1949-03-30

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Brenda Denise Fuller Martin.-Mr. MacLean.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Suzanne Gundermann Wallis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Margaret Ellen Joan Clayton Dullege.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Laura Goldstein Rosen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Doris Mazer Goldsmith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Marjorie Violet Schratwiser Cadham.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Ross Robert Baskin.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Ann Frances Gray Hirst.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Effie Violet Mugford Knox.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Freda Hersch Nishmas.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Mildred Davidon Liberman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Raymond Joseph Louis Guay.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Hyman Herbert Schwartz.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Dorothy Mary Ward Bryant.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 171, for the relief of Audrey Frances Stokes Lambert.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Mary Katherine O'Connell Ball.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 173, for the relief of Stephen Henry Jones.-Mr. Winkler.

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

Mr. Church:: 1.	What provinces have a duplicate sales tax at present, and since when?
2.	Will any relief be afforded so as to end such a duplicate tax system, and, if so, when and how?


Mr. Belzile:: The following provinces levy retail sales taxes:
The province of Quebec, under the provisions of the Retail Sales Act, 1941, levies a tax upon retail sales of movable property equal to 2 per cent of the purchase price.
The province of Saskatchewan, under the provisions of the Education Tax Act, 1940, levies a tax upon retail sales of tangible personal property equal to 2 per cent of the purchase price.
The province of British Columbia, under the provisions of the Social Security and Municipal Aid Tax Act, levies a tax upon retail sales of tangible personal property equal to 3 per cent of the purchase price. This tax came into operation on July 1, 1948.
The sales tax now imposed by the government of Canada is not a retail sales tax but a sales tax imposed at the manufacturers or wholesalers level.


PRICES AND TRADE BOARD
Mr. Stanfield:: 1.	Were there any prosecutions under the wartime prices regulations in the city of Sydney, Nova Scotia, for black-marketing in nails?
2.	If so (a) who was prosecuted: (b) what was the result?
3.	Who laid the information?
4.	Were any witnesses called from the cities where the nails were sold? If not, why were they not called?
5.	Was a solicitor employed by the department?
6.	If so (a) who was the solicitor; (b) how much was paid for his services?


Gleason Belzile: In so far as the wartime prices and trade board is concerned:
1.	Yes. One prosecution on the charge that the accused did sell or offer for sale or supply of goods, to wit, nails at a price higher than reasonable and just, contrary to subsection 1 of section 8 of the wartime prices and trade regulations, P.C. 8528, dated the 1st day of November, 1941, as amended.
2.	(a) Elman Motors Limited, Sydney, Nova Scotia.
(b) Charges dismissed by Magistrate John D. MacIntyre on the 9th of August, 1948.
3.	Hugh MacNeil, investigator of the wartime prices and trade board, upon instructions issued by the enforcement administrator of the board after leave to prosecute had been granted by the board dated 24th June, 1948.

Questions
4.	No. The nails were sold to purchasers in Montreal and Toronto. The fact that the sales had been made was proved adequately by the evidence of the investigator and was not denied by the accused company.
5.	Yes.
6.	(a) T. A. Hamilton, Esq., barrister, of Sydney, was retained to conduct the prosecution, his retainer being authorized by the Minister of Justice.
(b) $49.37.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Church:: 1.	In what year was federal authority substituted for municipal authority for income taxation?
2.	From what time was income tax the exclusive field of the municipalities?
3.	Was such substitution to be only temporary or permanent?
4.	Is action now being taken for restoring this system of taxation to its original functions?


Gleason Belzile: The income tax was never the exclusive field of the municipalities. The British North America Act gave the dominion full authority to impose taxation by any mode or method whatsoever. The government of Canada entered the income tax field in 1917.



WAR ASSETS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the War Assets Corporation since the 1st of April, 1944, sold any 50 metric ton flat cars built or constructed for the U.S.S.R. under mutual aid requisition?
2.	If so, to what persons or nations were such sales made; in what quantities and at what unit
prices?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	Yes.
2.
Purchaser
Government of Prince Edward Island	
The Eastern Car Company Limited, Trenton, N.S	
Old Sydney Collieries Limited, Sydney, N.S	
Dominion Coal Company Limited, Sydney, N.S	
Acadia Coal Company Limited, Sydney, N.S	
Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Ltd., Sydney, N.S. Dominion Wheel and Foundries Limited, Trenton, N.S...
*Hendrik Mannerfrid Inc., 52 Wall street, New York, N.Y.
No. of flat	Unit
cars sold	selling price
12	$ 450
12	600
2	600
18	600
2	600
50	600
6t	
1,500	2,200
Conversion of the cars sold to Mannerfrid was made in Cana dian shops at the expense of the purchaser.
tDismantled, cut up and sold at $21.50 per ton as scrap.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT


Mr. Fraser:: 1.	What are the functions of the expenditure control section of the Department of Transport?
2.	Is there a corresponding organization in any other department of the government?
3.	How many persons are employed on accounting control and statistics under the assistant deputy minister of transport?
4.	Have any persons been transferred from the Canadian National Railways to the Department of Transport during the past five years?
5.	If so, what are the names and ages of such persons?
6.	Were any transfers made to the Department of Transport during the past five years of persons drawing pension from the Canadian National Railways?
7.	If so (a) what are the names of such persons; (b) the amount of pension received by each; (c) the salary paid to each; (d) living and traveling expenses paid to each?
8.	Is the new control branch of the Department of Transport to be a permanent organization?
9.	If so, were the appointments made by the civil service commission?
10.	If not, why were they otherwise appointed?

11.	What was the total cost of operation of the expenditure control section of the Department of Transport during the fiscal year 1948-1949?
12.	What was the total of salaries paid by the Department of Transport in (a) 1948; (b) 1949?
13.	What was the total of traveling expenses paid by the Department of Transport in (a) 1948; (b) 1949?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: 1.	There is no expenditure control section, but rather a budgetary control section which exercises a general administrative supervision over the preparation of all annual and supplementary departmental estimates and the allotment of appropriations.
2.	There has been no occasion to compare the organizations of other departments with that of the Department of Transport.
3.	23 (made up of assistant comptroller, 2; budget, 10; statistics, 9; traveling inspection, 2.)
4.	No.
5.	See answer to No. 4.
6.	No.
7.	See answer to No. 6.

8.	The budgetary control section consists of ten positions, of which only two are occupied by individuals holding certificates of permanency. Of the ten positions in the section, five were established prior to the founding of the consolidated Department of Transport in 1936, and five positions have been added in recent years. The department is not yet in a position to determine which of the positions now filled by individuals holding temporary certificates may or should be deemed to be permanent positions. Increase of personnel in this section is parallel with expansion of departmental activities.
9.	Yes.
10.	See answer to No. 9.
11.	Total annual salaries of budget section personnel at present rates is $24,660.
12.	Salaries, fiscal year 1947-48, $14,135,365.42.
Salaries, fiscal year 1948-49, $14,857,075.59 (exclusive of March 1949 figures, not available) .
13.	Traveling expenses, fiscal year 1947-48, $774,677.42.
Questions
Traveling expenses, fiscal year 1948-49, $701,713.71 (exclusive of March 1949 figures, not available).



NATIONAL COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS

Mr. Gauthier (Portneuf):: 1.	What Canadian provinces have made use of the federal act of 1943 establishing a national council for the purpose of promoting physical fitness?
2.	What amount was spent by each province in connection with the administration of the said act, each year?
3.	What is the amount of the grant paid to each province by the federal Department of Health, each year?


Mr. Reid:: 1.	Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories.
2.	While the participating provinces are not required to submit figures on their expenditures in excess of an amount equal to the matched grant, most provinces have submitted full details, as follows:
-	1944-45	1945-46	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49f1,548.98 17,401.83	4,070.04 19,708.24	11,052.03 22,654.87 4,373.71 13,322.83 49,698.91 40,737.78 87,721.85 21,000.00	8,211.24 24,797.1410,930.02	
5,384.87 34.089.29 31,036.32 46.826.29	14,969.84 54,758.88 15,963.55* 60,665.34	15,867.32 54,406.57 31,031.24 72,258.50		
Saskatchewan						35,658.71
British Columbia						80,069.68 48,346.90
					
* Returns covered the matched grant only, t Returns incomplete.
3.
Province	Annual entitlement	1944-45	Amount paid to each province	1943-47	1948(0	1945-46	1946-47	1947-48	1948-49Prince Edward Island....	1,861.00 11,317.75	1.858.50 11.301.75 8.943.50 14,269.50 17.520.75 15.567.75 15,993.00 234.00	(!) 2,635.49 (>) 12,486.48	(3) 4,184.75 11.301.75 (3) 3,434.51 (2)(*) 5,997.84 17.520.75 (3) 8,883.30 15,993.00 234.007,418.43	6,747.50	8,685.40 2,186.86 (2) 7,933.66 C2) 35,091.50 19,488.12 16,015.50 234.00	
14,290.00 17.545.75 15,590.50 16.015.75			(') 2,692.44 (') 17,044.05 (') 23,070.53	(2) 7,484.92 (2) 17,545.75 15,515.61 (2) 32,031.50		
							
							
			16,015.75				
							
							
f1) The amount available to each province was slightly reduced in 1948, as the original calculations had not included the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
(2)	Include a late payment for the previous year.
(3)	Incomplete returns.

Questions



PULPWOOD


Mr. Gaulhier (Portneuf):: How many carloads of pulpwood have been shipped from the maritime provinces to the province of Quebec, since January 1, 1948?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Statistics of carload shipments between provinces are not kept. It is therefore impossible to answer this question.



NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE  STRENGTH, RESERVES, ETC.

Mr. Merrill:: 1. What is the strength of (a) the Royal Canadian Navy; (b) the Canadian Army; (c) the Royal Canadian Air Force, and the reserves thereof, as at the first of March, 1949?
2. What have been the total of		(a) enlistments;	
and (b) discharges, in the active force of			each service, by months, since date?	the first of	March, 1948, to


Mr. Baker:: 1. (a) Active, 7,981; reserves		3,211	
(b) Active, 18,523;	reserves,	36,182.	(c) Active, 14,307;	auxiliary,	1,232.	2. (a) Enlistments	R.C.N. Army	R.C.A.F.March 	121	380	283April	135	567	236May 	146	255	211June 	127	149	218July 	101	180	252August 	159	203	303September ..	109	339	364October ....	155	423	403November ..	179	413	339December ..	189	373	278January ....	270	536	356February ..	270	590	277These figures include officer appointments.	(b) Discharges	R.C.N. Army	R.C.A.F.March 	78	97	100April 	60	105	67May 	43	118	87June 	100	158	82July 	101	127	63August 	52	142	55September ..	65	157	116October ....	52	137	106November ..	43	116	100December ..	57	70	93January ....	52	78	102February ...	26	81	51
These figures include officer retirements.



EXCISE TAXES


Mr. Pearkes:: 1.	What amounts have been collected in taxes during the past twelve months as tolls charged on cables, telegrams, telephones and desk telephones?
2.	What amounts have been collected as sales taxes on telephone instruments?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Telephones, $6,589,287.89; telephone extensions, $264,423.74; cables and telegrams, $983,360.16.
2.	Figures are not available covering sales tax on individual commodities.



VEGETABLES


Pierre Gauthier: How many carloads of celery, onions and tomatoes have been shipped from the province of Ontario to the province of Quebec, during the year 1948?


George James McIlraith: Statistics of carload shipments between provinces are not kept. It is therefore impossible to answer this question.



DEATHS FROM VARIOUS DISEASES

Mr. McKay:: What were the number of deaths in Canada during 1948 from (a) diseases of the heart; (b) cancer and malignant tumors; (c) nephritis; (d) diseases peculiar to the first year of life; (e) tuberculosis?


George James McIlraith: Numbers of deaths (preliminary figures) in Canada during first six months of 1948 from; (a) diseases of the heart, 17,776; (b) cancer and malignant tumours, 8,015; (c) nephritis, 3,553; (d) diseases peculiar to the first year of life, not yet available; (e) tuberculosis, 2,497.
Note: Report for the first nine months of 1948 will be published in approximately two weeks.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Herridge:: 1.	What are the names of the officials and staff employed at the Vancouver forest products laboratory of the dominion forest service?
2.	What salaries or wages do the said employees receive per annum?
3.	What projects were under study by the Vancouver forest products laboratory of the dominion forest service, in the year 1948?
4.	What projects were completed by Vancouver forest products laboratory, dominion forest service, and with what results?


Mr. Maybank:: Return tabled.



LEGAL SERVICES


Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	What are the names of the lawyers in the employ of the Department of Justice?
2.	What was the domicile of each of the said lawyers before being employed by the department?
3.	From what university or universities did each of them receive a diploma?
4.	What are their respective salaries?



PENITENTIARIES-TICKET OF LEAVE AND PAROLE

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many persons whose sentences on conviction for murder were commuted have been released from penitentiary either on ticket of leave or parole during each of the years since 1935?
2.	Of such persons how many have subsequently been convicted of any criminal offence?



KING'S BIRTHDAY


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: May I be allowed to answer a question that was asked yesterday by the member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch)? The question reads as follows:
I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he say on what date the king's birthday will be celebrated this year?
I am pleased to be able to inform the house that His Majesty has graciously acquiesced in the suggestion of the Canadian government that June 6 be set aside for the celebration of his birthday.



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: For a copy of all the minutes and records of the board of review of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act respecting the claim of Mrs. Orma Klockow of Chamberlain, Saskatchewan, for payment of the allowance and her eligibility as a claimant therefor?



NATIONAL ANTHEM


Mr.  A. Phileas Coie@Malapedia-Maiane: That, in the opinion of this house, the anthem "O Canada", in both the English and the French versions, should be the national anthem of this country.
He said: In introducing this motion, Mr. Speaker, "that in the opinion of this house the anthem 'O Canada', in both the English and the French versions, should be the national anthem of this country", may I, to begin with, assure this house that it is without any discrimination against or prejudice to the royal anthem "God Save the King". On the contrary, I for one wish that "God Save the King" remain the common denominator for all nations of the British commonwealth so far as an anthem is concerned. But as to Canada alone I believe-and I am not a pioneer in this field more than in any other-that the time has come for this parliament to recognize "O Canada" as our specific national anthem
National Anthem
and therefore to accept, first, what the government has already done; second, what so many organizations of various types covering a complete cross-section of the population in Canada have de facto admitted, and, third, what the outside world has come to believe as an unchallenged reality.
As every hon. gentleman in this house is already aware, the Canadian government has ordered our three armed forces to stand at attention while "O Canada" is being sung. I do not think a better recognition of "O Canada" as our national anthem could have been made by our government. As to the recognition already being given to "O Canada" by our population, may I point out that during 1948 the leading parties of this house held national conventions, and that at every one of those meetings the desire was expressed that "O Canada" be officially recognized as our national anthem.
With regard to organizations across the country already singing "O Canada" in both languages as our national anthem, may I be permitted to put at the disposal of any member here for verification the two large volumes of newspaper clippings that I have here on my desk, as concrete evidence. One will therein realize how popular, I would endeavour to say, "O Canada" has become; how respected and loved it is by organizations of youth, women and men, whatever may be their economic, social and political status or their racial origin. As a matter of fact, neo-Canadians or new loyalists to our beloved land, as well as pioneers of both major groups together, nowadays simultaneously sing "O Canada" with dignity, pride, emotion and feeling-yes, and are ready to "stand on guard for thee".
With regard to the outside world, may I say that if in many countries "O Canada" has become the unchallenged national anthem for our country, it remains, alas! as an actual fact that too many countries do not know if we have at all in Canada a most elementary symbol of a spiritual consciousness, or if it is "God Save the King", "O Canada", "The Maple Leaf Forever" or "Alouette". It must appear somewhat peculiar and unusual to many nations that the third greatest trading country of the world should be without an official national anthem. As I said before, several countries take for granted that "O Canada" is our Canadian symbolic song, irrespective of the version, so far as language is concerned. And far be it from me to pretend to ask for a definite wording in the English version; what I am simply asking for is that competent authority decide on a final and acceptable version. So far as the French version is concerned, it seems that
2156

National Anthem
there is no objection whatsoever to recognizing as official Sir A. B. Routhier's version.
So there is nothing more comforting than for a thoroughbred Canadian to hear "O Canada" being sung elsewhere. I for one will remember as long as I live the emotional loyalty I felt for my country on such occasions at singing, in French, at various meetings of the foreign policy association or the institute of pacific relations, for instance, together with some people of other nations singing in English "O Canada".
Is it necessary to recall here what the former prime minister, (Mr. Mackenzie King), related to this house last year, when he stated how proud and happy he was to hear "O Canada" being sung as a friendly and grateful gesture from nations of western Europe while traveling on the continent after the war?
May I be permitted to quote here what was said in this very chamber on April 1, 1943, as reported at page 1746 of Hansard, by Right Hon. Anthony Eden:
As dominions secretary in the opening month of the war it was my privilege to travel to a certain port, there to welcome the first contingent of your army to reach the shores of the old country. Sir, I could never forget that scene. It was a beautiful winter morning, such as we do have in Britain sometimes, at a famous port which I suppose must still remain anonymous; such are the rules of censorship. I was the spectator of the scene from the flagship of the commander in chief of the home fleet. As the great armada of liners swung into sight under the escort of the Royal Navy, cheering Canadian troops lined the decks and the band of the flagship played "O Canada."
Sir, I think it is about time that our parliament, through this motion, implemented at home what is being taken for granted abroad so far as our national anthem is concerned. I also think it is surely not too early for the elected representatives of the people of our country, who from ocean to ocean have expressed their desire to have "O Canada" as their national anthem, to comply with this desire and to carry this motion unanimously.
(Translation):
While I can understand quite well my colleagues' enthusiasm in promoting as our country's national anthem the hymn "O Canada" by Calixa Lavallee and A. B. Routhier, I could less easily account for their willingness to bury under the flowers of their rhetoric a motion whose sole object, I ask you to believe, is to serve Canada simply and solely.
I believe that in these troublous times more than ever-considering, for instance, the North Atlantic pact-our national unity will only be maintained if we direct our national objective towards sound guiding marks or symbols, of

which a national anthem would be one of the most appropriate.
(Text):
I believe also that it is high time our parliament should resolve the unbelievable confusion which exists, in and out of Canada, with regard to a most important symbol for a nation, increasingly proud of its rank in world affairs.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some observations with respect to the resolution which has been so simply and so ably moved and explained by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote). At the outset I should like to say that my approach to a matter such as this will be largely coloured by and fully reflective of the feelings which those of us entertain who are proud to proclaim our love of a great country. We should approach the problem with tolerance, with understanding, and I hope with the reason which must always surround circumstances such as these.
In my public career and in my private life I believe I have been fortunate in being completely free of any deep-rooted or rock-bound prejudices. I believe that gives one some sense of assurance when dealing with a matter such as the resolution which is now before the house. In relation to a matter which on the face of it looks simple and uncomplicated, it is essential to emphasize certain aspects of it which may make the issue clearer and more understandable from the point of view of hon. members generally. In matters of this kind sentiment, of course, runs deep; but I suppose if we had no sentiment we would be without one of the great assets that have contributed to the building up of this nation to what it is today. I make no apologies, therefore, for speaking with some sentiment, because no Canadian need apologize for approaching a matter of this kind from the point of view of love of his country and loyalty to its institutions. Sentiment does play a great and noble part in the foundations of the things to which I have just referred.
When dealing with matters from the point of view of sentiment one finds, of course, deep and easily injured sensibilities in many of the citizens of our land. These are things which all of us have learned to respect and admire in the people who make up this great country. There is a great need in Canada- perhaps no greater than in any other country, but certainly the need is evident here-of finding a common basis upon which agreement can be reached among all sections of our nation. We should not strive to find the things which divide us from the point of view of sentiment. We should endeavour, in a

great and growing and developing nation with a splendid history of achievement, to find the things which will unite our people rather than make experiments which may in the final analysis divide them on a purely sentimental basis.
I must confess-I suppose everybody has had the same experience-that when a member comes to parliament for the first time from his own little section of Canada he has preconceived ideas about his locality and what it wants. Members of parliament must never forget these important fundamentals; nevertheless as the years go by everyone becomes a little mellower and just a little more inclined to see the other fellow's point of view in relation to the various problems of our national life. As I look back over my fourteen years in this house I can hardly conceive what my point of view was when I first came here, and before I had learned to appreciate the point of view of others, from their eloquence, logic and reasoned approach in debates on national problems. Perhaps that reflects itself in what we say and in the attitudes which members of parliament take on issues such as this and others which involve a measure of national sentiment.
This nation of course has made rapid advances, not only in the development of its nationhood but in its technique of finding a harmonious relationship between the various groups in our land. These problems have not always been easy. I think, though, they have become easier by virtue of the understanding which has always existed among private members of the house. Personally we do not find much difficulty in getting along in this House of Commons, except on issues which are more involved and which are not influenced by sentiment in the ordinary sense of the term. Members of parliament who meet from day to day must testify to this one thing. There is, shall I say, a great undercurrent of understanding which binds together all sections of Canada. It has been a most important factor in bringing this parliament and this nation up to high levels of achievement which otherwise might not have been possible.
I believe it may properly be said that at no time in the whole history of Canada has there been among our citizens greater evidence of a really constructive national unity than we see in Canada today. We ought to pay tribute to those who from time to time have changed their outlook and have thus gone a long way toward understanding the other fellow's point of view.
Let me say this, however-and everyone in Canada should know it-that in my fourteen years of public life I have never seen evidence 29087-1371
National Anthem
of a deeper or more abiding affection than obtains now among the various groups in Canada. This is affection of a genuine type. We see it right here today, in this stage of our national life. Let us not forget it, because it is something of great importance. We know that national unity is a vital factor in the success and the achievements of this young nation.
Let me say this concerning the resolution offered today by the hon. member. At the beginning of this week we witnessed in the House of Commons a demonstration of just how a free parliament and a free people can rise and, with a unanimous voice, take steps to preserve that free and Christian way of life which we treasure. I do not think that I was ever as proud of having a seat in the House of Commons as I was on Monday, when we had such clear evidence of national unity as was indicated by those who took part in the debate, and as was made clear by the vote which followed. These things can be counted as milestones in the steady development of Canada for Canadians-a country whose people are not separated into groups but constitute an entity with one national objective.
It seems to me therefore that when we are taking these steps to preserve our free way of life we ought to try, in our domestic affairs, to preserve the freedom of action of our people. I must confess that, coming from a rural constituency in Ontario, it has been made clear to me as I have watched proceedings in the house that in various sections of our land certain customs and practices have grown up which are local in their application, but the sum total of those customs represents an imposing and strong body of opinion.
Customs and practices vary in the different parts of Canada. That applies not only in respect of the resolution before the house but in respect of many other matters. I have always felt it unwise for parliament to attempt to project itself too far into the ordinary customs and practices of the people. It has been my view that our citizens ought to be allowed a wide measure of freedom, just as obtains in respect of religion and other matters. They should be given that freedom in the matter of their expressions of loyalty either in verbal or written statement or in song.
In view of these facts it seems to me we have before us a consideration which cannot be overlooked. There is no one in this chamber, I am sure, who wants to see the national hymn " God Save the King " in competition with "O Canada", or indeed in competition with any other anthem which

National Anthem
may appeal to the people. There can be no such thing as competition in matters of this kind. These are in the realm of spontaneous expressions of loyalty to Canada which the different sections of our population find most suited to them. What they are expressing either by one anthem or another is in fact their allegiance, and the means they choose I have no doubt is the one which they feel best expresses what they have in mind.
It is my view that as a House of Commons we should exercise great care before interfering with any expression of loyalty by the people; because when they sing either "God Save the King" or "O Canada" they are expressing their own deep feeling. We should encourage our people to express themselves in their own way, because when they do so they speak from the heart rather than from the mind.
After all, loyalty is a sentiment springing from the heart, and in my view one which we should encourage. Whatever may be the individual views of hon. members, I believe we must be tolerant and not be too dogmatic in the positions we take where people's sensibilities are involved. We must exercise extreme care when as a House of Commons we contemplate legislation involving a matter of sentiment, particularly when there are so many ways of expressing loyalty.
I do not think any person, whether he prefers the singing of "O Canada" to that of "God Save the King," or would like to have both-and there are great numbers in that category-would like to be told that by a majority of parliament he has been placed in a strait-jacket as to the manner in which he is to be permitted to express his loyalty to Canada.
For that reason I say we should not put a fence between those groups who want one thing and those who want another. On the contrary we must take all the fences down and let the people have freedom of expression in their manner of worship, and of song, and of praise and loyalty.
Let me say to the hon. member who has moved this resolution-for whom I have deep respect because of his genial manner and his generally reasonable approach to problems coming before the house-that sometimes it has been found, in international as well as in national affairs, that we do not gain what we desire to gain by the process of spelling out too definitely what we have in mind. Sentiment and loyalty do not lend themselves to being spelled out or put in statute form. I am not so sure that we might not hinder our expressions of loyalty if we were to attempt to incorporate them in a statute of parliament.
Following this point of view I think we have to go back to some things that have really exemplified the feelings of people of this nation. I shall never forget the visit of Their Majesties to Canada before the war. I suppose for most people it is one of the most memorable events in our history. I can remember standing beside another hon. member in the Senate chamber and making some remark with respect to Their Majesties. But he was unable to speak-and he was not the only one-because sentiment and loyalty had gripped him in a way in which no statute, no words, nothing that this parliament could enact could do. After all, there was the king of Canada to whom we were paying homage. People in all parts of Canada vied with one another to show their loyalty.
After all it was not only that His Majesty was the embodiment or symbol of our constitutional monarchy; I think the presence of Their Majesties in Canada was an evidence to people who were of the Christian faith that here were a king and a queen who exemplified the purest form of family life, who were examples not only to Canada but to the rest of the world.
I can remember other indications of how far sentiment can go. I can remember when for the first time I was a humble representative of Canada at an international assembly. I can remember the tug at my heart-strings when we seven delegates walked into the San Francisco conference and received the plaudits of representatives of nations far and wide, an indication of Canada's popularity. I do not think I was ever so proud to be a Canadian and to subscribe to the Canadian way of life as I was when we entered that great auditorium to attend the conference.
These are things that cannot be overlooked when we are setting up a foundation for the building of a great nation. It is all very well to talk of our material advantages, great and important though they may be; it may be important to talk of our political way of life and our institutions generally-I am not asking for priority for any of these aspects of our national life-but we should not overlook the pride and devoted loyalty of the people of Canada to this country and to what it stands for. These things should always be in the forefront of our minds.
Demonstration of loyalty can be made in different ways. I should like to see our people able to do it in different ways, in the way that will best express their loyalty to this country. But when the tumult and the shouting and the oratory have died away, I wonder if in the final analysis there is any place in the world where this dominant feature of loyalty and deep and genuine affec-
CMr. Graydon.]

tion for a country is greater than it is in Canada. This is something that should not be overlooked.
I remember how my blood boiled-I mean just that, and I am sure there were other members of this House of Commons who felt the same way-when during the spy investigations I heard that there were people who called themselves Canadian citizens but who said that they had a deeper and more abiding loyalty to another government and another country. It was a shocking thing to me to hear that. It aroused within me something which I hope will not soon be aroused again. But I think it indicates that in no part of this country is there a monopoly of loyalty to Canada. This being so, I urge upon hon. members that we citizens, no matter what their racial origin may be-how unnecessary it is in these days to emphasize that!-should consider these things.
Our children-and my children; perhaps I know them best, although sometimes public men do not seem to get to know their children too well-are proud, not merely of the country their forefathers came from, but of the country in which they live. They are proud of the country in which they are to make their living and in which they are to have the opportunity of fashioning a successful future.
We are all going down the highway of nationhood. We are walking arm in arm no matter who may be beside us. We are walking arm in arm down that highway as one great Canadian family. I think there are members of this house, no matter on which side they sit, who will readily agree that some of us have done our level best to bring about unity so far as Canadian international relations are concerned. I am one of those who believe that.
When we attempt to delve into questions of deep sentiment, and when feelings are easily injured, I do not think it is out of place to appeal to my hon. friend and to tolerant people on all sides of the house and say that I think at this stage we ought to try to find a way by which we can meet the wishes of all, rather than to follow an oblique or indirect method that may offend the sensibilities of some of our citizens.
Before I sit down I want to say that I do not apologize for speaking this afternoon from my heart rather than from notes or a prepared text. There is one point, however, that perhaps I should make clear. Suppose you put aside any arguments that I have made-and they are not arguments in the usual sense of the word; they are pleas to the hon. member and to others who I hope will view the matter the way that I do. There
National Anthem
is one point I want to bring to the attention of the house and of the hon. member who has moved the resolution; it may be that he has overlooked it. In a day or so we shall be uniting with another dominion. Newfoundland is joining our confederation. Newfoundland may be faced with some such problem as this. I am inclined to believe that Newfoundland has a national anthem. In dealing with a question such as this we ought to proceed with extreme care, at this stage of our national life, when we are on the threshold of union with a great and important land, which as our tenth province, will have a keen and vital interest in the matter now under discussion.
I suggest that the matter should be deferred until after Newfoundland has entered confederation. I suggest that we defer consideration of the problems which she faces and which we face in this regard. Then we can all tackle it with a feeling of national unity. As the days go by we shall reach common ground, no matter from what part of Canada we come, and we shall be proud of Canada as a great nation and proud of each other as well.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 30, 1949
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Wednesday, the 30th March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General NATIONAL ANTHEM
PROPOSED ADOPTION OF "o CANADA" IN BOTH ENGLISH AND FRENCH VERSIONS
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cote (Matapedia-Matane):
That, in the opinion of this house, the anthem "O Canada," in both the English and the French versions, should be the national anthem of this country.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to discuss the resolution, I want to join with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) in congratulating the hon. member who moved the resolution. I also want to say that I think it is fitting that on occasion the house should consider a matter of this description which affects Canada in its growing sense of nationhood. There are two

National Anthem
kinds of sentiment as to nationhood, one that is good and one that is evil. The evil type of excessive and exaggerated nationhood is that which places one's own nationality above all others, and despises those who are of other nationalities. The good kind is the one in which the individual has a pride in the country in which he lives, and in the people of whom he is a part, but recognizes the good in others too.
I like to think that in our country we have grown to realize step by step that other nations have a contribution to make in the realm of international relations, and in the development of human society in all parts of the world, and that with otir diverse cultures we can work with them in developing the kind of world society of which we can be proud. We may well recognize the value of other beliefs and other cultures, and appreciate the distinctive attributes of different peoples as a contribution to the common welfare of mankind. I believe it is befitting that we in this country, with the consciousness of our distinctive nationhood in the world of nations, should have some symbols of nationhood.
I believe that in the adoption of a national song for Canada we are doing what almost every other nation has done in the past. May I recount a personal incident which emphasized the view that I then held, because we of this party are not recent converts to the idea that Canada should stand on her own feet. In company with my friend the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), my friend the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), and indeed my friend the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Probe), because he was there at the time in uniform, I remember that we had the great privilege of flying to Brussels in September, 1944, shortly after the Canadian troops reached that city. We found that the whole of the left flank of the allied armies along the coast of France and Belgium was under the control of the Canadian troops.
When we arrived in Brussels we were met and kindly received by a gentleman who is a citizen of Ottawa. I am sure he will not mind my mentioning this incident because I was reminded of it last month when I met him again. I refer to Brigadier Beament. He told us of an incident that I think emphasizes the suggestion that is now before the house. When our troops arrived in Brussels the people of Brussels not only welcomed them enthusiastically but set out to provide entertainment for them. Part of that entertainment was an opera. On the Saturday night previous to the day when we were there, the Canadian troops had attended an opera for the first time in the very fine opera house in Brussels. The people of Brussels wanted to honour the Cana-
[Mr. Coldwell.l
dian troops but they did not know what to play as the anthem of Canada. When they were informed that we had a certain song in Canada, which had become universally accepted in our country as the national anthem of Canada, no one could produce the music for it. I remember that Brigadier Beament told us how he had sent a special message to our high commissioner in London asking that a copy of "O Canada" and its music should be flown to Brussels so that it could be used on the following Saturday evening in the opera house in honour of the Canadian troops.
I recount that incident because it emphasizes the need for Canada-and I think now-to adopt a song that is acceptable to all the people of our country. Perhaps I might interject that I think the same thing about a Canadian flag. On that trip I also saw Canadian troops without a flag, but all the way along they had nailed, on the signposts and so on, pictures of the maple leaf, indicating that the Canadian troops were there. Over there you saw the flag of every other country except Canada; you heard every other song except the song of Canada. I do not think that is fitting for the nation that is Canada today.
There are some people who say that in making a statement of this description one is being disloyal to old symbols that we have had so long. I do not think that is so. I believe it would be well if we all recognized "God Save the King" as the symbol of our commonwealth association in which we are bound together by a common loyalty to a common crown. In that common loyalty to a common crown the valuable thing is the loyalty to a common symbol of unity among those great nations that comprise the commonwealth of nations. In the same way, I think it applies to a Canadian flag.
May I once more recount a personal experience? Last autumn when I had the privilege of again being in Great Britain, the country in which I was born, I noted when driving through the English countryside that over many of the public buildings the Union Jack was not flying but the cross of St. George. This is the red Latin cross on the white background, the flag of old England. If England flies a distinctive flag as well as the Union Jack, there is no reason why Canada should not have her symbol which she could fly with the Union Jack. I say there is no conflict between those of us who wish to preserve the sentiment of the commonwealth and those of us who wish to have a recognition of this nation which is Canada by the use of a symbol that is recognized as Canadian by all the nations of the world.
I do not want to speak at any length, but I do want to say this to my hon. friend who has moved the resolution, that I think the

tune of "O Canada" is now almost universally accepted from one end of this country to the other as the tune of our national anthem. About the words, I am not so sure. I know that I often address public meetings in various parts of Canada. At those public meetings we in this group make it a practice to open the meeting with the singing of "O Canada", and to close with "God Save the King". When "O Canada" is sung, I listen to the audience and I find that no common wording is used in it. Some sing "Glorious and free", and some sing "On guard for thee". I never know what any group of people will sing. If we are going to have a national hymn we must have the words set to our national tune so that words and tune are acceptable to all of us and can be used universally.
I do not think that in any way conflicts with the idea that was put forward by the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).


Some hon. Members:: What idea?


Major James William Coldwell: The idea that we should not try to bring about too much, shall I use the word regimentation, in this regard-


Mr. Hacketi:: Rigidity.


Major James William Coldwell: That is a better word, and I thank my hon. friend for giving it to me. There is no desire on the part of anyone to make the thing so rigid it will be offensive, but I think there is a common desire on the part of all of us that in this country we shall achieve national unity. Unity in diversity it must be in some respects, but a unity of loyalty to our country; a unity of fellowship in which we can join together from time to time whether we speak French or whether we speak English, whether we speak Ukrainian or whether we speak Welsh. I may say that you could not tell a Welshman that "God Save the King", is the national anthem of Wales. He would tell you it was "Mae hen wlad fy nhadau", or "Land of Our Fathers".
I should say there should be no attempt to prevent each and every one of our people from singing the songs of their own land, but we should be able to join together in singing one song to indicate that we have a common Canadian citizenship, a common loyalty to a common country.


Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I shall occupy very much time in speaking on this motion. The hon. gentleman who introduced it forgets one thing, namely, that all these matters of a new flag, a new anthem, a new governor general, and a bill to abolish appeals to the privy council, are only secondary matters and should not be raised at this time. I am not speaking for the official opposition but as one who has had
National Anthem
a great deal of admiration for the people of that great province of Quebec. I never forget what they did in France during the last war. Sixty thousand of our own troops from Toronto district went overseas, including some of the present ministers and the members on this side of the house. I plead with these members to forget these unimportant questions at the present time and to consider the unrest there is in the world. All members should consider that most important matter which the Prime Minister introduced on Monday. It was emphasized there was a need for security. We do not know actually to whom the country is going to belong; we face a very grave invasion threat by land, sea and in the air. I do urge my hon. friends from Quebec to consider security.
As I say, many of our soldiers from Toronto fell during the last war. They are buried in France, Belgium and the other countries over there. I am sorry that the hon. member has urged us to give consideration to this matter at the present time. I do not say that in any way to reflect upon the hon. member who moved this motion. I believe this same member last year introduced a similar motion in which he wanted to substitute the word "Canada" for the words "Dominion of Canada" in the Holiday Act. I believe it was Bill No. 8. I am not speaking for the official opposition. Since I have come into the house I have always endeavoured to support principles. All along, those principles have been clear-cut. I have not been one of those who are here today and away tomorrow. I have not changed my colours every five minutes nor have I worn a coat of many colours. I have persistently brought before the house national measures that would benefit all the people of this country and the working classes but many of them have been forgotten.
When you look at the history of this country from the time before confederation, you will see that it was the policy of men like Howe, Macdonald, Cartier, George Brown, all those great men, to live in a spirit of harmony. On many occasions tribute has been paid to what the French people have done to bind Canada together. Away back in 1844 Sir John A. Macdonald said we should be bound up with the mother country for all time. I believe it was Sir Etienne Tache who said that when it came to the defence of Canada the last shot would be fired by a French Canadian. That great Prime Minister, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, led the procession in the diamond jubilee of the empress queen, Queen Victoria. Men of all races, from all over the world, flocked to the glorious diamond jubilee in 1897 of the late empress queen. They came from cape, island and continent.

National Anthem
Men of forty or fifty different races jostled each other in the streets of London, the metropolis. Kipling wrote then that great hymn, The Recessional. We are in recessional days now so far as the British empire is concerned. India has gone. Burma has gone. They have all passed away and the days of The Recessional are upon this country at the present moment. I am sorry that those from our sister provinces cannot see these things in the same way as I do.
At the diamond jubilee Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who was first in the procession because we were the senior dominion, said: If you want our support, invite us to your councils. This they did. We have always been at those councils. The great Liberal Prime Minister also stated that when Britain is at war, Canada is at war. I am not one of those who are turncoats. I have never been a turncoat. I believe in speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The people back in the constituencies cannot get the truth or the full truth, but only the official truth from some of the newspapers, the radio or the Canadian press. They do not give the people back home the truth. They give them only as much of the truth as they want them to know, forgetting that there are large numbers of people back in the constituencies who know as much as or more than some of the agencies I have named. I am not complaining about the matter at all. I just refer to that point in order to see how some of them change their policy or their tune accordingly.
As to this motion, I will just say that I greatly regret this purely secondary matter has been brought up at the present time, because there are many other matters which are far more important than it is. Last year we had a motion, proposed by the mover of this motion, that there should be a change from the Dominion Day Act to Canada Act. Then there was a resolution to change the flag. We had a committee on the flag. So many flags were submitted, I never saw the like of it in my life. There were all kinds. They were green, pink, grey-all the colours of the rainbow. A committee investigated the flag situation. What did they do? Their report was presented to the house and it was forgotten in the twinkling of an eye.
Another resolution proposed to change Dominion day to Canada day, and still another to abolish appeals to the privy council. The Minister of Justice is not here to hear the discussion; but many eminent men who have occupied that great office, such as Sir Charles Fitzpatrick and Sir Allen Aylesworth and many others, have been opposed to any change with regard to appeals to the privy council; because, if you believe

them, it is the one court in which a litigant can get justice. Another motion proposed here is to change the office of governor general-to have a Canadian governor general. We have had two of the greatest soldiers in the history of the world, Montgomery and Lord Alexander, the present governor general. They are men who have never been excelled. It is about time we named a mountain after the two of them, commemorating accordingly those who have fought for the country. They are also great statesmen and front-rank diplomatists as well.
There are several other matters which I might mention but I will not take up the time of the house to do so. I will just say this. Since coming into the house I have supported certain principles because I believed it was far better for us to tell the people the truth. You will notice that there is an exit now of large numbers of those people with the halos up there; gentlemen in what one of them called the hayloft, in a jocular way. Hardly any of them are here to hear the discussions after the orders of the day are called.
I want to refer just for a moment to the substance of the motion; which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the anthem "O Canada", in both the English and the French versions, should be the national anthem of this country.
I want to point out to the house right now that the anthem "God Save the King" is a prayer. It is both a prayer and an anthem. It is quoted at the coronation. It is a prayer for the safety of His Majesty. Before the war started, Their Majesties visited Canada. Did they ever get a better reception anywhere than they got in Canada? I do not think so. In the province of Quebec, which they visited, they were accorded a glorious reception, as they were in all the provinces. So much was that so that the present queen, when she returned to England, said that it was like a second coronation to have had the glorious reception that the people gave them in every part of Canada. In no part of Canada was a better reception given to Their Majesties than at Riviere du Loup and many other places at which they stopped in the province of Quebec. That just shows how well thought of Their Majesties are in this country.
As I say, "God Save the King" is founded on the bible, I Samuel, chapter 10, verse 24. After all, we are a Christian country, or we are supposed to be. We have many Christian churches and they are working in the utmost harmony. We saw that fact exemplified in the Indian and Eskimo affairs committee. The heads of these great Christian churches,

Protestant and Catholic, came before the committee and made recommendations. I hope we shall never see racial and religious jealousies raised in this parliament, because we are a people united from coast to coast as a Christian nation.
I believe that the Prime Minister brought before the house last Monday, in clear-cut phraseology, the main problem, as did the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on this side of the house and the leaders of the other groups. They showed the people of Canada what is the most important duty of the hour, namely, the Atlantic pact, to bind ourselves together in order to ensure security.
As to this resolution, I do not intend to say anything against the proposal myself, because "O Canada" is not a prayer and it is not an anthem. It forgets all about the Lord, creation and Christianity. I may say that there are many versions of "O Canada". They ignore the king and queen; they ignore the coronation oath; they forget everything. Why are all these matters, which are only secondary, being raised, with the enemy right at the door of the St. Lawrence where we have no real security or defence? The other day we heard that five hundred divisions are all ready for the east against the west. Why are we raising all these troublesome secondary questions? They are not raised in New Zealand, in Australia, or in any of the other dominions. Why are they brought forward at the present time? That is the question I ask. They are only secondary. They are not needed at the present time. Why can they not wait and be brought up after security is assured? Today we have no security. There was a submarine right up at Riviere du Loup. In 1947 I was down in Riviere du Loup for the first time in my life, and down through the eastern townships. I had never before been down to the south shore.
I saw the cove at Riviere du Loup where the enemy submarines came up the river. I was in the house occupied by Sir John A. Macdonald in Riviere du Loup for twenty-seven summers. A private session of the house was called here in 1943. At that private session the minister of naval affairs, the Hon. Angus Macdonald, who is now the able premier of Nova Scotia, told us about the grave danger the country was in. At the present time the gravity is ten times as great. We have not one up-to-date submarine. We are depending on the United States for defence. They are spending billions of dollars- on what? They are spending billions of dollars on defence because the next war, when it comes, will be far worse than the last one. At the present time we have only a Carthaginian peace with Russia. We did something the other day when we passed the
National Anthem
Atlantic pact. It was passed to bring about a spirit of unity, liberty and freedom, binding us together with the great nation to the south of us which has done so much in two wars to support the people of this country and to try to give security. They will be remembered in the years to come for what they have done.
I may say that we are forgetting all about these things. There will be two agencies in the next war. Britain and the dominions are facing very grave times. The dangers will come from the air, because the head of the air force in Britain told the House of Commons about it the other day. I am sorry I cannot refer very much to it today. He told Britain to beware. They have to beware because they may be destroyed by the air force which Russia has at the present time.
The second grave danger is submarine war. The war will be under the sea. We have no modern submarines. We are depending on the United States. As was said the other day in the old country, part of the defence lies under the sea. Today the United States has supremacy in submarines which can stay underneath the water for six months or a year. They are costing billions of dollars. We have to thank the people of the United States for what they are doing for us in submarine warfare to make secure the North American continent, and Canada is helping in the radar screen in the Arctic.
At the present time there is no necessity of bringing these secondary matters forward. Another thing which the hon. member might have explained is this. There are many versions of "O Canada". They forget all about the divinity. I am sorry that these matters have been brought up at the present time. I have supported certain principles ever since I have been a member of this House of Commons, and I have not been ashamed to do so. The time is coming when we shall find that we have no real security whatever and there is no use pretending we have. All these plans such as the security pact, the UNO and various leagues of nations we have had in the past. I call all these matters separatism and isolation. Do not forget that a million men went from the dominions in the first war. They went over there not to fight for Britain but to be at her side and to support her in the great war. One hundred and thirty-five thousand of these men fell on the field of battle and they are buried in Flanders and in France and in many parts of the world. They changed the whole history of the world. Are we going to forget all about these men who are buried over there? If our status, our autonomy and our sovereignty were good enough for these men who are buried in France and Flanders today it should be good

National Anthem
enough for those who stayed at home. That is one of the points I wish to make.
I do not believe that these matters should be discussed at the present time, Mr. Speaker. I am not going to occupy any more of the time of the house. We owe a great deal to the French people. France will always be a great nation. Edward VII loved the French people. What would we have done in the first war if it had not been for them? We would have lost the war. Look at the way they suffered in the first war. In the United States a bomb was not thrown or a farm destroyed. They had the security of the British fleet-the real Monroe doctrine.
What was the Monroe doctrine? It was the supremacy of the seas by Britain for four centuries, from the days of Philip of Spain, Louis XIV, Napoleon and so on. The Monroe doctrine was all very well. What was the Holy Alliance? It was an alliance between Russia, Prussia, and Austria, the same powers that are against us today. What was the result? We had that Holy Alliance from 1815 to 1823. It led to the United States adopting the Monroe doctrine. What was it? It was simply the protection of the British fleet and the supremacy of the seas. That is what it was. We have lost it today. It has been expanded to include the whole Atlantic on both sides now, the same Monroe doctrine against the very same people of Russia, Prussia and Austria, by the grace of the United States and President F. D. Roosevelt.
I ask the house to consider these things in the light in which I have given them. I have been a great admirer of the French people and what they did for this country in the past.
I believe their leaders were magnificent. We have never had such leaders as they had before and after confederation. If we want real security let us forget all these secondary matters, and let us unite as a people from coast to coast, because we do not know what real military security we have today. We have only eleven and a half million people. We may be in grave danger. Therefore I urge the house to forget all about these secondary questions until a more opportune time arrives. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to see the motion withdrawn until we get some reasonable security.


Mr. Anthony Hlynka (Vegreville):: I am
quite ready to congratulate the mover of the resolution on having the courage of his convictions, and on having placed his convictions in the form of the resolution before the house; but I must say that I am very much disappointed in the contributions which have been made in the debate by the two speakers who officially represented the two other

groups in the house. It is my view that in this critical time of history the bond of unity between the British commonwealth of nations should be strengthened rather than weakened. May I ask, what is the hurry in regard to this matter? Why must we proceed with this matter during this session? There are many matters of national and international importance which could well occupy the time of this house for the days remaining not only before Easter but throughout the entire session. What about such problems as the marketing of our farm produce in the future? What about the threatening international situation? What about such matters as the discriminatory freight rate structure, which this government continues to support and allows to exist from year to year? I could name a score of other problems which require the immediate attention of the house. And whether it is this government or a government formed by some other party which will sit on the government benches after the next election, the fact remains that that government will be faced with these same unsolved problems. It is about time we did something about them.
Let me remind the house once again that we are living in one of the most critical stages of history. Yet, here we are discussing something which is dividing us, whereas we need unity at this particular time. Whatever may be the views held on this matter in various sections of Canada, I believe this is not the time to bring such contentious subjects before the House of Commons. I think no one will accuse me of favouring one side or the other, or of being prejudiced in favour of the opinions held by French Canadians or Canadians of Anglo-Saxon origin. I am neither of Anglo-Saxon nor of French-Canadian origin, and for that reason I am sure no one will accuse me of being prejudiced in this instance.
I do say however that never in my life did I feel prouder or happier than when, on the occasion of touring Europe two years ago, I was able to present a Canadian passport bearing on it the words "British subject". I was proud of that.
The leader of the C.C.F. stated that this was one step toward the realization of the full stature of Canadian nationhood. Well,
I believe no one in Canada now is denied the privilege of singing "O Canada" as many times as he wishes. No one denies any Canadian that privilege in any part of Canada -and that is the way we should keep it.
Many Canadians of Anglo-Saxon origin do not, believe me, fully realize how fortunate they are in being able to say that "God Save the King" is their anthem, one which binds us together as members of the British com-

monwealth, and which stands as a symbol of the unity of the commonwealth-an organization which, to my mind, has never had its parallel in the history of the world. Yet we listen to members skating around the problem, afraid that it may be used as a political weapon in some by-election or in a general election. I say this matter is greater than a by-election or a general election, and we must realize that fact at once.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said, further, that we should stand on our own feet. I agree with him on that point. But do we not stand on our own feet if we continue to have the right to choose between singing either "O Canada" or "God Save the King"? Surely no one denies us that right. Surely no one denies us the right to proceed toward the realization of full nationhood in Canada.
The hon. member also mentioned that it had been difficult on some occasions to obtain the music for "O Canada". Surely that is a weak argument for throwing "God Save the King" overboard. Surely we can obtain as many copies of "O Canada" as we like. One cannot find fault with "God Save the King" simply because there have been some Canadians who were not able to find the words and music for "O Canada".


Mr. Hamel:: They were in Europe.


Anthony Hlynka: They may have been in Europe; but it is up to Canadians to educate their children in such a way that they would know the words of "O Canada".


René Hamel: Canada has nothing to do with education in Belgium.


Anthony Hlynka: But still we have Canadian representatives there, and had our soldiers there.


René Hamel: "O Canada" was not official.


Anthony Hlynka: It does not matter. They
could have obtained the words of "O Canada".
Regardless of arguments which may be offered for or against the availability of music for "O Canada", I say this issue is greater than that of simply getting rid of "God Save the King." It goes deeper than that.
On the order paper there are resolutions dealing with various subjects; but the broad aim of some of them would seem to be identical, namely, to weaken the bonds between Canada and the other members of the commonwealth. I hear an hon. member applaud; but I say to him that if he would reflect for a moment upon the position of Canada he would realize that there is no such thing as an absolutely independent Canada. He would know that thirteen million people must depend upon one nation or another for
National Anthem
assistance in the event of crisis. He should realize also that if we broke away completely from the British commonwealth we, on this continent, would soon become a part of or be tied closer to our neighbour to the south. I realize that our relationships with that neighbour are satisfactory. We listen to their radio programs; we read their literature; we read their press; we hear their speakers, and in that way we have connection with our American friends. But we should also maintain close relationship with the United Kingdom, even if only for the one reason: that if in Europe today the United Kingdom were wiped out, Europe would fall under the control and into the hands of the U.S.S.R. There is no question about that. Do we want that result? Surely not. I say that our French-Canadian friends should think this matter through a little more carefully; they should go beyond the superficial and at times prejudicial attitude which they take on these matters.
I want to repeat that if the United Kingdom is weakened any more than she has been in recent years it will be some other nation, perhaps one unfriendly to our interests, that will dominate Europe. That would not be in the interests of Canada. That is the position I take and that is the position I have always taken.
Then again I wish to draw to your attention, and through you to the attention of hon. members, a strange coincidence in so far as some of the measures that have been placed on the order paper are concerned. On the one hand, the government is pushing through as quickly as possible measures which would bring about certain ties between the members of the British commonwealth of nations through certain pacts, even bringing in nations from outside the British commonwealth of nations; and, on the other hand, supporters of the government bring in other measures that undo what the government intends perhaps to do.


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: That is unfair.


Anthony Hlynka: It is not unfair.


Léoda Gauthier: It is.


Mr. Blackmore:: It is true.


Léoda Gauthier: It is not true; it is unfair.


Anthony Hlynka: If hon. members will permit me to go ahead they will have an opportunity to reply. Here is what I had intended to say. We have voted for the resolution favouring the North Atlantic pact. What is the purpose of the North Atlantic pact? It is to bind together the British commonwealth of nations.


An hon. Member:: No.

National Anthem


Anthony Hlynka: Just a minute, be patient. At the same time it brings about the support of a few other nations in order that we may withstand any combination of hostile nations which may also join their forces together.


Pierre Gauthier: The hon. member has not read it.


Mrs. Strum:: Is it confined to the signatories?


Anthony Hlynka: Perhaps I should repeat what I said.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I should like to ask the hon. member a question.


Mr. Lennard:: Address the Chair.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I did address the Chair.


Frank Exton Lennard: The hon. member was not looking in that direction.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: Do not the terms of the North Atlantic pact relate to the signatory nations only? If that is true, is it not also true that only two nations of the commonwealth have signed it?


Anthony Hlynka: The hon. member is quite right in one sense but-


An hon. Member:: She has no sense.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: I am not alone in that.


Anthony Hlynka: I do not recall whether it was the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) or the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) who stated that the ideas expressed in Mr. Churchill's speech at Fulton gave birth to the Atlantic pact.


Mr. Knowles:: The hon. member is wrong again.


Anthony Hlynka: One hon. member placed that on the record and I do not need to go very far to prove the point. When Mr. Churchill spoke at Fulton he said that this was the time for the members of the British commonwealth and the United States to get closer together. The nations that signed the North Atlantic pact went a step further and brought in a few other nations. But the purpose of the pact is exactly what Mr. Churchill had in mind and I do not think hon. members will disagree with that.
That is what the government is doing on the one hand. They are appealing to the Canadian people to support this pact, and we are supporting it. I really was proud of the way in which the debate was handled in this house and of the contributions which were made in that connection. The government was doing that on the one hand and then, on the other hand, these measures have been brought in to throw overboard every connection that we have ever had with the British commonwealth of nations. To my mind that 
is-I do not know just what to say-double talk or something of the sort. It certainly is not what we should be doing at this moment.


Gladys Grace Mae Strum: It is not in the bill either.


Anthony Hlynka: It surprises me to see or to hear hon. members taking this matter so lightly. As I pointed out, this is only one measure and there are others to follow. Where are we going to stop? Let me ask hon. members: will they tell me what disadvantages we suffer by co-operating with the United Kingdom?


Mr. Pinard:: That has nothing to do with it.


Anthony Hlynka: Hon. members are not going to decide what I am going to say.


Pierre Gauthier: You are beyond the question.


Gleason Belzile: Is it in order?


Anthony Hlynka: I am speaking my own mind and what I believe, and hon. members may do likewise. As I have mentioned before, the world situation is critical, more critical than many of us realize, more critical than the official opinions which appear in the newspapers would indicate. We Canadians must get our thinking straight at this time. Many of us listen to radio programs and we hear attempts to compare the system existing in the Soviet union with that existing in Canada. One man plays the part of a Russian and he is asked the question: What are the advantages of your system? The answer is, "We are all equal in the Soviet union. There we have no rich men and no poor men. Everybody in Russia is nobody." That may appeal to a simple mind, and it may be a good joke; but, Mr. Speaker, it is wrong for us to underestimate the group of men who plotted in exile less than thirty-five years ago, and who are today in possession of more than half of Europe, and have infiltrated into the ranks of practically every country in the world. I say that the attitude of underestimating your opponent in this case is a bad one. That is not the attitude which Canadians should adopt. We should strive to improve our lot, and at the same time we should not adopt the philosophy that, simply because of certain changes that are suggested here and there, we should throw overboard those things for which the British people and others fought for centuries. We should not do that just because somebody brings up a slogan, "let us change it; let us have something new." A new style is all right when it comes to clothes and certain other things; but let me say to you that, in matters such as these, we should proceed slowly and carefully. I say with all sincerity

that not only Canadians of Anglo-Saxon origin but even those of French-Canadian origin will be proud that they have remained loyal to these principles, as they always have been. At the same time, they will not discard this symbol of unity, this symbol the equal of which no other group of nations in the world possesses.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I have one or two suggestions to offer. First I should like to congratulate the hon. member who has brought the subject before the house in order that we may have a full dress debate on it. He is showing that he believes in his own province and he also believes in Canada. When I was a young fellow I chose Canada instead of New Zealand, Australia, Scotland, England, or any other place, because I felt that Canada was the country that would suit me. To me it is the greatest country on earth today. If you will think of those things that we have in Canada which demonstrate how we outshine any other country in the world you will be surprised. We have the longest railway in the world. We have the greatest fresh-water lake in the world. You could drop Ireland into that great lake-


Mr. Fair:: Never.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: -and all you would see would be the Guinness' stout sign. We have the greatest grain-growing country in the world, the greatest mines in the world, and the last war showed that we have the greatest men in the world. Because Canada is great I think we should have a flag, and I think we should have a national anthem. Like the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) I like the tune of "O Canada". When I came to this country first the people were singing "The Maple Leaf Forever". Then we were singing "O Canada". I remember once, when we were singing "O Canada, our home and native land", somebody was kind enough to say, "Dan, that shuts you out; Canada is not your home and native land".
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar cannot say that it is his native land unless he takes it the way the Irishman took it when he was talking about patriotism, that a man was loyal to his native land whether or not he was born there. I should like to make two suggestions. As I think of Canada today and what makes her great, it is what the Christian churches all over stand for. Without the teachings of the Christian churches Canada would go to the bowwows. I suggest that, as the outcome of this debate, a committee should be formed to study the question of a national anthem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is what was done with the flag.
National Anthem


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: And instead of singing "our home and native land", let us put something in there that will include everybody.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The best way to kill a suggestion is to refer it to a committee.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: When you sing "O Canada" today you cannot tell whether we are Christian or heathen. The heathen are loyal to their native lands too. We are loyal to our native land, but why leave God out. He is the foundation of our country, and if you leave Him out of our national anthem it will not represent people like myself.


Pierre Gauthier: We have it in the French version.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Therefore, in congratulating the hon. member who moved the resolution, I say to him that I think we should have a committee to study the question of a national anthem that will be worthy of the great name of Canada.


Mr. A. L. Smith (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot approach this subject as a musician. I am a musician of the barber shop variety, and that is all. Therefore I am unable to give you any opinion as to whether this, that, or the other is a good piece of music, but I have listened to six speakers today, and referring to the committee which the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) wants, my suggestion is that the six gentlemen who have spoken should form a sextet, and they will ruin any song that was ever written. I do not think there is any doubt of that.
I speak as one who was born in this country, as were my people before me. My grandparents on one side came from the same place as the hon. member for Fort William, if I do not mistake his accent, and I do not think I do. What I want to say is that in the place where I live, and in the larger area of that part of the country in which I live, "O Canada" is sung at the opening of all meetings. It is taught in our schools, and as far as the children are concerned, my children and now my grandchildren, I am inclined to think that they already regard this song or anthem-I do not know the proper name for it-as the national anthem. I say that most sincerely. I have come to the conclusion that the young men of my acquaintance who returned from this war regard "O Canada" as the national anthem of Canada. In other words I think, sir, that that sentiment is growing in Canada and growing in a very healthy way.
I put this to the house: of what advantage is it to pass a statute which will, in fact, put this song in a strait-jacket? Really, that is the only thing it will accomplish. With the

National Anthem
greatest respect, I say that if we leave things alone, let the development take its own natural course, the day will come when that will be regarded universally as the national anthem of this country. But remember, it will be one of two anthems. We commence all our school meetings, rotary clubs, service clubs and all those meetings with one of these songs and as the song is sung the people turn and face the flag.
I must say I was somewhat impressed by what the member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) said. He advanced the idea that the Deity should be mentioned in the national anthem of any country. If you go to the United States, you will find that they have two anthems, "My Country 'tis of Thee" and "The Star Spangled Banner". There is no statute covering the situation, but there are these two songs both of which are patriotic. On some occasions both of them are sung, and on all occasions one of them is sung. I am sure there must be in this House of Commons other members present beside myself who listen to the fights from Madison Square Garden every Friday night. On that occasion you will find that "The Star Spangled Banner" is sung before the opening of the fight. I have never been there, but I assume the people rise while that tribute to their country is paid in song by those who are present.
Let us consider the United Kingdom. So far as I know, and I think I am right in this, there is no statute covering "God Save the King." Take different parts of the United Kingdom-I was going to say, having regard to racial origin, but perhaps that is not a correct expression, because the Scotchmen claim that they populated Ireland and that the Irish are really Scotch. There is the Celtic part of the races in the United Kingdom which covers the Welsh, of course. We have heard something about their anthem, but again it is not an anthem put in a strait-jacket by legislation.
If this matter came to a vote at the moment, I have no idea how I should vote. I am in this position-


An hon. Member:: As usual.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I think that was at least an unkind remark that was made just now. Inasmuch as we are trying to be tolerant with each other, I will just leave it at that.
I will say this,, that I am very fond of the song. I must say that since the return from the war of my own son, who believes as many of us do that we should have something distinctively Canadian, I am influenced by that. The important thing at the moment, sir, is that there is a growing stream, and I believe legislation of this type will act as a dam to

that growing stream. I believe that if the natural forces are left to themselves, if it be left to the quiet judgment not only of members of parliament but of our own people and particularly those of different racial origins who mingled so closely in this last great war, we shall have done much more for unity in this Dominion of Canada. If a statute is passed now one has the feeling, which perhaps one cannot prove, that it will bring about disunity. Surely, a danger of that kind is something which should be appreciated. If we have nothing to gain by saying that we shall have one national anthem, because that is what the resolution means, then with the greatest respect to the mover of this motion, I suggest that we delay the matter.
I wish to compliment the member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. Cote) on the courage he has shown in moving the resolution. I do say that nothing can be lost by a little delay and nothing can be gained by haste. With respect to all concerned, is it not the part of wisdom to let this thing grow in its natural way? In the event of some of us not being satisfied with the growth of that sentiment, then we could bring the matter up here. If we must, let us divide on it at that time. I am afraid that if we divide on the question now we may add to the ideas of some persons outside this house and outside the parties in this house, we may add fuel to the flame of their efforts in creating disunity in this Canada of ours which we all love so much.


Mr. Gordon B. Isnor (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I think I am in accord with a great many of the thoughts expressed by the member for Calgary West (Mr. Smith). I believe it would be unfortunate if the house were to divide at this time on this particular question, and particularly in view of the stand we took last Monday. We are all working for the unity of Canada, and perhaps this is once when a question such as this should be given more serious thought than at any other time in the history of our country.
I quite appreciate that a reference to the debate when the report of the flag committee came before the house would not be entirely in order, but I believe it has a very close connection with this resolution. I think it is a good thing to have a resolution such as this brought before the house once in a while, in order that we may turn our attention to the matter in the hope it will bring about greater unity. That of course brings up the question as to whether this resolution, as it is framed at the present time, will bring about that result. If the hon. member, in framing his resolution, instead of using the words "the national anthem" had used the words "a national anthem", I think we could

have dealt with it from a different angle and could have taken a broader point of view with regard to the question. But 1 feel that Canada, to a greater extent than ever before, has been swept into the centre of the international scene and that she finds her problems are more and more those of the world at large. That fact was shown, as I said a moment ago, last Monday. We can pick up the papers any day and find that there is throughout the world unrest, to overcome which requires the co-operation of the peace-loving nations. We can bring about that fine co-operation of the peace-loving nations only if we are able to keep our own nation properly united.
Both geography and history have given to Canada a place of importance. It is true that in recent years we have come to the point at which we can say that Canada has attained to nationhood at a moment when the ground-swell of vast changes is felt throughout the world; and she will, if she follows her true intuition and interest, play a distinctive role in creating that community of nations whose existence is essential to any hope of ensuring international prosperity and peace. Because of that consideration of international good will, I question whether it is wise at this time to consider a motion such as this.
In dealing with this question from a national standpoint, we must face two questions. First, we must ask ourselves: Has Canada really arrived at the status of nationhood? Second, in dealing with national affairs from a national standpoint, I believe we must ask ourselves this question: What can Canada contribute to the creation of that world community of nations which we talked about when discussing the Atlantic pact last Monday? Those are important side issues of this important motion with which we are dealing. Because of those considerations I feel that the hon. member would have been well advised if, after having presented the motion in such an able manner, he had either withdrawn it or allowed it to stand until some future date. As I said a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is hardly the time to bring a question of this nature before this house.
I asked the question, Mr. Speaker, whether Canada had attained the status of nationhood. I think we should endeavour to answer that question. Of late years much has been written about our history, particularly about the province of Nova Scotia, from which I come. Some able writers down there have placed on the market outstanding books on the history of Nova Scotia. I refer particularly to that able contribution made by Thomas Raddall in his latest book, The Warden of the
National Anthem
North, dealing with Nova Scotia and more particularly with the city of Halifax. So, as I say, of recent years we have had books which have given us the great historical background of our own country and of our own province, about the men and women who pioneered this great country of ours. We learned of their bringing with them not only their material goods but their political opinions, their manner of living, their prejudices and ambitions, which they adapted to the demands of their new environment. May I pause here to say that this same thought applies to the large numbers of immigrants who entered our country last year and who are still weekly, or almost daily, entering this country in the first months of this year 1949. They are all bringing with them the same ideas as did the pioneers of the early days. They will fall into the pattern of our country, as did our forefathers; and they will make good citizens, good Canadians, and help to perpetuate the fine traditions of Canada.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, the geography and other circumstances of the Canadian scene modeled their feelings, interests and actions so as best to suit their needs and purposes. Across the years we all have helped to build out of our background the structure of this fine Canadian nation. Our present stage of Canadian political development, the parliamentary principle adopted from our mother country, Britain, is a distinctive admixture of British and American procedures. I do not think that we should try to break down any of those ties between the motherland and Canada. Those ties have been helpful to us over a long period of years. Because of that fact, I would hesitate at this time to introduce and bring into effect the results which would be attained if we were to adopt this motion.
Our national historical background and our geographical environment alike have, so far, largely determined the direction of Canada's development toward nationhood.


Mr. LaCroix:: Just killing time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Golding):: Order.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: With a more united maritimes, and with added strength from the advent of Newfoundland, I believe it lies within our power, as thinking citizens, to guide our development to better advantage and to greater ends. And what I say about the eastern maritimes applies equally to the western sections of our country, particularly British Columbia. This is another reason why we should not today take definite action on this motion.
Canada's economic development has shown in the past the presence of intermingled forces running east-west and north-south, working

National Anthem
to some extent at cross purposes. I am now going to bring into this discussion, Mr. Speaker, a thought that might be considered for the moment to be out of order; but I sincerely trust that you will not say it is out of order, because I am linking up the thought in respect of a united Canada when I refer to the development which has taken place in Canada. The lack of a well-knit, harmonious economy, which I believe was hoped for but not attained at the time of confederation, has had a tendency to develop industrial central Canada, particularly the province of Ontario, at the expense of other sections of our country. During the past few years the citizens of all parts of Canada have come to understand that the prosperity of one section of our country is so interwoven with that of the other sections that our economic structure must be so shaped as to develop a closely knit and well-balanced economy which will develop and benefit all. That is understood to a greater extent than ever before. I was very pleased to listen to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply (Mr. Winters), that great Nova Scotian who has recently taken his place in the cabinet. When I say that, I am not for the moment thinking along political lines. Since this is the first opportunity I have had I am paying my respects to the choice made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in selecting this fine type of Nova Scotian to represent our province in the cabinet. I was very happy when I heard him expound his plans and hopes for a large building development that would not only take in his own province but reach from the Atlantic to the Pacific-plans which would produce houses for all Canadians. I think that is the right view to take. I do not want anything to happen, such as might happen if this motion were adopted, to divide one part of Canada from the other.
I was also pleased when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) a month or so ago outlined plans which he had in mind to develop industry throughout the country instead of having it confined to a very large extent to the two provinces of Quebec and Ontario. I feel that the economy of our country can best be served if we decentralize industry. Our economy must be so built up that we shall have sufficient employment in the various sections of our country to keep all parts prosperous.
Because of this awakened interest in the industrial central sections, and the understanding shown by many of our leading citizens, I answer my first question as to whether Canada has real national status by saying that there is definite evidence that Canada has attained the status of nationhood.

Having reached that stage, it is only natural for the hon. member who introduced this motion to bring it forward in the hope of having a national anthem adopted by our country. I know that the great majority of hon. members are of the same mind as he is, that we should have a national anthem; but when he says "the national anthem" and defines what that national anthem is, then he is going to have a division of opinion. For that reason I repeat, it would be unwise to adopt the motion as it is at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Some hon. members are anxious to have the question put. It is unfortunate that after certain speakers have expressed their views others should not have the liberty that Canada enjoys today, and what we are so proud to brag about, namely, freedom of speech and opportunity for all.


An hon. Member:: A good speech.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: Hon. members who have called "question" should be patient and permit other hon. members who want to take part in this debate to do so, and give them the same kind of hearing as they received.


Mr. Sinclair:: Sing a few bars of "O Canada."


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: In reply to the interjection of the hon. member for Vancouver North, who is always interjecting in a humorous way, may I say to him that I feel quite sure he could do a very much better job of singing a few bars of "O Canada" than I can. If he likes to interject those remarks I have no objection whatsoever so long as he does not take up my time unnecessarily.
I was developing the thought that this country should be more closely united industrially and in other ways. I believe that in the feelings, interest, ideas and practices evolved from the Canadian environment and adapted to our needs and purposes this country is outstanding in two respects-in both good will and friendly disposition to all, both minorities and majorities alike.
I was surprised that hon. members should interrupt and call "question", as they did a moment ago. From all parts of Canada individuals and groups, as well as provincial leaders, representing widely varied opinions and interests, should co-operate to promote the recognition of Canada abroad to a greater extent even than at the present time.
With the background which I have just outlined, perhaps in a disjointed way, you will understand, Mr. Speaker, why I seek to emphasize that this is not an opportune time to press for the adoption of this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I should thank the hon. members for appreciating the point which I have just made with regard to the outstanding position occupied by Canada. Today the proof of that fact is Canada's outstanding position in the international scene, the high regard for Canadian representatives, and the respect given and paid to Canada's new Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).


Mr. Picard:: Has that anything to do with the flag?


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: It has a definite connection with the flag because of the fact that Canada has attained a position which has made her the focus of the eyes of the world in her endeavours to maintain and perhaps lead other sections of the world in the movement for peace.
I believe you will understand me, Mr. Speaker, if I bring in the name of a great Nova Scotian, Joseph Howe, a man to whom we are largely indebted for responsible government in Nova Scotia. I was interested to note a short time ago that the legislature of Nova Scotia celebrated the anniversary of responsible government which took place, I believe, on March 11, 1848. That was when we had responsible government in Nova Scotia for the first time. Mr. Speaker, I am sure there are other members who would wish to take part in this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Take your time.


Gordon Benjamin Isnor: I certainly do not wish to deprive them of the opportunity of contributing to the debate. I believe it can safely be said that the record of Canada stands as convincing proof that Canada is a nation which can make a great contribution to the community of nations. If that is so, then naturally we should have a national anthem and a flag of our own. I, for one, at the proper time would be happy to join with a majority in making a selection of a national anthem, but I should not like to see the selection narrowed down as we have it in the terms of this resolution, which states- That in the opinion of this house, the anthem "O Canada," in both the English and the French versions, should be the national anthem of this country.
I said the word "the" should be changed to "a", and that the matter should be laid over until a future date.
I believe I have covered those points I had intended to bring before the house. I consider this an important matter, and it would seem to me that the resolution is not worded as a majority of members would like to have
National Anthem
it. For that reason I sincerely trust no action will be taken in the matter at this time.


Mr. L. R. Beaudoin (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: Mr. Speaker, I am in favour of the resolution as it stands.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the intention of the hon. member to adjourn the debate?


Louis-René Beaudoin: Before doing so, do I understand that this honourable chamber is to proceed to the Senate immediately?


Mr. Abbott:: I have to table some estimates.


Louis-René Beaudoin: I wish merely to move an amendment which I believe will be considered and accepted as a sincere effort to meet the wishes expressed by hon. members who have spoken this afternoon on the resolution before the house. Because I would like hon. members to express their views by their vote, I would move immediately, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Sinclair):
That after the word "country" at the end of the resolution the following words be added:
"as God Save the King is the anthem of all the nations of the commonwealth.
The resolution would then read:
That in the opinion of this house the anthem 'O Canada' in both the English and the French versions, should be the national anthem of this country, as 'God Save the King' is the anthem of all the nations of the commonwealth.


Arthur Leroy Smith: I would like to speak to the amendment, if I may.


Douglas Charles Abbott: You will have lots of time.
On motion of Mr. Beaudoin the debate was adjourned.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1949-50

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1950, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
to give, in His Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act to amend the Cheese and Cheese Factory Improvement Act.
An act respecting the appointment of auditors for national railways.
An act to amend the Game Export Act.
An act to repeal the Cullers Act.
An act to amend the Mail Contracts Supplemental Payments Act.
An act to amend the Agricultural Products Act.
An act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1950.

Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we will take up the motion in the name of the Minister of Finance to go into ways and means.


Gordon Graydon: The budget debate, in other words?


Alphonse Fournier: The budget debate.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask when it is the intention of the government to proceed with the motion in the name of the Minister of National Revenue for the appointment of a committee on radio broadcasting?


Alphonse Fournier: Next Tuesday, I believe.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Not until then?


Alphonse Fournier: On Friday we are taking up the supplementary estimates and at the moment I do not know whether we shall proceed on Friday night with it. Monday is private members' day, so I think the first occasion on which that motion could be considered would be on Tuesday.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 6.05 p.m.

Thursday, March 31, 1949