a workman cannot fight a street-car company for long. In this particular case the workman was not awarded any compensation by the street-car company or by any other body. He became a charge on his friends, and while still a young man was outside any possible support from any source that I could find out for him. If a bill were founded on this resolution such a man, being unable to work or to take care of himself, would be looked after.
The resolution also refers to congenital infirmity. I know of one or two cases which are only examples of a multitude that would come under a bill founded on this resolution. I know of a young woman who had a pronounced curvature of the spine. She went through a business college and graduated as a stenographer. She applied for a position and could not get one. The fact that she had a pronounced curvature of the spine prevented her from obtaining a position. After a considerable effort and writing many letters to friends of mine who were employers, and appealing to their humanity, I obtained a position for her. But there are multitudes like her who cannot obtain positions because of deformities that are no fault of theirs. This young lady was penalized by being apparently unemployable or being in such a condition that employers would not take her on, perhaps because other members of the staff did not want to have her among them. I know a good deal about offices and there are some offices like that. A class of people like that who could not get employment would be taken care of by a bill founded on this resolution.
I know of another young woman who is about eighteen years of age. She was born a pronounced cripple. She was so crippled that her legs were thrown under her and her arms w'ere also deformed to a certain extent. She got along by throwing herself forward on the floor in a sitting position, one leg after the other. I endeavoured to persuade everyone I knew who might 'be able to do so to give her something to do, because she had a very happy disposition and wanted to do anything she was capable of doing, but I could get no work for her. Finally a society in Toronto, I believe it was the crippled children's society, took up her case and got her something to do at home; I do not know what kind of work it was. But for that society, which is doing splendid work among
crippled children, that girl would have no means whatever of taking care of herself. I presume any bill founded upon this resolution would take care of a case of that kind.
Certainly crippled children, children bom that way, had nothing whatever to do with their condition, and in my judgment it is the duty of the state to base upon this resolution a bill which will give these people something on which they may live. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton) may have something in mind along that line; perhaps he has been working on something. If so, no doubt when he speaks he will tell us what are his plans and what is the programme. Many others are not old enough to qualify for old age pensions; there must be quite a large number of people in that age group who have no income whatever, and perhaps the bill would help take care of them.
I rose merely for the purpose of placing myself solidly behind any programme of social security for those who are referred to in the resolution. If the government will bring in a bill under which these people will be given at least an opportunity to live, not on their friends but on the state, I will support it.


Mr. W. G. BLAIR (Lanark):: I should like to support this resolution, Mr. Speaker, but as it is now worded I cannot do so. I would not want any hon. member to think I am complaining about the resolution on a mere technicality; I have no doubt as to what the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) had in mind, but as it is now worded the resolution does not carry out that meaning. You will notice that it says, "without any income". In other words, a man in receipt of only $5 a month, far too little to provide him with the necessities of life, would not be eligible under this measure. Then it goes on to speak of "congenital infirmity". That means a disease or disability existing from birth. If this resolution is adopted in its present form we shall exclude people with heart disease, people with arthritis, people with tuberculosis, people who have suffered strokes and are paralysed, and many other persons who are incapable of earning a livelihood.
As I say, I should like to support this resolution, and I would suggest to the hon. member that he redraft or amend it. Instead of the word "any" as to income, I would suggest the word "sufficient"; instead of the word "congenital" I would substitute the word "physical". That would do away with those two objections. It would not exclude the man in receipt of a very small income. It would not exclude all those other people in
Social Security-Mr. Zaplitny

the welfare group this resolution is intended to help. If the hon. member for Terrebonne will make those substitutions, by amendment or otherwise, I shall be glad to support the resolution because I think it fulfils a need that has existed for a long time.


Mr. F. S. ZAPLITNY (Dauphin):: I rise to support this resolution because I believe that the degree of civilization reached by society may be measured by the extent to which each citizen regards himself as his brother's keeper. I believe that this resolution takes a step in that direction; therefore I am in favour, of it. Whatever technical difficulties may arise in interpreting who shall come under its provisions, can I think, be easily straightened out when the bill is brought down. This resolution suggests a general policy; as and when the bill comes down it will contain the details.
I wish to support the resolution also because some provinces, including Manitoba, are not as fortunate as the province referred to the other evening by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), when he said that in British Columbia there was some limited form of assistance to crippled or disabled people. I should like to place on record a sentence or two from a letter I received from the director of public welfare of Manitoba, to indicate that unfortunately in our province we have no legislation whatever to pover disability cases from the time the family allowance ceases until the old age pension begins. In reply to an inquiry of mine dated February 6, 1946, I received this reply, from which I shall read just a sentence:
In Manitoba there is no provincial programme to provide financial aid for children just because of their crippled condition.
Further in the same letter I find this:
In the second place because of existing legislation the care of crippled adults is a municipal responsibility . . .
In other words, there is no legislation whatever in Manitoba to look after either crippled children or adults. As an example of some of the unfortunate people that we run across all too often, I should like to quote a few words from a letter which was written to me by a person in Ste. Rose du Lac, which commences with these words:
Being completely disabled through sickness, and sixty-six years old, would you kindly give me a hand toward getting my old age pension?
We all get letters of this kind, and it is not easy to sit down and explain to these people that because they are only sixty odd years of age they are not eligible for pension, regardless of the fact that they are crippled or disabled.
For the reasons I have mentioned I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Terrebonne

on having brought forward this resolution. I hope that not only will the house pass the resolution but that a bill will be brought down under which provision will be made for looking after this class of people.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I rise to say that I am absolutely with the hon. member who brought in this resolution. I believe it has merit, but I agree with the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair) that the wording should be changed. I know of a family in my own riding that has not had one cent from any municipality; yet the entire family is absolutely crippled. The father has been a cripple since birth. The mother is crippled; her mother is the same way, and their child is also crippled. The only way they can get any money, except by working in their back kitchen, is through relief and they are too proud to ask for that. The father has to be carried around, because he cannot walk. The mother is able to hobble around on crutches, and the grandmother is the same way. They have a small income, through their own efforts, by working on woodwork in their own home. If this bill were changed so that it would increase their small income, one which is not sufficient-they make only a few hundred dollars a year-it would help a great deal.
In many instances parents who have children crippled from birth are ashamed of them, and of their infirmity. By accident about five years ago I stumbled on a case of a girl twenty-three years of age who had never been away from her own home, and who was unable even to feed herself. The family would not let her be seen by outsiders, because they were ashamed of her. Even her next-door neighbour did not know she was in the home.
To-day, thanks to the Hon. Percy Vivian, who was minister of health of Ontario, that girl is in an institution. But the family kept her and looked after her for years.
Only a few weeks ago I received a letter from a woman sixty-two years of age who has been crippled all her life, and who has been kept by her sister ever since the father died some twenty-six or twenty-seven years ago. This woman is too young to receive an aid age pension, and the relief she might get from the municipality is so small that it could not possibly keep her.
I hope sincerely that hon. members on the government side of the house will see to it that this bill carries.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish in a few words to express my support of the resolution now before us. I would draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that this is not a bill, that it is

Social Security-Mr. Claxton
a resolution which had to be phrased in general terms so that it could be brought before the house.
Anyone reading the resolution will understand, I am sure, what the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) had in mind. He had in mind that Canada should have a social security programme. A social security programme is a programme for the social welfare or security of people who, for any reason, are not able to provide for themselves. I believe we have come to a stage in our civilization when the representatives of the people, and the people who elected those representatives, should be ashamed of seeing any member of the community who, because of any condition whatsoever, mental, physical, or otherwise, is not able to provide for himself, being allowed to suffer for lack of the good things of life which we can provide in such abundance.
I too hope, as the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) has said, that ho'n. members on the government side of the house, and the ministers in particular, will accept this resolution. In doing so, there is something that those of us on this side of the house should keep in mind. A social security programme cannot be put into operation unless we are prepared to spend part of the revenue of the country on that programme. If we do that, then we must add to the taxes paid by our people. That will mean increasing expenditures. So that if we are going to ask, as we do, that the government accept this suggestion, we must not criticize it for making the necessary expenditures required.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But they could cut out
some of their extravagances. They spend over S660 a day on the broadcast "Soldier's Wife".


Angus MacInnis: I am not saying that they cannot. However, I have noticed in my years of public life that everyone is in favour of instituting economies, provided that the operation does not begin with him or her, as the case may be.
The matter of looking after the unfortunate among us is not a matter, of money. It is a matter of organizing the man-power of the country, our material resources and our machinery of production in order that we may produce the things those people need: food, clothing, shelter, education, medical attention and those other things which we all need. That may be expressed in terms of money, it may be measured in that way, but it must be provided in real goods and services.
The question is not:	Can we afford the
money? Rather it is:	Can we produce the
goods and services required? I am convinced 63260-37
we can, and in any event we should not say we cannot until we have put every unemployed man and woman to work producing wealth.
I,	too add my congratulations to the many which have been tendered the hon. member for Terrebonne for introducing the resolution. I hope the government will accept its broad general principle, and use every endeavour to put it into legislative form.


Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this discussion has followed the. introduction of a motion by the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) which, like a good many other motions, may be the first step in a measure of social reform. I should like to add my word of congratulation to him for bringing this forward, and speaking to it in the eloquent and moderate way in which he spoke.
It is within the experience of all hon. members that if we look back over the years we shall find that practically every measure of social reform has been introduced, in the first instance, in consequence of a private member's resolution. This has led to its being ventilated, developed, explored, considered and ultimately introduced in the form of legislation. In that connection I think of the motion of the then hon. member for Compton, Mr. Letellier de St. Just who, back in 1929, offered a motion in favour of family allowances. That was considered very forward-looking at the time, and it was some years before family allowances were introduced.
It is one of the means whereby, as I say, these matters receive attention and ultimately incorporation into the legislative structure of the country. The subject of the motion, namely, assistance for people who are incapacitated by injury, accident, or congenital infirmity from earning their livings, is one which I think has the sympathy of every hon. member. All of us would like to see something more done for these people. All of us have at heart the interests which the hon. member for Terrebonne has so eloquently advanced.
There is a tendency nowadays, as we all know, for all of us to look to the state to meet conditions which people have previously met from their own savings or with the assistance of their families or through private agencies and municipalities. There are many reasons .for that development which I do not need to go into now, but it is a manifestation of modern civilization which is seen not only in our country but in all highly industrialized countries.



Social Security-Mr. Claxton
This debate has shown how strong that feeling is in tihis field. Every speaker has pleaded the causes of the class of people intended to be covered by this motion, but the debate has been singularly free from detailed suggestions as to what kind of measure should be brought down, exactly who should be covered, how the cost should be met and every kind of encumbering detail. It is a motion designed, and properly so, to bring the matter before the attention of the house and, through the house, of the country.
From my examination of this subject, there would appear to be two distinct classes of people whom this motion might seek to cover. First, there are those who, being gainfully employed, are in consequence of accident or disease prevented1 from carrying on with their usual occupation. That class is covered in some countries by what are called "sickness benefits." Those benefits are usually payable on a contributory basis, as in the United Kingdom, where since 1911 they have had sickness benefits as part of their system of health insurance. Those benefits are similar to the benefits payable under our system of unemployment insurance. They are payable in consideration of a contribution by the beneficiary, and they are payable in consequence of his being unemployed through sickness, just as unemployment insurance benefits are payable through his being unemployed through there not being work.
There is a second class of people who may be covered by this motion, namely, those who are unable to work at all, those who are totally and permanently incapacitated. They rather approximate to a class to whom we now pay benefits, namely, the blind.
These two sets of benefits might be combined under the same measure, but ordinarily in measures for social security in other countries they are not; they are dealt with in separate categories; the first category of sickness benefits being assimilated to unemployment insurance, and the second class of invalidity benefits being assimilated to benefits payable to the blind.
There are a good many other questions which this motion raises. Would the protection offered by the kind of measure proposed extend only to the gainfully employed or to those insured under a system of unemployment insurance? Would it cover the selfemployed? Would it cover the unemployables, the people who ordinarily cannot secure work at all? Would it extend to those partly as well as to those totally disabled and to those temporarily as well as to those permanently disabled? All these are questions which have to be considered when dealing

with a matter of this kind, and the provisions of the laws in force in the countries which have these measures, notably the United Kingdom since 1911, Australia since 1945, and New Zealand since 1938, as well as Sweden, differ materially from each other.
Then, too, looking at the motion itself, we see that the idea of a means test is introduced in the words "without any income or means of support", qualifying the class of people who might be beneficiaries. It is added that these people would be "at a disadvantage in seeking or attaining employment, or incapable of providing for his subsistence." So that the motion as it stands seems to contemplate a system of benefits which would be payable on a means test basis, probably without contribution, and primarily intended to benefit those who are unemployable.
In considering this kind of measure, as we have done in the department and as the government has done for a good many years, we have to consider the order of priority in which we introduce social security measures. It is not possible in any country to introduce a complete system of social security measures all at once. No country has ever done that; and from my own experience in the Department of National Health and Welfare I can say that it would be exceedingly difficult to create the administrative machinery to deal with a dozen different measures of social security all at once. Further, a good deal of development of public opinion is required to secure the necessary support for any such measure and also to secure the willingness to pay the cost of that measure.
The order of priority of social security measures is put by different experts in different terms. The report of Doctor L. C. Marsh on "Social Security for Canada" which was prepared for the advisory committee on reconstruction deals at page 115 with the order of priorities of social legislation, and there Doctor Marsh gives this as the desirable order:
1.	Unemployment insurance
2.	Health insurance
3.	The disability-old-age-survivors group of insurances
4.	Children's allowances
5.	Sickness cash benefit
6.	Funeral benefits
President Truman of the United States, in his great message to congress of November 19, 1945, put forward proposals for various measures: first, construction of hospitals and related facilities; second, expansion of public health, maternal and child health services; third, medical education and research; fourth, prepayment of medical costs; and fifth, pro-

Social Security-Mr. Claxton
tection against loss of wages from sickness and disability. In this last connection President Truman says:
Therefore, as a fifth element of a comprehensive health programme, the workers of the nation and their families should be protected against loss of earnings because of illness. A comprehensive health programme must include the payment of benefits to replace at least part of the earnings that are lost during the period of sickness and long-term disability. This protection can be readily and conveniently provided through expansion of our present social insurance system with appropriate adjustment of premiums.
Insurance against loss of wages from sickness and disability deals with cash benefits rather than with services. It has to be coordinated with the other cash benefits under existing social insurance systems. Such coordination should be effected when other social security measures are reexamined. I shall bring this subject again to the attention of the congress in a separate message on social security.
There the President puts provision for protection against loss of wages from sickness and disability in the fifth and last group of measures, one in respect of which he is going to put forward some proposal at some subsequent date. Consequently his allotment of priorities on social security legislation is not out of line with that of Doctor Marsh; that is, sickness benefits and invalidity benefits are to be well down the scale, in fact at the end of the scale in so far as health measures are concerned. _ There is a very good reason for that, and that is that in our attack on the problem of ill health-and there is an attack going on all over the front, with a fine combination of agencies, federal, provincial, municipal and private-we make our first aim the prevention of illness and the cause of disability through disease and accident. In accordance with that, the federal government in its proposals to the provinces has put before them suggestions for a very wide measure of grants t.o the provinces on various terms which will be found in the green book containing the proposals of the federal government.
Second comes the question of treatment. If we cannot prevent disease and incapacity due to disease or accident, let us try to cure it; let us try to treat it. So that we put forward in our proposals a comprehensive suggestion for a nation-wide system of health insurance which, if adopted, would provide for complete hospital, medical and nursing services for every man, woman and child in every part of Canada in which the plan was adopted.
The third step should be that of rehabilitation. There is a large group of people who have been incapacitated by accident or disease, but who could be rehabilitated by vocational training, by special efforts on the nart of 63260-37i
employers and national selective service to see that they secure jobs which give them opportunities to use the capacities they have. In that field great work has been done in Canada by the Department of Veterans Affairs with regard to our returned men of both wars and also by the Department of Labour through national selective service. That work has been and is being extended in local communities by provinces, by municipalities and by private agencies.
It is only in the fourth place on this single item of health measures that we come to the desirable measures which the hon. member for Terrebonne has suggested, namely, sickness benefits or invalidity benefits. /
So that this comes some way down the list, and that is for another reason that it has been generally found that these are administratively about the most difficult to introduce. There are various reasons for that. One is, of course, and I do not think it is making any unfair comment on human nature to suggest, that during a time of high employment there is a much greater tendency for everyone to use his capacities in a useful fashion than during a time of relatively low employment, when there is a great tendency for people to discover reasons which prevent them from working. It has been found in the United States, in Canada, in every country which has had to administer various measures like workmen's compensation acts administered by the provinces, that there is a clear relationship between the economic status of the country at any moment and the claims in respect of disability or incapacity. In a report "Issues in Social Security-a report to the committee of ways and means of the house of representatives by the committee's social security technical staff", which was transmitted on January 17, 1946, and which has just been published, it was said:
There is' no royal road to a scheme of disability benefits that is not beset with substantial obstacles.
That is, I think, the experience of every country which has tried to introduce it. One of the reasons why it has generally been considered desirable that health insurance should precede sickness benefits is that only when you have a nation-wide system of health services providing the whole population with an opportunity to secure medical treatment and, if necessary, hospitalization for any condition they may be suffering from, can you properly deal with the class of people who do not respond to treatment and who remain incapacitated through sickness or other cause.
Therefore.I suggest that in the introduction of social measures there is a definite order of priorities which has been recognized by other
Social Security-Mr. Claxton

countries and which we ourselves are recognizing in the measures that we have introduced in Canada.
In that connection I might remind the house that in recent years we have made a good deal of progress with regard to social security measures on t'he part of the federal government. In 1927 old age pensions were introduced on ji fifty-fifty basis at rates which have been subsequently increased and which now are contributed to the extent of 75 per cent by the federal government. Further, we pay pensions to the blind at tne same rates from the age of forty, and the dominions proposals to the dominion-provincial conference again include a measure for a substantial increase in the benefits to the blind. We would hope, if the provinces concur, to cooperate with them in extending the age down to twenty-one and also in further defining the means test; also making provisions for the treatment of blind people at government expense so as to enable them to restore themselves to gainful livelihood and also relieve the slate from the burden of making payments to them.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Do I understand the minister to say that the age would be lowered to twenty-one?


Brooke Claxton: Yes, that is the proposal. As hon. members know, in 1941 we introduced unemployment insurance, despite a good deal of objection to that at the time. It was thought that we should not take that step during the war. We obtained the consent of the provinces to an amendment to the constitution and introduced unemployment insurance, and in consequence of doing that at the time we have not only succeded in getting the system to work, and covering a great proportion. of our population; but also built up a fund of $350,000,000 available to meet the demands on that fund.
In 1944 we introduced family allowances and they became effective from July 1, 1945. As hon. members know, allowances are now paid under the act regularly each month by cheques to the 1,386,000 parents having
3,300,000	children under sixteen years of age on whose behalf the payments are made.
These are very substantial, even amazing advances for a country to make, and to make during the war.
I should now like to call the attention of hon. members to another element that must be considered; the cost of any social security measure. We have no estimate of what the cost of any kind of sickness benefits, such as might be provided under the hon. member's motion, would be in Canada. We have tried to make estimates, but as far as I can make out there is no basis for arriving at reliable
fMr. Claxton.]	,
estimates except to see what the cost has been in countries which have already introduced such measures, and to make some rough and ready calculations. A guess might be that a measure such as this, which would provide for benefits of something like $5 a week to those entitled to claim, by reason of inability to work, because of sickness or some continuing incapacity, might total as much as $100,-0001)00 a year. That is an estimate made by trying to adapt to Canadian conditions figures which seem to have been the experience in other countries.
One could change that figure up and down materially by very slight changes in the law which would increase the class of people covered, and we could also increase it by an easy administration, or we could easily reduce the figure by changes in the opposite direction.
I do not know whether hon. members realize how much we are spending on social welfare at the present time. In February, 1946, if I may quote figures given by the Minister of Labour to-day at a meeting with the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada- they are for February, 1946-the benefits paid those who are out of work were $5,903,000, and under family allowances, $19,690,000. The dominion's share of old age pensions, plus benefits for veterans of world war I and benefits for veterans of world war II, adds another $42,382,000. Then we have amounts paid under the War Services Grants Act as gratuity allowances, and post-discharge reestablishment and rehabilitation benefits totalling $6,222,000. There was also paid during February to dependents of men in the armed forces a total of $8,000,000.
These measures alone in February, 1946, provide a grand total of approximately $89,000,000, nearly all of which went into homes of those who constitute in the main the wage-earners of Canada. That is a payment at the rate of $1,000,000,000 a year. If we add, to that the payments which would be required under the proposed health insurance grants, health insurance and old age pensions as put before the provinces, and add in what the provinces pay for their social security legislation, I think we shall be paying more per capita to the Canadian people than is paid in any other country in the world under any system of social security. In other wrords, we have a big programme under way, and while that does not represent the end of the road, it does represent a substantial instalment in social security for the Canadian people.
I should also say this. If these measures are to be added to the budgetary burden of the dominion the cost can be met, according to the view of this government, only by taxation

5S1
Social Security-Mr. Claxton
or by borrowing. We believe that the Canadian economy can be used by the Canadian people to keep virtually everyone in Canada gainfully employed. We also believe that on the basis of that full employment we can have a gross national production approximating that which we have had during the last year, and on the basis of that we can carry the load we have set ourselves. Rut if we add substantially to this load and keep taxes at a very high level, then there will be a steady decrease in initiative, in the willingness of people to take risks and to work, which cannot avoid having a disastrous effect on the value of our money and on our ability to maintain the kind of economy we want.
Therefore, while all these measures are desirable and we should all like to see them enacted, we must also see, if we are to remain a responsible people and keep the value of our money what it is; if we are to retain the confidence of our own people and that of other peoples, that we do not make promises we cannot keep or assume a load we cannot carry. That requires a high degree of responsibility on the part of every member of this house.
So far I have discussed the question without reference to the constitutional position because I am one of those who believe that if a thing is desirable, then there should be some means *whereby the dominion and the provinces can work out an arrangement to enable its being carried out. Nevertheless we must recognize that we are working under a federal constitution, under which certain responsibilities are placed upon the federal government and certain responsibilities upon the provincial governments. Clearly the responsibility for health and welfare matters, for the relief of unemployables and for the kind of thing about which we are now talking, rests primarily with the provinces.
If an arrangement is to be worked out whereby -some part of that responsibility is to be carried by the dominion, then it requires alterations in the financial arrangements between the two which may be far-reaching. I do not wish to say anything more about that except to say that these matters of health and welfare, the health proposals of the dominion, the proposals for old age pensions and for assistance to the - unemployed are before the provinces in the proposals put forward by the dominion government. The dominion and the provinces are going to meet again on April 25, and we hope that a satisfactory arrangement will be worked out for the welfare of all the Canadian people. But we must recognize that these are matters of great concern to the provinces and that we could not proceed with a system of sickness and invalidity benefits such as might be envisaged within the terms of this motion except through the cooperation of, and after arrangement with, the provinces. It is one field in which it would not be possible for the federal government to work out any satisfactory disposition by itself. It must be done by cooperation. My own belief is that in these matters of dominion-provincial relations we should always work through cooperation as far as we can.
Therefore there is also the constitutional question to be considered. However, when I have said that I do not wish to suggest for a second that because we have a federal constitution we should stop working toward the steady improvement of the welfare of all the people of Canada. It just means that we have to take the federal constitution into account, and by cooperation with the provinces, by seeking their collaboration, try to work out arrangements whereby we can do the things that the people of Canada want done. Consequently I cannot hold out any hope to my hon. friend that the government will accept his suggestion in the sense that we shall bring in legislation this year to implement it. But I should like to tell him and the house that the Department of National Health and Welfare is watching with keen interest social security developments in every part of the world. We have our own correspondents in other countries. We take every opportunity of exchanging views with people when they are travelling from one country to another. I should like to announce in this connection, for the first time I believe, that we have asked the director of social security of Australia, Mr. F. H. Rowe, to pay a visit to Canada so that we can discuss common problems together. We hope that it will be possible for him to come. I have also asked Sir Wilson Jameson, director of health services of the United Kingdom, to visit Canada in May. At that time I hope it may be possible for hon. members to have an opportunity of hearing him discuss such questions. When Mr. Attlee was here I took the opportunity of discussing similar problems with him. I have just been on a visit to the United States where I discussed common problems with United States public health service officials and with officers ol various government agencies as well as officers of the Rockefeller foundation. Our officials are constantly in touch with the people wTho have to deal with these matters in other countries. There are a great number of conferences, including the international labour organizations, in -which such matters are under consideration.
Social Security-Mr. Pouliot

Therefore I can assure hon. members that this, amongst other social security measures, is receiving constant consideration. Consequently it is without the least difficulty that I accept the resolution and say that we shall continue the consideration it urges, not with the thought of any immediate action this year, but with the thought that some such measure as this must in time be worked out for the welfare of the Canadian people.
Mr. JEAN-FRANQOIS POULIOT (Temiscouata): I gave my place to the minister who made a most interesting speech, but I rise now to congratulate very warmly the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand) upon having put this resolution on the order paper. It was time that it should come. There is something most unusual and most incredible, namely, that the only people who suffer from any infirmity and who are too poor to pay for their care and their cure are precisely those whose intelligence is normal, who are not lunatics. A lunatic is sent to an asylum whether he has the means to pay for his board or not. When he has not it is the municipality or the province that pays .for him, or both. But when a person who suffers from any infirmity, has some trouble with an arm or a leg, but has a sane and sound mind, then he or she 'becomes a derelict. He cannot get help.
We hear about security programmes. In our age it is accepted; it is a good thing, and I congratulate the minister on his good speech. But in this very matter that the hon. member for Terrebonne has brought to light there is a gap. There is a gap into which fall those who are precisely the neediest. Around Christmas everybody sees the big advertisements that are published in the New York Times, especially in the Sunday edition: "The Neediest Cases". All the cases that I have in mind, the poor people, young children without hands and other cases like that, pitiful cases, would be helped precisely if the suggestion of my hon. friend were accepted. The question is not to bring in . an expert from Australia and another expert from Great Britain, Sir So-and-so. I do not care for these people. The question is to look after the boy who has no hands, to come to his help. It is not a matter that can wait until the end of the world. What is the use of bringing in these soft brains from all over the world when the boys are suffering here? It is the story of the good Samaritan. Everyone was passing by; no one was paying attention to the poor man lying in the street. They were saying very nice things, but they were passing by. The thing to do is give help to all these children.

Of course, some things are done by the province; some things are done by Ottawa, but if there is a chaotic condition in the relations between Ottawa and the provinces it is on account of the Rowell-Sirois commission that has caused so much trouble in connection with dominion-provincial finances. It is a complete mess. It is precisely on account of that mess that these children and older people suffer, because it is impossible to come to their help. Apparently no one should speak of that chaotic condition which was brought about by that commission and all the experts who were there. We have to put order into things; and if Ottawa cannot do it, Ottawa has only to transfer some of the taxation to the provinces and they will do it. What is the duty of Ottawa, and what is the duty of the provinces? Is there anyone in this chamber who can answer that question? We may be told that it will come about by agreement. Some years ago, before the Sirois report, everything went well; but since that report was presented it has become the reason for postponing the assistance which is due at once to these needy cases.
I do not say that in any spirit of acrimony. I have no feeling of that kind; but when I think of the procession of poor people who come to my office, as they come to the office and the house of the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Bertrand), of our lady colleague the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum), of the good doctor the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Blair), of my good friend the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), of the minister himself and all those who have spoken, I believe it is time to do something, and not wait. Do the firemen wait until the house is burned before coming with their pump, their hose and all the rest of it? Some of these crippled children have the care they require because their parents can pay for it, but orphans or the children of poor families, settlers and so on, need some help. Let us give it to them. It will not require such an enormous amount of money; and this is not a new proposition. It is a case of adjusting matters so that there will be no gap in the security system.
Naturally I have no objection to the dominion and provincial governments discussing the matter at the earliest possible moment, but they should not wait too long before deciding it. It should be decided this spring, so that people may not suffer longer than is necessary. In the province of Quebec we have allowances for needy mothers who have young children, and it is paid in spite of the fact that they also receive the family allowance.

Social Security-Mr. Matthews (Kootenay)
In Quebec, as elsewhere, the blind receive a pension at an earlier age. There are old age pensions. Those who suffer from mental disability are sent to places where they are cared for properly. But I cannot say how much I have been touched by my hon. friend who has done something that so many of us would have done had he not been the first. It is because we see that the operation of the social security programme is not working as it should that we cannot do otherwise than approve and support this resolution.
There may be some flaws in it, of course, though I find none, but such flaws are of no importance in the drafting of the resolution. It is not this resolution that will be the law. This is an expression of opinion which will be the will of the House of Commons as soon as it is adopted; and I am sure no one in this house will discuss one word or another if, as a result, those who suffer will be deprived of help. Hon. members have had enough experience with what goes on in families which have been afflicted in this way to consider the spirit of the resolution and not argue about matters of detail. I also warmly congratulate all hon. members, including the minister, who have spoken so well.


Mr. J. H. MATTHEWS (Kootenay East):: I wish to raise my voice, for the first time this session, in support of this resolution. During the earlier hours this evening we were dealing with matters which were characterized as of great importance; but when a good many people across Canada read their newspapers, or read copies of Hansard, they will come to the conclusion that a good deal of it has been the making of a mountain out of a molehill, the creation of a tempest in a teapot. I noticed that while the question of changing the name of our national birthday w'as being discussed, practically all the seats on both sides of the house were filled; that was supposed to be a very important piece of business. Now, however, when we are dealing with something having to do with the happiness and well-being of thousands of our people, where are the members of parliament?


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Where is all the
excitement?


James Herbert Matthews: Yes; where is all the excitement? I suppose they will say, well, we could not vote for this thing until we had measured public opinion. I am not a bit afraid of what public opinion will say to those of us who are sitting in the house now, endeavouring to support this motion.
There is only a very little time left this evening, but I should like to refer to the remarks of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Claxton), who said he doubted very much whether the government would do anything in this matter this session, and who introduced the question of cost, speaking of comparable costs in Canada and in other countries for measures of social security along this particular line. Surely we are not going to raise again in this house that old bogey, where is the money to come from? In this copy of the order paper which I hold in my hand I see we are to make a loan to the United Kingdom of $1,250 million. Then on the last page I see where we are to cancel entirely the sum of $425,000,000 which was owing in connection with the commonwealth air training scheme. Not one word would I say against either of these measures. But if we can be so generous with Canada's money in giving it and lending it in the millions of dollars, it ill-beeomes us to speak about cost when it comes to alleviating the misery, pain and suffering of thousands of people in this dominion.
Therefore I hope we may introduce a little more humanity into this house, as the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum) said a while ago. The measure of our Canadianism is not just how much we wave the flag or how excited we get over changing the name of a day, but how we stand behind a measure of this kind which means so much in the way of human happiness and human wellbeing. I wish most heartily to support the resolution.


Mr. L. PHILLIPE PICARD (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise after listening to the able presentation made by the minister. I think, however, that I will reflect the sentiments of the house when I say that the country at large owres him a debt for what he has done up to now to build in Canada a social security system. His argument as to the load which this bill would place upon the shoulders of the taxpayers of the country must be seriously considered. But the people concerned by this resolution arc in such special circumstances that I believe I might perhaps be permitted to say a few words on their behalf.
We do not ask for these people a relief measure, because we want them to be treated in a way different from the treatment received by normal persons. We want them to live like normal beings, but they cannot earn their own living. It is not a question of their not having the initiative. It is not a question of their not being willing to work or wanting to
Social Security-Mr. Picard

retire from work too early in life. It is a question of their not being able to work because of their disability. For that reason I suggest there is an element of urgency. There is the same element in connection with the old age pensioners. Whatever I might wish to say generally on the question of social security I shall reserve for the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis).
But, just the same, I suggest that something should be done for those people who suffer from permanent disability. The burden of disability, in general, is heavier than that created by old age. Yet by a Liberal government, we have had placed on the statutes of Canada an act which permits our giving to the aged people the- relief to which they are entitled after a life of work. But. I think people who are disabled are under a worse handicap than are old people. The aged people have lost their ability to earn, but if they are not sick they are not necessarily a burden in many other ways. However, disabled people, in addition to their inability to earn, require nursing care. They need medical assistance- and all that costs money.
It is the duty of the state to look after those people, even ahead of the old people. In this connection I should like to quote just one sentence from an article by Oswald Stein, chief of the social insurance section of the international labour office. This is what he says:
Permanent or prolonged invalidity occurring before the pensionable age is equivalent to premature old age, and most of the arguments for security in old age apply here too.
I suggest they more than apply because, as I said before, they are under a worse handicap than are the aged people. Social insurance is applicable to the disabled as well as to the aged, and it is feasible under the same scheme.	.
Relief can be given through social insurance, or through non-contributory social security schemes giving insurance benefits for disabled people. At the moment we have disability policies, but they are available only to those who can- pay for them. Those who work in professions or trades, and who are in a position to pay for insurance against disability, permanent or otherwise, can have it. The insurance companies provide such policies in the course of their business. They are available for those who have steady employment, thos.e who are in trade unions or in some fields of endeavour where such schemes are provided. It is included in most retirement schemes of large corporations, and large companies which provide benefits in case of disability.

In the United States a study has been made by the social security board, and I hold in my hand an article by the chairman of the board, Mr. A. J. Altmeyer, which is published in the Social Security Bulletin for March, 1941. In this Mr. Altmeyer tells about the benefits derived in the United States by people who are working for one or another of the large corporations.


Mr. BURTON:: May I remind the hon.
member that the time is nearly up, and we should like to have a vote upon it.


Louis-Philippe Picard: If I reach eleven o'clock
can I not adjourn the debate so that I may curry on at some other time? Surely it is my pi\ilege to adjourn the debate and carry on some other time.


Joseph William Burton: I just wanted to remind the hon. member that the time is slipping by.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Does the hon. member mean that he would like to have -a vote on the motion to-night? He might have a vote tomorrow. I must say to him that I have not usually abused the right to speak in the House of Commons. Last session I was most silent -and have reproadhed myself for that. Here is something that is of interest to the people in my constituency. I am in agreement with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mrs. Strum), whom I congratulate upon her able speech. I am in agreement with most people who have spoken in the debate, and I thought I might be permitted to give my views with respect to it.
If to-morrow we do not go ahead with this we shall go on with the next order; it might be the railway bill or something. I believe there is as much urgency that we give our views with respect to disabled people as there is that we give them respecting other matters.
The time of the house has not been wasted on this side, most of the time. I do not blame hon. members for doing what they do, but I wish they would extend to me the same privilege, the privilege of speaking, even if we reach one minute to eleven o'clock.
I could not understand my hon. friend's remarks. If by the debate stopping at eleven o'clock it would prevent anyone from talking on this, or would have the effect of killing the bill, it might be different. But if I adjourn the debate, and speak some other day, then other hon. members on the other side of the house will have the same privilege.


Mr. KNOWLES:: But it goes to the bottom of the list.	.

Civil Aviation


Louis-Philippe Picard: It being 20 seconds to 11 o'clock, I shall move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Picard the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, April 5, 1946.