Explain.

Mr. CAHAN:

Mr. Speaker, on March 13 last the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), the former Minister of Justice, introduced a bill with the same title, "An Act to amend the Oaths of Allegiance Act." Since that bill was introduced and printed further consideration has been given to its terms, with the result that a slightly modified bill has been prepared, which was submitted to the hon. member for Quebec East before its introduction into this house and which has, I think, received his approval. He has already given notice to the house that he is withdrawing the bill introduced by him on 74726-147^

March 13 in order that this bill, which is a modified form of his own, might be considered favourably by the house.

The hon. member for Quebec East, referring to the circumstances under which his own bill was introduced, made a brief reference to the proceedings of the imperial conference of 1926 of which he and the right hon. leader of the opposition were both members. The summary of proceedings of that imperial conference contains the following passage:

The title of His Majesty the King is of special importance and' concern to all parts of His Majesty's dominions. Twice within the last fifty years has the royal title been altered to suit changed conditions and constitutional developments.

The report recites the title of His Majesty which was adopted by royal proclamation in 1901, and then proceeds:

Some time before the conference met it had been recognized that this form of title hardly accorded with the altered state of affairs arising from the establishment of the Irish Free State as a dominion. It had further been ascertained that it would be in accordance with His Majesty's wishes that any recommendation for change should be submitted to him as the result of discussion at the conference.

We are unanimously of opinion that a slight change is desirable, and we recommend that, subject to His Majesty's approval, the necessary legislative action should be taken to secure that His Majesty's title should henceforward read:

"George V. by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India."

On March 12, 1927, the parliament of the United Kingdom, in order to carry into effect the resolution of the imperial conference of 1926, passed the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act, 1927, which appears in the imperial statutes as 17 George V, Chapter 4, Section 1 of this act reads as follows:

It shall be lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty, by his royal proclamation under the Great Seal of the Realm, issued within six months after the passing of this act, to make such alteration in the style and titles at present appertaining to the crown as to His Majesty may seem fit.

Thereafter, on May 13, 1927, a royal proclamation was issued under the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act providing that His Majesty's style and titles in the English tongue should thereafter be: "George V, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." Since 1927 that style and title has been adopted in Canada and throughout the British dominions in all administrative acts,

231S

Oaths oj Allegiance Act

but the fact that that is not the title prescribed in the Oaths of Allegiance Act of Canada apparently escaped notice until the hon. member for Quebec East brought it to the attention of parliament, and introduced a bill to rectify that anomaly.

At the same time it has appeared expedient that the oath of allegiance in Canada should conform in its terms to the oath of allegiance which was adopted in the United Kingdom in 1868, and which has been adopted in South Africa, Australia and I presume in New Zealand, although I have not had access to the New Zealand statutes. That form of oath is the form suggested to be adopted in the bill now to be introduced.

The anomaly that our oath of allegiance should differ from that which has prevailed in the United Kingdom since 1868 led me to make some interesting researches. I found that the present oath of allegiance presently prescribed in the revised statutes of Canada was adopted by the parliament of Upper Canada on February 13, 1833, by chapter 12 of 3 William IV. In looking into the circumstances \inder which the statute was passed, I find that that was a time of civil strife and turmoil in Upper Canada. Upon the union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840 the oath which had been adopted in Upper Canada was no longer the oath for the united Canada which came into existence in 1841. The year 1849 was also a time of tumult, civil commotion and excitement and the legislature of old Canada re-enacted in 1850, chapter 18 of 13 and 14 Victoria the form of oath which had been adopted in Upper Canada in 1833.

When the British North America Act was passed in 1867 an oath was prescribed therein in schedule 5 by section 128 of that act. This was a simple form of oath to be taken by senators and members of parliament and did not conform to the somewhat elaborate oath which had been contrived in 1833 in Upper Canada and in 1850 by the legislature of united Canada. The British parliament declined to adopt that form of oath. In 1868 the British parliament 'by special statute, 31-32, Victoria, chapter 72, which came into force on July 31, 1868, a year after the British North America Act, 1867, was enacted prescribed a form of oath to have effect in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and throughout the British dominions in so far as the legislation of .the Imperial parliament had force and effect. This simple form of oath prescribed in Great Britain in 1868 is:

I, , do swear that I will be

faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, Her Heirs and successors according to law. So help me God.

There was a provision in this statute that upon the demise of the sovereign, the name of the reigning sovereign of the time should be inserted for .the name of Her Majesty, Queen Victoria. This is the oath of allegiance which is prescribed in the United Kingdom and in all the colonies of the empire and the same form has been adopted in Australia and South Africa. It seems expedient that this dominion should adopt the same form and this is what is proposed in the present bill.

The bill provides for two exceptions. There is a slightly different form of oath to be taken by members of the House of Commons and the Senate, which is prescribed by section 128 of the British North America Act, 1867, and the fifth schedule thereto. We have no authority or at least we do not propose to amend the British North America Act, and therefore we except that act in this proposed legislation. We have excepted also the simple form of oath which is prescribed in our Naturalization Act, which act is similar to .the naturalization act of the United Kingdom. The same form of oath is prescribed in the naturalization acts of South Africa and Australia.

There is one other simple provision. Several statutes of this parliament contain special oaths of office to be taken by special officials. I am informed that when other officials are sworn in, it has been the custom for the clerk of the privy council to improvise such a form of official oath as he deemed expedient under the circumstances. There is in this bill a provision that from time to time the governor in council may prescribe oaths of office, which have not been expressly provided for by parliament, when new offices are created and it becomes necessary to administer oaths of office to the appointees to such offices.

Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

1. What amounts did the Department of Public Works expend at Sainte-Anne des Monts, county of Gaspe, during the year 1933-34?

2. What are the particulars of such expenditures ?

3. What works were carried out?

4. How many workmen were employed in connection with each of such works?

5. What was the salary of the superintendent of such works?

6. Who superintended such works?

7. What salary was paid to the workmen?

Questions

Mr. STEWART (Leeds):

Mr. LAFLECHE :

What is the total sum paid by the Dominion government since 1930 to date in the counties of Riehmond-Wolfe, Compton, Shefford, Stan-stead, Brome-Missisquoi, Chateauguay-Hunt-ingdon, in connection with public works and by way of contribution under the Unemployment Relief Act?

Mr. DUPRE:

Riehmond-Wolfe $ 71,948 50

Compton

49,921 26Shefford

55,844 20Stanstead

40,082 64Brome-Missisquoi 21,539 96Chateauguay-Huntingdon. . . 1,458 00Total $240,794 56

In addition to the above, there was approved, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, a schedule of works providing for repairs to bridges in the following counties: Chicoutimi, Compton, Deux Montagues, Dorchester, Drummond, Gaspe Sud, L'Assomption, Matane, Megantic, Soulanges, Kamouraska.

The dominion contribution in this respect was $9,493.67, but it is not possible from the accounts received to determine the amounts chargeable to each county.

Also, under the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, there was approved a schedule providing for the painting of bridges in the following counties: Arthabaska, Argen-teuil, Bagot, Bellechasse, Bonaventure, Champlain, Chateauguay, Deux Montagnes, Kamouraska, Laprairie, L'Assomption, Megantic, Montmorency, Papineau, Soulanges.

The dominion contribution in this respect was $4,999.81, but it is not possible from the accounts received to determine the amounts chargeable to each county.

1. What amounts have the government expended at Disraeli, county of Wolfe, for direct relief, works, etc., from September 30, 1930, to March 31, 1934?

2. What were such works?

3. What amounts have been expended for each of such works or contracts?

4. What amounts have been expended yearly by the government for all works carried on at Disraeli?

Mr. DUPRE:

1, 2, 3 and 4. Disraeli village,

Wolfe county.

Unemployment Relief Act, 1930-

Public works: Bridge and embanking repairs to aqueduct.. $2,100 00Direct relief

177 50

Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931-

Public works: Stone filling

bridge approach

3,159 77Direct relief

129 78

The Relief Act, 1932-

Direct relief 405 58

The Relief Act, 1933-

Direct relief 154 77

1. How many pound's of butter were imported from Australia, since August 1, 1930, to date?

2. What customs duty per pound was levied with respect to such imports?

Mr. MATTHEWS:

Imports of Butter from Australia Entered for Consumption in Canada from August 1, 1930, to March 31, 1934, with Rate of Customs Duty Applied and Amount of Duty Collected

Duty

Lbs. Rate of duty applied collectedAugust 1, 1930, to March 31, 1931... 2.107,840 2,107,840 lbs. at lc. per lb. $21,078 40Fiscal year ended March 31, 1932... 776,892 638,344 lbs. at lc. per lb. 6,383 44138,548 lbs. at 5c. per lb. 6,927 40Fiscal year ended March 31, 1933... 22,196 16,204 lbs. at 5c. per lb. 810 20Fiscal year ended March 31, 1934... - -

T otal

2,906,928

Pedigreed Hogs

PEDIGREED HOGS On the orders of the day:

Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :

Mr. Speaker, a question was asked

yesterday by the hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) based upon a press dispatch that an importation of Swedish pigs was to be made into this country. An answer of yes or no might be misleading and I should like to make a short statement in an endeavour to make clear just what is behind this press dispatch. It is generally recognized that the Danish pig is among the most suitable to produce bacon of the type desired by the consumer in the United Kingdom. This suitability is the result of years of careful selection based on the gain of the pig and the quality of the pig, using feed which is cheapest to feed. That is, the selection is based more on a pig suitable to make use of certain feed rather than the changing of feed and the putting in of considerable research work on feed to make it suitable to any pig. In order to improve the quality of her bacon, Sweden imported some of the best approved herds of Denmark landrace pigs. They carried on the work started in Denmark and the result is that they are now on almost an equal if not an equal footing with the Danish bacon produced by the land-race pigs. For this reason it was felt it would be all gain if there was an importation made into this country from the best of the Swedish herds in order to make a study of their suitability to our country and to our feeds and also with the possibility of crossing with different bacon type hogs used in Canada. Pigs of this type are not available for purchase in the United Kingdom, as referred to in a press dispatch. There was a small importation last fall of white pigs from the United Kingdom. This importation is contemplated, when we receive the assurance of the health of animals departments of the United Kingdom and the United States, that such an importation will not interfere with the understanding between the countries. It is the intention to keep the importation entirely under the control of our government institutions for experimental purposes in order to see how they respond to our conditions, in comparison with our own pigs under similar conditions. If they do not respond, as it is expected they will, they will not be distributed amongst private breeders but will be slaughtered and sold. Every precaution in this connection will be taken if the importation is made.