Mr. ARSENAULT:

Don't worry; I do

not think you will ever see that day. The hon. member for Broadview claims that there

'King of Canada'

is no conference of the nations of the commonwealth at the present time. No, but the motion speaks of the next conference of the nations of the commonwealth, and surely there will be a "next" conference one of these days, as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow.

This is an important matter, notwithstanding that the hon. member for Broadview thinks it is not. He thinks we are wasting the time of the house at great cost, but I do not see any force in that contention. We are discussing item No. 4, which is to be found under notices of motions, and since this is private members' day we are free to discuss such motions until six o'clock. If we dispose of the present motion we can go on to Nos. 5 and 6, so that we are not losing any time, particularly when we are dealing with so important a subject.

The hon. member does not always speak in the name of the opposition, but as usual he recalls the days-and it is well that they should be recalled from time to time-when the empire did much for Canada. I think, however, that we should sometimes recall- it is done more often on this side than on the other side of the house-what Canada has done for the empire.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution under consideration provides for the recommendation to the next conference of the nations of the commonwealth that the royal style and titles of His Majesty the King include the specific designation of His Majesty as the King of Canada. May I compliment highly and sincerely the sponsor of this resolution, the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis) who, in the circumstances, has not only demonstrated the great progress he has made, since his election to this parliament, in the way of mastering the English language, but shown for himself, for his constituency and for the population of this country which is of French extraction, his and our great devotion to His Majesty the King of Canada; his and our love for this country of ours which is called Canada. The hon. member for Kamouraska has quoted the Balfour declaration, which dates back to 1926 and which stipulates that all nations of the British commonwealth are autonomous and equal in status. He also quoted excerpts from "Problems of Canadian Sovereignty", written by our distinguished and, I was going to say, genial and outstanding law clerk of the House of Commons, Doctor Maurice Ollivier, indicating that to alter, the royal style and title of His Majesty requires the consent of the parliaments of all the nations of the commonwealth. Therefore I feel that this is an ex-83166-168

ceptional occasion when the voice of this nation should be heard in support of a resolution which is specifically and categorically Canadian and which at the same time is designed to augment, if it can be done, our respectful and loyal devotion, and our common allegiance to the crown.

As hon. members have probably noticed, I have purposely used the word "nation" instead of "dominion". I am sure the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) will not agree with me in that. I will further add that "dominion" is a word which should be used as seldom as possible in this house. I will go farther and say that the word "dominion" is a remnant of colonialism which should be banished as soon as possible from our official texts. I will go even farther and say that the word "dominion" is a word which offends the sentiments of a substantial part of the population of this country, is a word which is largely responsible for the legitimate doubts which we deliberately implant in the minds of statesmen of other friendly nations as to the accuracy of the evidence of the legal and constitutional status of this free parliament and sovereign state. For example, what would hon. members think of countries such as France, Holland, Belgium and even Italy or Germany if they bore the official designations of the dominion of France, the dominion of Holland, the dominion of Belgium, the dominion of Italy or the dominion of Germany and at the same time, Mr. Speaker, claimed equal status with the greatest powers of the world either at the peace conference table or at the united nations meetings? Hon. members would say that those nations may be right; nevertheless they act as if they were wrong, having regard to the designation of their official status, especially if none of those countries which I have just mentioned had a national flag representative of their traditions or aspirations, or a national anthem; but had a dominion day to celebrate. I would say that if there is a place in this world where the word "dominion" should disappear, as used to designate our country, Canada, it is in the wording of the royal style and titles of His Majesty the King.

How much more deeply, Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all creeds, of all races, of all extractions and of different languages, would feel in their hearts and souls their loyalty to the crown on the day they heard and could legally say, "George the Sixth, by the Grace of God King of Canada".

Let us be realistic about this matter. With all the respect we owe to the Balfour declaration or to the provisions of the Statute of

"King of Canada1

Westminster which was so ably quoted by the hon. member for Kamouraska, the term "dominions beyond the seas" is no longer good enough for a substantial part of the population of this country for the purpose of designating Canada in the title of His Majesty the King, but should be changed to the King of Canada. Even if this resolution is adopted there may yet be a long period of time before this matter will be brought to the attention of a conference of the nations of the commonwealth.

Therefore, in the meantime, I would respectfully urge hon. members who share the views which I express at the present time, to refrain as much as possible from using, in their addresses in this house and in all their addresses in public, the word "dominion" when applied to Canada. It is so easy and so natural to say "Canada", "the government of Canada", "the parliament of 'Canada" or "the Canadian parliament", instead of "the Dominion of Canada" or "the dominion government", and so on. The dominion government of what; of Australia; of New Zealand; of Canada? It does not say. Some hon. members may wonder why I have these telephone directories on my desk. Looking up the telephone directories for Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec and other cities, what do we find if we look under the word "Canada"? I take the Ottawa directory, and I find: Canada Cement; Canada Dry Cleaners and Dyers; Canada Dry Ginger Ale; Canada Starch; Canada Wire and Cable Company, and so forth. Then if I look under "Canadian", I find: Canadian Ayrshire

Breeders' Association; Canadian Congress of Labour; Canadian Feather and Mattress Company; Canadian Mercantile Agency; Canadian National Institute for the Blind. How long would it take a stranger to this country, a visitor from the United States, for instance, to find the words "government of Canada" or "Canadian government"? It would take him as long as it took me to find the same words when I first came to Ottawa. It was only after a considerable length of time that I persuaded myself that in order to find the telephone numbers of the Canadian government I had to refer to the word "dominion", but in the case of a stranger coming to this country his reaction would be that, in spite of all we say, we are still a colony.

Why that should be so I do not know. It is that way .because it has always been that way. I respectfully suggest that instructions should be issued that in the next issue of the Bell Telephone directories, not only in Ottawa but all through this Canada of ours, govern-

ment offices may be found under the heading "Canadian government" as the offices of the high commissioner for Australia may be found in this very book under the heading "Australian high commissioner", and as the high com-misisoner for New Zealand may be found under "New Zealand high commissioner." We are not dominioners: we are Canadians. We are not dominion citizens; we are Canadian citizens. If we are truly proud of Canada, this land of ours, and of our title of Canadians, why do we in so many instances endeavour to hide those glorious names from the sight of strangers and, what is far worse, from the eyes of our own children? And until such time as our truly Canadian patriotism is recognized and interpreted by official texts of appropriate legislation, let us in this free, autonomous and sovereign state-unfortunately without an official Canadian flag; unfortunately without a Canadian national anthem, but with a Dominion day to celebrate-when referring respectfully to our king say that His Majesty is the King of Great Britain, of Ireland and of the dominions overseas, but that at the same time, above all and in the first place, in our hearts, as it should be in our texts, His Majesty is the King of Canada.

Mr. LEON J. RAYMOND (Wright) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, I do. not wish to pass up the opportunity of discussing the resolution moved by my excellent friend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis). However, I intend to limit myself to a few brief remarks.

Besides, the resolution does not call for lengthy explanations. Its wording is quite clear. What does it request? It reads as follows:

That in the opinion of this house, at the next conference of the representatives of the United Kingdom and of the dominions the representatives of the Dominion of Canada should request the conference to adopt a resolution recommending to the parliament of the United Kingdom and the parliaments of the dominions that an act be passed making it lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty to make such alteration in style and titles of His Majesty, more particularly so as to include in such style and titles the words "King of Canada".

The hon. member for Kamouraska merely asks that His Majesty should be officially designated, as far as this country is concerned, by the title corresponding to Canada's true status.

Now, as regards Canada, His Majesty King George and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth are King and Queen of Canada. Indeed this country is an autonomous and sovereign nation. It is the equal of Great Britain and

"King of Canada'

of the other members of the British commonwealth. It is subordinate to none of them. Under the circumstances, those who reign over it cannot but be actually King and Queen of Canada, for the same reason, to my mind, why the King and Queen of Denmark or the monarchs of Norway or Sweden, are respectively King and Queen of Denmark, Norway or Sweden.

This fact has now been acknowledged by a great many Canadian citizens and even by a large number of our public men.

I well remember the expressions of thanks of the Right Hon. Ernest Lapointe at the laying of the corner stone of the new supreme court building in Ottawa by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in 1939. Addressing the august and charming sovereign, he said:

The royal visit which honours us-a fact of unprecedented historical importance-enables me to address Her Majesty as the first queen of Canada and to convey to her, and to His Majesty the King, the assurance of ever unfailing loyalty and devotion, as well as of sincere and respectful affection from our whole people.

In these words, the late Minister of Justice was simply acknowledging the fact that Their Majesties King George and Queen Elizabeth are King and Queen of Canada.

The fact is also acknowledged by a large number of Canadians. During the royal visit which I just mentioned, Their Majesties were readily designated by the expression King and Queen of Canada.

Some jurists will undoubtedly try to confuse a crystal clear issue and pretend that the British Crown is indivisible. In my opinion, such a theory sprang in the minds of people interested in impeding the achievement of autonomy and sovereignty of the British colonies. They used that theory to postpone the development of the colonies.

One must not, however, take that contention too seriously. The same physical person may hold various offices. For instance, the Prime Minister of a country may well be the chairman of some association. In the same way, the sovereign who rules over the British countries may at the same time be King of Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. Such a situation implies no contradiction, and we often see the same physical person holding a plurality of moral attributes.

It would be advisable to have legal documents reflect the situation which exists in fact. Those who would derive the greatest benefit therefrom are the heirs to the British Crown. If Their Majesties were officially called King and Queen of Canada, they would be closer 83166-168J

to the hearts and minds of the Canadian people, who would be more devoted to the Crown, for if the sovereign who rules over Canada were designated as King of Canada, they would regard him more as their own. I cannot see any valid reason to oppose such a change. The only pretence which might be brought up is that by designating Their Majesties as King and Queen of Canada, the bonds which unite the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations might be loosened.

On the contrary, the change proposed by my hon. friend from Kamouraska would have the opposite effect. Indeed, it is the Crown which unites the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations and not economic or political bonds, and anything which tends to increase the devotion of the people to the Crown should be encouraged, as it would be an excellent means to rally the British nations round their Sovereign.

I understand that the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) stated a moment ago that this motion was out of order. I do not intend to discuss this matter, but I wish to say, interjecting perhaps a sentimental note, that as the years go by the word "Canada" assumes a deeper significance for us; from the Atlantic to the Pacific, we no longer regard Canada as a stopping or trading place, but as the fatherland. Those of us who-though broadminded -are deeply rooted to their native soil, cannot be blamed if they claim to be Canadians first and foremost, if they think as Canadians, if they prefer Canada to any other country, if they want it recognized as their fatherland, with their own King, if they want their country to attain greatness and to go forward in order to play unrestrained her part in the Commonwealth and in the world.

Through implementing the resolution presented by the hon. member for Kamouraska, not only would we contribute to the fostering of patriotic feeling in Canada and to the strengthening of the bonds which unite the various parts of the Commonwealth, but we would add greater weight and lustre to the name of Canada among the nations of the world.

I have no other course left to me, therefore, but to approve of the motion before the house, to congratulate the hon. member for Kamouraska and to suggest that Parliament make the proposed change as soon as possible.

(Text):

Mr. R. H. WINTERS (Queens-Lunenburg):

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to make a few remarks on this resolution, may I read briefly from the resolution itself, which requests-

'King of Canada'

. . . that an act be passed making it lawful for His Most Gracious Majesty to make such alteration in style and titles of His Majesty, more particularly so as to include in such style and titles the words "King of Canada."

In speaking on this resolution, I ana fully conscious that it has been, introduced by a Quebec member, my good friend the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis), and that this matter is generally regarded as of outstanding importance and significance to all Quebec members. But I do not think we should lose sight of the fact that this is the House of Commons for all Canada, and that it is the responsibility of members, whatever part of the country they happen to represent, to analyse the significance to their constituencies of steps such as those envisaged by this resolution. To the average citizen it matters little whether the king is known as the king of the dominions or more specifically as the King of Canada. His full title is "George VI, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India". Most of us-I believe I am safe in saying all of us-have a clear understanding of the symbolism involved, and what the king stands for. We fully realize that he is the symbolic head of the great British empire; and I do not believe this change of words would make any great practical difference to the layman, though it may have a great deal of significance for students of the constitution or historians who are concerned with the various steps in the development of Canada toward full nationhood. In other words, I feel that the rank and file of Canadian citizens will regard this as an academic problem.

There is, of course, the strong feeling that by adopting this resolution we would be taking another step in the direction of complete and separate nationhood ; and there is no denying the fact that we have been growing quite quickly in this direction in recent years. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 guaranteed our status as a nation, and the Citizenship Act passed by this parliament further clinched the deal. Recently we have had up for consideration the matter of a distinctive national flag, or drapeau Canadien, and the question whether we should continue to call one of our national holidays Dominion day or change it to Canada day .

There is a growing feeling in Canada that we may be rushing somewhat too quickly along this road. By keeping these issues of nationalism before the people we may in fact be making Canadians conscious of our internal difficulties and problems. The feeling is growing that at the moment we need a shake-down period to consolidate the gains we have made

and to give us a chance to become more familiar with our new strength, to get used to it and to work out our problems arising therefrom. Growing pains can be uncomfortable. There is a feeling in many quarters that our differences of race, language, religion and so on could be more easily overcome if we had greater solidarity and separate entity as a nation. But I am not at all sure, Mr. Speaker, that as a member of the British commonwealth we have been denied any opportunity to overcome whatever obstacles we might have had or might still have in this direction.

At this point I should like to refer the house for a few moments to some of the problems with which my own province of Nova Scotia has had to cope, because I think in good measure the rest of Canada might well take a lesson from the road Nova Scotia has travelled. As all hon. members are aware, Nova Scotia was discovered somewhere around 1497 by John Cabot, who set foot on Cape Breton island just five years after Columbus discovered America. I would also remind hon. members, at this time, that it was some forty years later, in 1534 I believe, that Cartier sailed up the St. Lawrence to make his landings on this continent. Then at a later date, in 1621, James I of England deeded all the land that now comprises the three maritime provinces and part of Quebec to Sir William Alexander. He justified this action because of the prior rights established on behalf of England by John Cabot. During this development period the French Acadians played a strong and active part in the growth of Nova Scotia with their establishments at Louisburg, Port Royal, Beausejour and other centres. The names of Marc Lescarbot, Samuel Champlain and Pierre du Gast with their Order of Good Cheer go deep into our provincial history. There is a rich French heritage in Nova Scotia. Then, too, there were the Germans from Hanover who were so closely linked with a sovereign who later became George I of England that their ties with Britain are unquestioned. I say these ties are unquestioned because, coming from Lunenburg, the centre of the German settlement, I know this to be the case; but I can tell this house that there are many people in Canada who, particularly during the first world war, felt suspicious of this colony because of their German background. This suspicion, of course, greatly maligned a class of people whose loyalty to Canada as a nation within the British commonwealth of nations has been a bright beacon whenever this country has been under stress. They have

"King oj Canada"

not hesitated to fight against their former fatherland wherever there was a call for them to do so.

Then, too, there were the Gaelic-speaking Scots, who made a noteworthy contribution as our hon. friends from Pictou and Cape Breton will attest. It seems that these Gaelic-speaking Scots have the ability to make a contribution wherever they land. Since that time we have had elements of other foreign nations within the province. I mention the great part which the United Empire Loyalists have played in the development of Nova Scotia. I also would recall the group known as the Canadian Yankees. These last two classes within the province were at odds with each other during the American revolution. But each contributed in its own way toward the development of the province, and some very fine books have been written on the part they played. One in particular, written by a native of Nova Scotia [DOT]-Tom Raddall-sets forth in a clear and interesting way the close association between people in Nova Scotia and their friends in the United States.

The house is well aware that we have not been without our serious and unfortunate racial incidents, one of the most regrettable of which culminated in the expulsion of the Acadians from Nova Scotia at Grand Pre in 1755. Longfellow's immortal poem, "Evangeline", is based on this unfortunate incident.

But Nova Scotia has been able to take all these racial differences in her stride and mould the various factions into a unified group whose only interest is the welfare of the province. In the main, the differences have not impeded the province in its march forward, as is evidenced by the leading place she is taking in Canadian history. As is well known, Nova Scotia is the cradle of responsible government and is the only province in the dominion which is unified under a flag of its own. In that connection I should like to read briefly from a book, "The Book of Ultima Thule", by Archibald MacMechan. I quote:

Only Nova Scotia has a provincial flag, not English, not French, in origin, but all its own. It is a white flag with the blue St. Andrew's cross (saltire) dividing the "field" in four. In the centre is the double-tressured lion of Scotland, the ruddy lion rampant in gold. You recognize, of course, the arms of Sir William Alexander, first grantee of the province, still borne in part by the baronets of Nova Scotia, that order of nobility to which Sir Arthur was so proud to belong. Sir William was a Scot, a poet, and a favourite of that kindly Scot, King James, First of England, but Sixth of Scotland. He burned to found a kingdom in the New World, and was granted the province of Acadie.

When in 1867 we entered confederation, the system of unification within the province did not stop.

My purpose in presenting this brief background of racial history and the problems encountered, is to demonstrate that even before confederation the process of welding these different religious and racial groups into one unified whole was well under way and it did not stop after we entered into confederation. Although, after confederation, our status, like that of the other provinces, was that of being just one of several provinces within the Dominion of Canada we have never felt that this fact was an impediment to the development of unity within the province. We have lived with this matter of provincial sovereignty, now provincial rights or provincial autonomy, so long that we have been able to take it in our stride, as is evidenced by the fact that we have in Nova Scotia overcome all problems resulting from race, language and religion. Nationhood or, indeed, true provincial unity is something that must be developed by the people. Legislation will not do it.

To go one step farther, even as Nova Scotia did not find it to be any lasting obstacle to provincial unity to be only one of the provinces forming Canada, I do not believe it to be any obstacle to Canada's status as a nation that she is one of the British commonwealth of nations. I say in this connection that there was no "lasting" obstacle to provincial unity in Nova Scotia because I would not want the house to believe that there was no obstacle at all resulting from these various racial problems and racial groups.

I know that in this house we all agree, regardless of language or race, that it has been to Canada's advantage in full measure that she has been a member of the British commonwealth and that we have had the privilege of enjoying the benefits accruing to us from this association. I am aware that this matter of benefits is not a one-way traffic, and as the hon. member for Bona-venture (Mr. Arsenault) has said, the British commonwealth likewise should be pleased that Canada has been a part of that commonwealth.

To return to the resolution, I do not feel that it presents a practical handicap to us to have the king known as King of the British dominions beyond the seas. Our status as a nation is assured regardless. It is not just a matter of words. It is an accomplished fact and one of which we are all proud. Almost every day events within Canada as well as the

"King oj Canada'

part which the dominion is playing with respect to other nations are serving to justify and emphasize our status as a nation.

Not being a lawyer or a student of constitutional history, I may be missing some of the significance of this resolution; but, as I see it, it is not a matter of outstanding practical significance. The rank and file of people in Nova Scotia, and in my constituency of Queens-Lunenburg in particular, are pleased with our status as a nation and I am sure they are not too dissatisfied with the king's title as it is at present. If, however, this debate shows that it would be to Canada's advantage in any way, shape, or form, to have the title altered so that the king would be designated separately as the King of Canada, we would find no grounds for opposing the resolution.

Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):

Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to offer to this house one or two personal views with respect to the resolution before us. I am speaking simply as one member and upon my own responsibility.

I am not familiar with all the constitutional intricacies involved in the resolution, which calls for a change in the title of His Majesty to designate him as the King of Canada. I sometimes wonder how much members of parliament regard their responsibilities as members. When I was first elected to the House of Commons I, as I suppose all members did, received from the Clerk of the House Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. As a newly elected member I, of course, began to read through it. Right here may I say I am reading it not because I am raising a point of order; I am reading it only to bring to our attention some of our responsibilities. I discover that in note 21 on page 6 the following appears:

Every member as soon as he is chosen becomes a representative of the whole body of the Commons, without any distinction of the place from whence he is sent to parliament . . . That every member is equally a representative of the whole (within which by our particular constitution is included a representative, not only of those who are electors, but of all other subjects of the crown of Great Britain at home and in every part of the British empire, except the peers of Great Britain) has, as I understand, been the constant notion and language of parliament. Every member, though chosen by one particular district, when elected and returned, serves for the whole realm. For the end of his coming thither is not particular, but general, not barely to advantage his constituents, but the commonwealth.

The quotation is taken from "Blackstone", volume 1, page 159. I do not think anyone will question Blackstone's ability as a constitutional lawyer.

I have nothing to say against the discussion of such trivial things as fertilizer for farms, gopher poisons or nails for building purposes. These things are important to some people, but I wonder whether, in the exercise of our duties, we have not forgotten that they go far beyond these matters. I wonder whether we have not been just a little negligent in thinking through the problems respecting the destiny of our commonwealth. If the general idea lying behind the resolution under discussion is to have His Majesty's title read "The King of Canada" I can take no particular or great exception to the change, if the desire is to have His Majesty designated as such. If, however, the idea is to have Canada take any further step which will tear us loose from the British commonwealth, then I personally would take the greatest exception to it.

I rise this afternoon to speak with some feeling and with some emotion. I was born in England of English parentage. My father is buried there. My boy gave his life in sacrifice for the freedoms which the British crown has always stood for. Since the war I have been able to rescue my mother from the old land. I say "rescue" her.

The present title designating His Majesty reads:

His Most Excellent Majesty George VI by the grace of God of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas, King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.

I call attention particularly to the phrase "dominions beyond the seas, king". I do not wish to be an alarmist; I do not wish to sound a note that should not be sounded. How we have sung with a good deal of exuberance, "There will always be an England". That, Mr. Speaker, is my prayer. I do not say that prayer; I pray that prayer. But I trust that I am not out of line when I say that it is not beyond possibility that the term "dominions beyond the seas" may come to be obsolete. England today is economically bankrupt. The people of England today are going through the greatest hardship that perhaps history has ever recorded. The plight of England is, to some extent, beyond our imagination. I doubt whether the average member of this parliament has been able or could possibly be able really to look behind the scenes, and I cannot believe that a couple of snowstorms is the reason for it all.

I said that I did not want to be an alarmist. I say with a great deal of emotion that today

'King of Canada'

England is occupied country. That statement may take a little thinking through. It is true that foreign armies are not there, but I say this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, it is my personal conviction that a foreign way of life is there.

I say that one of the things we should be most concerned about is our Christian democratic way of life and the solidifying of the British commonwealth of nations in that one great common tie which has, throughout the ages, characterized the relationship of the peoples of that commonwealth. With that thought, I am going to resume my seat. I say, in conclusion I do not think it would be harmful for me to repeat what I said, that if behind the present resolution the motive is to tear us loose from that commonwealth, then I would be against it. But if the motive behind the resolution is simply to change the title so that His Majesty can be specifically designated as the King of Canada, I see no particular reason to oppose it.

Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf) (Translation) :

Mr. Speaker, I wish, at the outset, to compliment the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. Marquis) on his courage. The placing of a motion on the order paper entails in itself no difficulty, but to express it in clear terms without trying to disguise one's intention, or to lessen its scope, calls for courage, especially when the wish so expressed can wound feelings which arise from an extreme sentimentality or conjure up in the minds of some people recollections which they do not want to banish..

The honourable member for Kamouraska believes in the future of his country; that is normal for a good Canadian like him. He believes that a nation like ours must grow, assert itself, and take a larger part in world affairs. To do that it must advance and develop along constitutional lines. It must advance, even though the great powers, as they are called, courteously block its way toward the important place it should and will eventually occupy among those whose wisdom in domestic administration should bespeak the valuable part they can take in the drawing up of a peace programme for the whole world.

It is a world-wide psychological fact that wars have often been hatching for a long time before coming to light. They may lie fundamentally in a peace treaty based on temporizing only, which is a palliative, rather than on true principles with no solution of continuity among its essential parts, the union of which makes for permanent operation. They also lie in exclusive commercial agreements endangering the interests of other

countries which have no raw materials; in the delimitation of boundaries which are unacceptable to certain nationalities deeply rooted in the neighbouring country, of boundaries unacceptable to a whole country whose population is often too large and must expand beyond those boundaries in order to breathe and live. By the way, this is the most important problem to be solved by Germany. Prior to the last war, Germany, with a population of 69,600,000 people, had an area of 181,700 square miles; today, with a population of 71 million people, it is enclosed in an area of 137,640 square miles. Let us remember Hitler's cry for raw materials and living space for his people.

Also in the way of preliminary remarks which are necessary, in order to understand the specific object of the motion under discussion, I would add that the causes of wars often lie in the lack of judgment of certain governments which, instead of admitting the legitimate desire, the necessity of an evolution toward a freer, a more autonomous and, I was going to say, a more independent status, effect underhand deals which in most cases, do not proceed directly from them but from certain organizations or so-called key men whose actions and untimely utterings- although they are always in line with the policy laid down by the political parties of the country since centuries-wound the feelings of those rising countries whose inexhaustible resources are their greatest guarantee, especially when they are in a position to enjoy them and prevent them from passing over to strangers.

Policy laid down since centuries: The

Canadian Press of April 16 contained a statement made by Viscount Bennett before the Women's Advertising Club of London, England, to the effect that Great Britain is no longer able to assume the defence of the commonwealth. Here are his words:

Which means that we must look to a common defence policy with common objectives. Such a policy will have to be adopted without delay.

Lord Bennett is not satisfied with advocating the eternal policy of the lords of the admiralty, mentioned in earlier days by Laurier, but he adds:

It is evident that one of the dominions is willing to seek the protection of Uncle Sam. As far as we are concerned, he adds, we should see to it that the oldest member of the commonwealth, that is your country, take the initiative in calling an imperial conference.

The eternal fear that Canada be too close to the great republic across the border, the eternal fear of the necessary evolution of a

'King oj Canada'

great country. Moreover, his statement is- and we are surprised to hear it from a former prime minister-a malicious allusion to a country which, with our brilliant and mighty cooperation, played a leading part in the last war.

Another so-called key man takes the liberty to utter untimely remarks and express his fear, proving at the same time beyond all doubt that our constitutional evolution is our strength and is known the world over. Speaking before the Royal Empire Society, H. V. Hodson said:

(Text):

As a country, Canada feels that if she is not 100 per cent Canada, she is, she feels, merely an appendage of the United States.

(Translation):

And he adds:

(Text):

It is all evidence that Prime Minister Mackenzie Ring was the principal accessory when the dominion government or at least some of them acted so that the imperial conference was quietly smothered in its bed a year ago.

(Translation):

He continues as follows:

(Text):

The dominions have only begun to assert the privileges of national status which they have acquired in the last generation.

(Translation):

This clearly shows his presumptuousness, and the idea he has of his own importance. He goes on:

(Text):

These privileges included the right to be represented here, there and everywhere by their own diplomatic envoys; the privilege of singing out of tune and being an argumentative party to every international negotiation that concerns them; and the small boy's right to cock a snook at his elders.

(Translation):

The only thing lacking to complete the picture is that an ambassador should tell us what national flag we should have.

Whatever those gentlemen may think, Canada is growing, although she is still young. She has reached maturity with a population of 12 million in a country which could contain an empire; she is strong enough to claim the privilege of selecting newcomers. That Canada should belong to an association of free countries gives rise to no complaint on the part of anyone, except those who are too much affected by imperial preference. That is what we find in the book by Sumner Welles, "Time for Decision", which was published in London and New York in 1944.

On page 176, he writes:

(Text):

I was impressed with the unhappy effects which the Ottawa agreements, providing for imperial tariff preferences, had had on the economy of all nations and particularly on that of the United States.

(Translation):

We see no great danger in this motion asking that in view of our slow constitutional evolution, the king actually reigning over the British empire be called King of Canada. It means only the bringing of our status to its logical conclusion. Eventually-one never can tell-it may be suggested that the crown, symbol of the constitutional King of Canada, be substituted to the union jack, emblem of another nation, on our national flag, itself subjected to the inevitable trend of events. These things cannot be avoided, Mr. Speaker. Time will follow its course. Those who wish to stem the course of events will fail in their attempt if they are not careful in aiding and guiding them. Doctor Ollivier, in the preface of his book "Le Canada, pays souverain", writes as follows, on page 9:

Our modern times are by no means monotonous. Our own generation, having witnessed a war unparalleled in history, bloody or peaceful revolutions, the collapse or dismemberment of time-honoured empires, is now called upon to witness the shattering of the classical moulds in which our universal concepts of state and sovereignty were shaped.

The most extraordinary changes have taken place in the international field: the birth of a soviet state, of a fascist state, the creation of the league of nations and, finally, the evolution of the British empire.

This book, if it were written today instead of in 1935, would add: the birth and the

inconceivable strength of a soviet state, the birth and collapse of two fascist states, the creation of a second league of nations under a different name and the evolution of the British empire which Churchill himself fears to see liquidated under the present socialist government.

Such is evolution, the march of time, such

is, too often, the unforgivable mistake, the

abuse of strength, the excess of faith in what certain great men consider as being eternal, which is only human. There is, to use a well chosen expression of my pastor, but one government that will never fall, but one empire which resists to all attacks: everyone, even

its most indomitable enemies, know and fear

it, although it is not necessary that we name it. Mr. Speaker, it is one of man's characteristics to be slow in acknowledging the inevitable and more so because his interests are always at stake.

1King of Canada"

Let us suppose, for a moment that the motion be agreed to and that the next imperial conference grant our wish: a new step will

have been taken and no one could accuse Canadians of a lack of patience. Other countries might, unwarrantably, no doubt, practice this virtue to a lesser extent.

Fruit is good to eat when ripe; independence is a fruit which a nation must pick when it is ripe. The great republic to the south had to endure the frightful war of secession before it could finally pick the ripe fruit of independence.

Are we to believe that Poland, alternately dependent and independent since the glorious dynasty of Ladislases, will never be prepared for the enjoyment of a benefit so jealously prized by less advanced communities?

Judging from what is taking place, according to newscasts, India, which seems to have been promised independence, does not apparently show any greater readiness for it. Moslem and Hindu rivalries, the surgings of hitherto peaceable sects, foreign intrigue readily arousing a still queasy population, all seem to stand in the way of full independence. The British United Press announced last night that the United States of Indonesia who have just been granted independence, were on the brink of civil war. It will then be readily admitted that a maximum of genuine, deep, and not a merely apparent national unity is required within a nation that considers itself ripe for independence.

Our constitutional evolution is as inevitable as that of other countries. No one can stay its progress. It is all the surer for its being slower, more enduring. With each new step we now take, we grow circumspect and watch the next step. With each new war, we seem to hesitate.

Perhaps it is because of circumstances, of necessities arising from our union, from our nearness to a great country, our awareness of being called upon to take a leading part in world affairs. I congratulate the hon. member for Ivamouraska for introducing this motion and hope that the people of Canada will keep on showing patience, steadfastness and judgment, and will display even greater confidence, if possible, in the future marked by Providence for a country whose strength and courage compel recognition on the part of the most sceptical, the most timorous and especially the mightiest.

(Text):

Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): I should like to say a word of appreciation to hon. members who took part in this debate for the 83166-169

high tone in which the matters have been discussed and for the interesting material which has been brought to the attention of the house. My colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I were looking at the terms of this motion when the debate commenced and he supplied me with the words which, I think, properly describe this: one

of the signs of the inevitability of gradualness. There is no doubt that the present royal style and title is not in full accord with the constitutional position of the units of the commonwealth and other lands over which His Majesty is king. This title is also the result of gradualness. One part of it, Defender of the Faith, if I am not mistaken, is a memento of a compliment paid to King Henry VIII by the Pope of Rome and has always been maintained in the description of the titular head of the United Kingdom. The form in which the royal style and title now appears is, as hon. gentlemen know, "George VI, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British dominions beyond the seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India." This wording was established by a royal proclamation issued under the great seal of the realm and published in the London Gazette on May 13, 1927, in the exercise by His Majesty of the powers conferred upon him by the Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act of 1927. In it there was retained the expression "Defender of the Faith". There was retained also the expression "Emperor of India", which was first added to the description in 1876. There was also retained the expression "the British dominions beyond the seas", which appears to have been incorporated in the royal title by virtue of a statute of 1901. Though in many documents in which the words "dominion beyond the seas" were used, the word "dominion" commenced with a capital "d"; that was not so originally. In the statute of 1901 power was given to make addition to the style and title of the crown in these terms:

It shall be lawful for His Most Gracious

Majesty, with a view to the recognition of His Majesty's dominions beyond the seas

That is with a small "d", referring to his dominions beyond the seas and the lands over which he exercised royal authority.

-by his royal proclamation under the great seal of the United Kingdom issued within six months after the passing of this act, to make such addition to the style and titles at present appertaining to the imperial crown of the United Kingdom and its dependencies as His Majesty may see fit.

Following that statute, a proclamation was issued setting forth the style and title of

'King of Canada"

His Majesty in two languages, not the two languages which are official in this country, but the two languages used for such and like documents in England; that is to say, the English language and the Latin language. In the Latin language the words were:

et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt.

That is, the lands beyond the seas which are under dominion. I looked up "in ditione" to see just what was the origin, and I find it is one of the expressions of Caesar's De Bello Gallico.

Mr. MacNICOL:

May I ask the minister if he translated the expression correctly? I thought he said "under the dominions"?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, "under dominion."

Mr. CHURCH:

What is wrong with the title now? Are you objecting to it?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: What is wrong with it now is that it is somewhat out of date; it does not make any distinction between the condition of those lands beyond the seas whose peoples have attained autonomous self-government, and the colonies which are still lands under dominion, administered from the colonial office.

The horn, member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Winters) says that to the layman this does not appear to be anything of importance, that it does not make much difference. I quite agree with him. Those of us who are within the commonwealth know exactly what the situation is, and it is not important as to whether or not it is accurately described in the title of His Majesty. That has no effect whatsoever upon the regard in which he is held here or upon the fact that in law, constitutionally he is our king; he is the King of Canada. The way in which he is described in this title has no effect upon that for us. But to others who are not within the commonwealth it may appear ambiguous; and those who remember their Caesar and their De Bello Gallico may think the "et terrarum transmarinarum quae in ditione sunt" are in. the condition in which were the lands Caesar described as "in ditione Germanorum" or "in ditione Romanorum." That may or may not be important. Certainly it is not the fact. We are not "in ditione Germanorum"; we are not "in ditione Romanorum", and we are not "in ditione-"; I do not know what the Latin word would be, but whatever would be proper to describe the English people. We are not under the dominion of any but ourselves and His Gracious Majesty as King of Canada.

That is the fact, but it is also the fact that in the Statute of Westminster we, the United

Kingdom and the other autonomous units which, in the declaration of 1926, were declared to be all of equal status, agreed that there would be no further change in the royal style and titles without the action of the parliament of the United Kingdom, the parliament of Canada, the parliament of Australia, the parliament of New Zealand and the parliament of the Union of South Africa. This resolution directs attention to the fact that the style is not now in accord with what is the fact, but it also in terms recognizes that nothing more than a hope can be expressed by any one of the units, because the consent and concurrent action of all is required to bring about any change.

The resolution says that at the next imperial conference there should be a recommendation that all these parliaments concur in making this change. Well, I think a change will be inevitable in the course of this inevitability of gradualness. Have we reached the point where it is necessary that it be made at once? That is something upon which there may be various divergent opinions. All I can say as to the position of the government is that, this matter having been discussed in the high tone that was maintained throughout the debate, it will be considered by the government as its duty to ascertain from the representatives of the other autonomous units of the commonwealth if they feel that it should be considered at the next meeting. I think I can give the mover of this resolution the assurance that we shall ascertain, through ordinary diplomatic channels, if it is convenient to the other members of the commonwealth of nations that this matter be considered the next time there is an imperial conference. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) says none has been fixed. He is quite right, but these conferences take place from time to time. This resolution does not ask that a conference be called, and I would not want to give the assurance that we would ask to have a conference called; but I feel sure that at some near or later day there will be an occasion when representatives of the autonomous units of the commonwealth will be in session, and I think it would be proper to ascertain, through diplomatic channels, if they consider that when there is such a conference this matter should be on the agenda. It is something that I am sure will be considered in the same spirit in which it was discussed in this house. We cannot forever maintain forms that no longer represent the substance; and the substance has been changed. The substance is now different from the condition that existed when this form was adopted. When will that change

"King oj Canada'

have to be made? How soon will it have to be made? Certainly it will be made some day.

Mr. CHURCH:

If I may ask the right hon. gentleman a question, would not any change in the style of titles require a proper address from both houses of parliament, and would it not involve a change in the British North America Act?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: No, I do not think it would involve any change in the British North America Act, because the language in which the title is now expressed is not the language we find in the British North America Act. The language we find there is:

The provisions of this act referring to Her Majesty the Queen extend also to the heirs and successors of Her Majesty, Kings and Queens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Irel and.

That is no longer the form in which the royal style and titles is expressed, so I do not think it would require any change in the British North America Act. But it would require the concurrent action of the parliament at Westminster, of the parliament at Ottawa, of the parliament at Canberra, of the parliament at South Wellington, and of the parliament at Pretoria. Until all that is done, there would be no change legally made which would conform with the terms of the statute of Westminster.

Mr. FERGUSON:

Would there be discussion on it. before discussion took place in this house? Would an item of that kind be discussed at a conference?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes. All I am saying this afternoon is that, through the ordinary diplomatic measures, we shall endeavour to ascertain whether the governments of the other members wish to have it on the agenda for discussion at the next conference.

Mr. FERGUSON:

Then it would be discussed?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, it would be discussed there; and it would have to come back here, and be discussed here, before it could be done.

Mr. FERGUSON:

Would all the points pertaining to it be discussed at the conference, prior to its being discussed in the House of Commons?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: Yes, the whole matter would be discussed at the conference. They would discuss as to whether or not it was advisable to take such action. There might not be agreement; and unless there was agreement it could not be done. It is something which any one of the units could prevent. One 83166-169i

dissenting state could prevent its being done. It would have to be something to which all those governments unanimously agree.

Mr. FERGUSON:

A discussion in the conference prior to its being discussed in this house might give a wrong impression throughout the world respecting the thoughts of the majority of Canadians regarding the subject, the way real Canadians feel on the subject.

Mr. ST. LAURENT: I would not admit that real Canadians would feel that it was necessary to keep the title in such form as would give anyone the impression that this country was still in ditione Anglorum.

With this declaration, that we shall ascertain whether or not others would feel desirous of discussing it, it seems to me that perhaps the hon. member would be content to have his motion dropped. It cannot produce any effect, unless there is discussion, and unless out of that discussion unanimous approval ensues.

Mr. POULIOT:

Queen Victoria is not dead.

Mr. SPEAKER:

Has the hon. member the leave of the house to withdraw the motion?

(Translation):

Mr. EUGENE MARQUIS (ICamouraska):

Mr. Speaker, after this statement by the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), which agrees in every respect with the purpose of the resolution, I beg leave to withdraw it.

(Text):

Mr. MacNICOL:

Would the right hon. gentleman enlighten the house as to just how he will proceed to get in touch with the other dominions?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: That will be through the offices of the high commissioners in the several capitals. That is the way in which these things are always done. The high commissioners will be asked to ascertain in London, in Canberra and in the other capitals whether or not those governments feel that the next time there is a conference this should be on the agenda.

Motion withdrawn.

Mr. MACKENZIE:

Last night the leader of the opposition asked me in regard to the time for resumption of the budget debate. The government gave consideration to the request this morning, and have agreed that Tuesday next should be the time at which the financial critic of the opposition will resume the budget debate. But it is the

Immigration

intention of the government that, once that debate commences, it shall be pursued without intermission until its conclusion.

As hon. members will have seen from the order paper, next Monday is taken over for government business.

Mr. GRAYDON:

Then will this be the last private members' day?

Mr. MACKENZIE:

No; Wednesdays are still left, and there are the private members' hours on Tuesday and Friday evenings.

I think it is safe to say that the legislation of the government is practically all ready, and the length of the session will depend upon the length of the budget debate and the cooperation we receive from hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to private members' days. We have received excellent cooperation thus far, and I trust it will continue. If so, I think this session will be greatly shortened thereby.