1953-12-09

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday, as recorded at page 694 of Hansard, I promised the Minister of Finance I would send him information on what the United States congress had done by way of increasing the pensions of its retired civil servants. I am happy to send that information to the minister now, and I hope he will do something similar for our own superannuated civil servants.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Thank you.



ATOMIC ENERGY


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Members of the house will have heard or read in the newspaper reports, Mr. Speaker, of the inspiring address delivered by the President of the United States at the general assembly of the United Nations yesterday afternoon. I should like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Canadian government, of welcoming President Eisenhower's imaginative and constructive approach to what is perhaps the greatest problem of the day, namely the effective control of atomic energy and its development for the welfare rather than the destruction of mankind. The house will, however, appreciate that it would be inappropriate to make any extended comments on the President's proposal without the most careful study of his actual text, which we have not yet received. I can assure the house that the President's statement will receive most careful and sympathetic consideration by the Canadian government.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Thatcher:: 1.	Since the "suggestion awards plan" for the civil service was adopted November 28, 1952, how many suggestions for making savings or improving efficiency have been received?
2.	What is the amount of money actually saved, so far, as a result of these proposals?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	1,870.
2.	Only a small percentage of the suggestions received have been processed. Approximately 30 suggestions have been implemented which will result in an estimated savings of $6,500 for the first year each actual suggestion has been in operation.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  BANFF NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: 1.	What is the total mileage of the trans-Canada highway within the boundary of the Banff national park?
2.	Of this highway, how many miles of subgrade have been built or rebuilt to trans-Canada specifications in (a) 1953; (b) 1952; (c) prior to 1952?
3.	Will the total mileage be completed by December, 1956?
4.	How many miles of base have been laid?
5.	What thickness of base is being used?
6.	How many miles of asphaltic surfacing has been laid?
7.	What thickness of asphalt surface is being used?
8.	Has any seal coating yet been applied?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Approximately 50 miles.
2.	(a) 9-3 miles, (b) Work commenced in 1952 on 4-2 miles, but no mileage was completed until 1953. This mileage is included in (a), (c) Nil.
3.	Authority under the Trans-Canada Highway Act will lapse in December, 1956. Every reasonable effort will be made to complete the project within the time allotted.
4.5-9 miles.
5.	Thickness varies with types of soil in subgrade. Minimum thickness is 11 inches.
6.	Nil.
7.	See answer to No. 6.
8.	No.

Questions


IGOR GOUZENKO
Mr. Nicholson:: What have been the total expenses incurred by the Canadian government on behalf of Igor Gouzenko, since he became a government ward?


Mr. Garson:: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to the hon. member in connection with this question, and he has agreed to withdraw it.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	How many companies are engaged in the production of cement in Canada, and what are their names and locations?
2.	What was the total bag production, by provinces, of cement each year for the past six years?
3.	What was the total bag consumption, by provinces, of cement each year for the past six years?
4.	How much cement has been imported from the United States, each year for the past six years?
5.	What is the price per bag to the retail trade, of (a) Canadian cement; (b) American cement?
6.	What accounts for the difference in price, if any, between Canadian and American cement?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	There are five companies producing Portland cement in Canada. They operate eleven plants, as follows:
North Star Cement Co. Ltd., Corner Brook, Newfoundland.
Canada Cement Company Limited with plants at Havelock, N.B.; Hull, Que.; Montreal East, Que.; Belleville, Ont.; Fort Whyte, Man.; Exshaw, Alta.
Ciment Quebec Inc., St. Basile, Co. Port-neuf, Que.
St. Mary's Cement Co. Limited, St. Mary's, Ont.
British Columbia Cement Co. Ltd., Bam-berton, B.C.
2.	Production of Portland
1947	1948
Nfld	
-	-N.B	
-	-Que	
21,813,628	26,068,124Ont	
14,117,752	14,643,024Man	
5,408,436	6,788,168Alta	
2,950,204	4,897,252B.C	
3,454,960	4,111,924Canada	
47,744,980	56,508,4923.	Apparent consumption of Portland cement in bags, 1947-1952:Canada*-1947, 52,387,360; 1948, 60,699,180; 1949,	72,725,408;	1950,	72,416,544;	1951,
77,330,612; 1952, 85,720,856.
Not available by provinces.
4.	Imports of Portland cement from the United States in bags:
Canada-1947, 4,583,870; 1948, 3,817,412; 1949, 6,413,811; 1950, 1,765,368; 1951, 4,017,391; 1952, 5,676,777.
5.	(a) Price of Canadian cement delivered to dealers in carload lots, per barrel of 350 lbs., Toronto (as of November 27, 1953), $3.47.
(b) Price of United States cement delivered, carload lots, per barrel of 376 lbs., Toronto (as of November 27, 1953) approx. $5.00.
6.	Information not available.


HIGHWAY, BANFF TO BANFF PARK
Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: 1.	Is a four-lane highway being constructed between the east gate of Banff national park and the town of Banff?
2.	If not, how many lanes?
3.	What is the width of each lane?
4.	What is the width of the shoulders, if any?
5.	What is the average cost per mile for subgrade rebuilt to trans-Canada specifications?
[Mr. Bourget.l
Cement in Bags, 1947-52
1949	1950	1951	1952-	-	-	504,400-	-	-	2,416,49227,604,768	27,681,652	28,220,656	29,088,96418,397,288	21,254,084	21,752,404	22,308,1006,009,232	6,569,248	6,158,448	6,451,1806,638,012	6,358,852	6,599,636	7,546,1765,016,956	5,103,468	5,300,104	5,766,84063,666,256	66,967,304	68,031,248	74,082,1526. What is in (a) 1953;	the average cost per mile for base laid (b) prior to 1953?	7.	What is the average cost of asphaltic surfacing laid in (a) 1953; (b) prior to 1953?8.	How many different contracts were let?9.	To whom were contracts awarded?10.	What was the original price of each?11.	How much additional money if any, has been given to each?12.	What is the time limit on each contract?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	No.
2.	Two.
3.	12 feet.
4.	10 feet.
5.	$47,725, inclusive of culverts but exclusive of bridges.
6.	(a) $23,225; (b) no base course completed prior to 1953.
7.	(a) Nil; (b) nil.
8.	Four.
9.	(1) Williams & Carrothers Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. Construction of 4-2 miles of subgrade and base course and the construction of abutments for the Carrot creek bridge.
(2)	Williams & Carrothers Ltd., Vancouver, B.C. Construction of three concrete box culverts.

(3)	Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada Limited, Calgary, Alberta. Construction of 5 [DOT] 1 miles of subgrade and base course.
(4)	J. A. Shannon Construction, Taber, Alberta. Construction of the Forty Mile creek bridge.
10.	Contracts were awarded on a firm unit price basis. The originally estimated cost of each contract was:
(1)	Williams & Carrothers Ltd., $191,993.24.
(2)	Williams & Carrothers Ltd., $12,000.
(3)	Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada Limited, $239,441.
(4)	J. A. Shannon Construction, $24,794.
11.	Quantity variations in actual construction increased estimated payments on contracts as follows:
(1)	Williams & Carrothers Ltd. Construction of subgrade base course and abutments for the Carrot creek bridge, $49,766.95.
(2)	Williams & Carrothers Ltd. Construction of three concrete box culverts, $861.75.
(3)	Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada Limited. Construction of sub grade and base course, to date, nil.
(4)	J. A. Shannon Construction. Construction of Forty Mile creek bridge, to date, nil.
Questions
12.	(1) Williams & Carrothers Ltd. Construction of subgrade and base course original time limit 31st October, 1952, extended to 31st August, 1953.
(2)	Williams & Carrothers Ltd. Construction of three concrete box culverts, time limit 31st March, 1953.
(3)	Standard Gravel & Surfacing of Canada Limited. Construction of subgrade and base course, original time limit 31st October, 1953, extended to 15th June, 1954.
(4)	J. A. Shannon Construction. Construction of the Forty Mile creek bridge, original time limit 31st October, 1953, extended to 30th November, 1953.


POLIOMYELITIS
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: 1.	How many cases of poliomyelitis were there in each province during each of the years 1951, 1952, and up to 1st December, 1953?
2.	How many patients have died in each province from poliomyelitis in the above periods, and how many suffered serious after-effects?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.
Province	1951	1952	1953 (to Nov. 28)5	4	221*23	57	10216	57	5751	427	81274	125	4621,701	705	2,039*50	839	2,34992	1,205	1,06859	740	1,28792	596	773-	1416
* To November 21.
2.
Province	1951	1952	1953 (to Nov. 28)
			10
2	2	123	6	62	11	210	12	14101	46	724	25	7112	90	692	79	926	40	25-	9-	-	-
Cases suffering serious after-effects are not reported by the provinces to the dominion bureau of statistics, or to the Department of National Health and Welfare.
738

Questions


MICROWAVE RELAY, MONTREAL-QUEBEC
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	Has the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation constructed a microwave relay cable to be used for the transmission of television programs between the city of Montreal and the city of Quebec?
2.	If so, to whom was the contract awarded?
3.	At what price?
4.	When was such work started and when will it be completed?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	No. The corporation does not construct facilities for the network transmission of its radio and television programs. This transmission service is supplied to the corporation bycommon carrier companies in accordance with operating contracts awarded on a competitive basis.
2,	3 and 4. See answer to No. 1.


PRICE AND COST OF PRODUCTION
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	What was the average price, per bushel, paid for wheat in the years 1930, 1935, 1940, 1950, 1951 and 1952?
2.	What was the average cost of production during each of the above years?
3.	What was the cost of living index for each of the years covered in question one?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.
Average Price per Bushel of No. 1 Northern Wheat, basis in store Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver.
Crop Year beginning Aug. 1	Sales for Domestic Use	All Countries	Sales for Expor Within provisions of International Wheat Agreement	; Class II1$	$	$	$0.641	0.641	-	-0.85$	0.85$	-	-0.74	0.74	-	-1.911*	-	1.911	2.12$1.821s	-	1.821s	2.3311.81$4	1.751s	2.16|1	Outside the provisions of the international wheat agreement.2	Exclusive of carrying charge of 6 cents per bushel, effective June 15, 1951.
8 Exclusive of carrying charge of 6 cents per bushel.
4 Exclusive of carrying charge of 6 cents per bushel for period August 1, 1952-May 19, 1953, inclusive.
2. Information not available.
3. The consumer price index, on the base 1949 = 100, for specified years was:
1930 	
75	*31935 	
59	*91940 	[DOT]71950 	
102	*91951 	*71952 	*5



MARGARINE


Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	Is a 10 per cent federal sales tax collected on the sales of margarine?
2.	On what other foods, if any, Is a 10 per cent federal sales tax collected?
3.	Is the government giving consideration to the abolition of the federal sales tax on margarine?


Mr. McCann:: 1.	Yes, except on sales in Newfoundland.
2.	It is not possible to list foodstuffs which are subject to the sales tax.

The following foods are, however, exempt. Foods not specifically exempted are taxable.
Barley; bread; butter; cheese; cream; eggs, egg albumen and egg yolks; glucose; honey; ice; lactose; lard; rice; salt; shortening; soups; split peas; sugar; yeast; yogurt;
Bakers' cakes and pies including biscuits; cookies or other similar articles;
Cereal breakfast foods not including beverages;
Cooking oil and salad oils, not including mayonnaise or salad dressing;
Drinks prepared from milk or eggs;
Fish and edible products thereof;
Flour including pastry, cake, biscuit, and similar mixes;
Foods prepared and sold exclusively for feeding infants;
Fruit, fresh, canned, frozen, preserved, dried or evaporated;
Grain grits and meals;
Ice cream;

Jams, jellies, marmalades, and preserves;
Malt syrup, except when sold for beverage purposes;
Maple syrup, corn syrup; table syrups; molasses;
Meats and poultry, fresh, cooked, canned, frozen, smoked or dried;
Milk, including buttermilk, condensed milk, evaporated milk, and powdered milk;
Peanut butter;
Prepared whipping cream;
Spaghetti, macaroni and vermicelli;
Vegetables, fresh, canned, frozen or dehydrated, not including pickles, relishes, catsup, sauces, olives, horseradish, mustard, and similar goods;
Vegetable juices; fruit juices which consist of at least ninety-five per cent of pure juice of the fruit;
Materials to be used exclusively in the manufacture or production of the aforementioned foodstuffs.
3.	This is a matter of government policy.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Low:: 1.	How many persons were added to the federal civil service, during 1953?
2.	Of these, how many were returned soldiers of world war I and world war II?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1 and 2. 23,889 persons were appointed in the classified service during the period January 1 to October 21, 1953, 675 being entitled to veterans preference for world war I and 3,164 to veterans preference for world war II.
These figures, however, are not proper indications of "additions" to the civil service, as the majority of them are replacements, or appointments for seasonal or limited terms of employment. As of December 31, 1952 the classified service numbered 129,136; as of September 30, 1953 (the most recent date available) it numbered 131,960. There were accordingly 2,824 additions to the classified service in that period.



VOCATIONAL SCHOOLS ASSISTANCE, QUEBEC

Mr. Breton:: 1.	What amount under the provisions of the vocational schools assistance agreement, is allotted to the province of Quebec annually, for assistance to vocational schools of less than university grade?
2.	What amount, during the period from April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1953, did the province of Quebec receive from the federal government for assistance to vocational schools of various types?


Mr. Gregg:: 1. $628,100.00
2. $8,028,744.85.
83276-47i
Questions



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT-LOANS AND LOSSES

Mr. Noseworthy:: 1.	What is the aggregate amount of loans authorized under section 4 of the National Housing Act, by provinces, since the National Housing Act has been in force, for (a) home improvement:	(b)
home extension?
2.	What is the amount of loss sustained under this section of the National Housing Act to date?
3.	To what banks or instalment credit agencies have the losses been paid and what amounts were paid in the case of each bank or credit agency?


Mr. Bourgel:: 1. Pursuant to the provisions of part IV of the National Housing Act the banks have made 16 home improvement loans totalling $12,900. All of these loans were made in the Northwest Territories.
The banks have made 43 home extension loans, totalling $130,090. The number and amount of such loans by provinces is as follows:-
No. Loans Amount
Nova Scotia	, 1	$ 3,000.00New Brunswick ....	, 2	3,200.00Quebec 	, 4	15,200.00Ontario	, 34	104,390.00Manitoba 	, 1	1,300.00British Columbia ...	, 1	3,000.00Total	, 43	$130,090.002.	No losses have been sustained.3.	See answer to No. 2 above.



CANADIAN PACIFIC AIR LINES

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Have any letters, telegrams, resolutions, etc., been received from cities and other municipalities and public bodies protesting against the cabinet decision on the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines for freight cargo rights?
2.	If so, how many?


Mr. SI. Laurent:: Perhaps I might answer this question orally because the answer requires some qualification. The question is:
Have any letters, telegrams, resolutions, etc., been received from cities and other municipalities and public bodies protesting against the cabinet decision on the application of Canadian Pacific Air Lines for freight cargo rights?
Nothing has been received from any cities, municipalities or public bodies in the sense that cities and municipalities are public bodies, but two letters have been received, one from a board of trade and one from a chamber of commerce, containing qualified comments about the decision.


Mr. Fleming:: May I ask the Prime Minister what chambers of commerce those were?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Yellowknife board of trade.

Questions
fishermen's indemnity and loan plan


Mr. Malheson:: 1.	How many fishermen, by provinces, have taken advantage of the fishermen's indemnity and loan plan since it commenced operations in July, 1953?
2.	What is the value of the boats covered?
3.	How many fishermen have made claims?
4.	What total amount has been paid to such fishermen?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 1. Newfoundland	 718
Nova Scotia	 143
New Brunswick	 47
Prince Edward Island ....	31
Quebec	 105
British Columbia	 124
Total	1,168
2. Newfoundland	$	463,921
Nova Scotia	 308,675
New Brunswick	 75,230
Prince Edward Island 

 30,835
Quebec	 86,204
British Columbia	 455,095
Total	$ 1,419,960
3.	Newfoundland	 1
Nova Scotia	 Nil
New Brunswick	 Nil
Prince Edward Island ....	Nil
Quebec	 7
British Columbia	 Nil
Total	8
4.	Newfoundland	$	300.00
Nova Scotia	 Nil
New Brunswick	 Nil
Prince Edward Island ....	Nil
Quebec	 2,940.84
British Columbia	 Nil
Total	$	3,240.84
Note: In addition, on November 27 there were 164 applications covering boats valued at $369,000 in process of coming under the fund.



MEADOW LAKE, SASK., POST OFFICE

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many tenders were received for the construction of a post office at Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, and what was the amount of each?
2.	Has the contract been awarded? If so, to whom?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	(a) Four.
(b) E. M. Cleve Construction Company, Lloydminster, Sask., $48,992.00; Olaf Tidfors, Meadow Lake, Sask., $49,000.00; C. M. Miners Construction Company, Limited, North Battleford, Sask., $59,834.00; P. W. Graham & Sons Limited, Moose Jaw, Sask., $67,655.00.
2.	(a) Yes.
(b) Olaf Tidfors. (E. M. Cleve Construction Company withdrew its tender.)



WEYBURN FEDERAL BUILDING

Mr. Argue:: 1.	Has the site been procured for the Weyburn federal building?
2.	If so, from whom and at what cost?
3.	What size of building is contemplated and what is the estimated cost?
4.	Has the contract for construction been let? If so, to whom, and at what price?
5.	When is construction to be completed?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) City of Weyburn; (b) $15,000.
3.	4 and 5. Plans have not yet been prepared.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Goode:: How many veterans, recipients of war veterans allowances, have applied under sections 3 and 4 of the War Veterans Allowance Act, (a) by the provinces; (b) through Vancouver office, (c) through New Westminster office?


COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT
Mr. Winch:: 1.	What is the total number of investigations made under the Combines Investigation Act, since its inception?
2.	In how many cases were prosecutions instituted as a result of the investigations?
3.	In how many prosecutions were the company or companies convicted?


CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaventure) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that consideration should be given to the advisability of setting up a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to consider and report upon a suitable design for such flag.
He said: Speaking in this house on the 21st of March, 1946, Mr. Speaker, I expressed

the opinion that Canada should have a distinctive flag as being the symbol of the sovereign authority of the Canadian parliament. I felt that, at the same time, we should retain the full-sized union jack as an official symbol of our devotion to the crown and of our association with the sister nations of the commonwealth. Over eight years of study and experience in and about this parliament, and also of friendly contacts with my hon. colleagues of other racial extractions and provinces, as well as expressions of opinion which I have personally received over that period, and mostly in recent months, from Canadian citizens from almost all crosssections of this country, have only helped to drive these convictions which I hold with respect to this flag issue deeper and deeper into my mind.
We live in a country which is not too easy to govern. Our Canadian population is composed of different groups of people from various racial origins and creeds. Some of those groups, if not all of them, hold strong convictions as to their own ways of worshipping the same God and also as to expressing their loyalty to the crown and their affection for our country, Canada.
In the past, Mr. Speaker, many a vital issue which at one time or another has been bitterly opposed by some of the major groups composing our nation finally found its way to its solution through a reasonable measure of tolerance, understanding and compromise. We have often found out in the last analysis that our aims were almost fundamentally identical. We only differed in the means to achieve those aims. Issues which in the past have almost torn this parliament to pieces have finally been settled to the satisfaction of the great majority of the Canadian people through gentlemen's agreements which over a period of years have largely contributed to strengthen this unity of purpose which prevails in Canada today.
The question of the choice of a national flag for Canada is one of the very few issues settlement of which has been deferred on account of their controversial nature. Some of us perhaps can recall the days when some twenty years ago the flag issue was a real explosive subject inside as well as outside this house of parliament. Some eight or ten years ago it was still highly controversial. But year after year the Canadian people have learned to approach this problem, as well as other difficult problems, with their intelligence rather than with their feelings. Consequently the flag issue has become less and less controversial over the years, and this up to the point when today scores of members
Canadian Flag
on both sides of this House of Commons, and millions of Canadians from Newfoundland to British Columbia, have now good reason to believe in and hope for an early settlement of this matter, which most of us consider to be important.
Therefore the choice of a national flag for Canada is not any more a controversial matter, which it has been in past years, partly on account of the comprehension which exists in Canada today among groups of different racial origins, to a degree perhaps never attained before in the whole history of Canada, and partly also owing to the fact that the Canadian parliament in which we sit today is composed-and this applies to both sides of the house-in greater numbers than ever before of representatives of the younger generation of Canadians, as well as of real leaders who are true believers in Canadianism.
When Canada was a colony under the supreme authority and jurisdiction of the imperial parliament, the union jack was the official flag flown on land. On land the union jack was flown over public buildings, while Canadian ships flew the British red ensign. That was quite proper under the colonial status of our country. The position of the union jack incorporated in a prominent place in the red ensign indicated the supremacy of the British parliament over the Canadian parliament.
Then in 1892 the red ensign with shields of the arms of Canada in the fly was authorized by admiralty warrant to be used by merchant ships registered in Canada. According to heraldry the red ensign has always been and is essentially a naval flag, not a land flag.
In 1924 the use of the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms was authorized on all buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian government and situated without Canada. In 1934 a provision was made in the Canada Shipping Act for the flying of the Canadian red ensign on ships of Canadian registry.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on September 5, 1945, by order in council P.C. 5888 the flying of of the red ensign was authorized on federal government buildings "within as well as without Canada until such action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag".
This of course was only a temporary measure pending action thereupon by parliament. And if I recall well, my hon. colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Richard) introduced a motion in 1950 calling for the adoption of an

Canadian Flag
exclusive Canadian flag. Such action was adopted unanimously by the House of Commons, but no action was thereafter taken.
Eighty or a hundred years ago, when Canada was a colony, it was proper to display the union jack as occupying a prominent place on our flag, just as applies today with respect to crown colonies. The red ensign is a proud badge for a crown colony, but is not a distinctive national flag for any autonomous and sovereign country except the United Kingdom and her colonies.
Surely we are proud of our association with the United Kingdom and the other nations of the commonwealth, and for that very reason it seems to me that we should continue to fly not the red ensign but the full-sized union jack side by side with a national flag of our own. May I state here that I know of no organized movements in any part of Canada to discard the union jack. May I also express the hope that the union jack shall never become obsolete in this country as long as the Queen of Great Britain is at the same time our beloved Queen of Canada, and so long as we maintain our association with the commonwealth.
But on the other hand, as one of the leading nations of the world today Canada should have a national flag which has meaning, which has beauty and a strictly Canadian appearance. It is also time it was realized, I hope, that the French-speaking population in Quebec or throughout Canada is not particularly interested in the fleur-de-lis or any other French symbol of any kind on a distinctive Canadian flag. Rather they would prefer a flag with an all-Canadian design.
We strongly believe that if we are going to bring racial origin into the picture we at the same time take great chances, Mr. Speaker, of bringing in racial prejudices as well, which would only lead to disunity. What, for example, would be the reaction across Canada if the French-speaking element insisted upon having either the present tricolour flag of the French republic or any old emblems or symbols of the old kings of France of past centuries such as the fleur-de-lis or other symbols inserted in the place of honour, which is the upper quarter next to the flagstaff, on a national flag for Canada? It would just seem ridiculous.
And if we are going to give the place of honour on our national flag to a symbol or symbols of one element of our population, whatever prominence it may have, what about the other elements of other racial origins such as the French-speaking Canadians who represent about one-third of the Canadian population? And what about our new

Canadians, the Ukrainians, the Scandinavians, the Dutch, Germans, Italians, Hebrews, Slavic and other races who have poured themselves so successfully into the Canadian nation, and who in turn represent a very important group of the ever-expanding Canadian nation? And what about the Indians, for that matter, who were the first settlers in Canada?
The idea of cluttering up a new Canadian flag with a union jack or a fleur-de-lis or any other European symbol is just about as silly, according to the correspondent of the Vancouver Sun, Reg. Ashwell, who wrote in that newspaper, as a Canadian suggestion to the British or the French government, that they should incorporate a maple leaf in the place of honour on the upper left hand corner of either the union jack or the French tricolour. Therefore Canada should have, it seems to me, a flag of her own, and Canadians should not be asked to stand for the symbol of any other country on their national flag.
Some time ago the national council of the native sons of Canada, published, under the signature of W. J. Sisler, of Winnipeg, Manitoba, a very interesting pamphlet about the Canadian flag which says that in any country except Canada the flag represents sovereignty of that country's government, and I quote:
In the United Kingdom sovereignty resides in parliament. The union jack, then, represents the authority of the British government. It is therefore the proper flag to fly in any country under the rule of that government. This includes the United Kingdom and the crown colonies. Canada is not dependent, but is a self-governed country. It is not proper therefore to fly as our national flag one which indicates sovereignty of another country. The red ensign is primarily a British flag flown by merchant vessels. It is used, however, as the flag of many British colonies. These colonial flags are all basically the ensign. They differ only in that the badge in the fly represents a particular colony. The place of honour, the upper staff quarter, is given to the union jack, thus indicating that the British government exercises authority over the colony. Since that authority has, in the case of Canada, ceased to exist, it is not proper that we should fly a colonial flag. The place of honour on the Canadian flag should be given to an emblem distinctive of the country for which the flag flies-that is for Canada.
Furthermore, all authorities on heraldry point out the fact that the red ensign is a naval ensign, not a land flag. May I refer to the Encyclopedia of Canada, 1935 edition, at page 350, where it states:
The red ensign is essentially a marine flag, and cannot properly be flown on land.

An outstanding citizen of Victoria, British Columbia, Mr. Robert D. MacLachlan, writing about the red ensign, had this to say:
The position of the jack on the flag, the upper quarter next the flagstaff, denotes the sovereignty of the British parliament over the Canadian parliament which is represented on the flag by the Canadian coat of arms on the fly, a position denoting inferiority.
As a last quotation may I read from an article published in Toronto Saturday Night of October 27, 1945, entitled "Nation and Flag":
Surely the opponents of the official recognition of a Canadian flag must see, if they will look at the matter with their brains and not with their feelings, that it is fundamentally absurd for nation A, which is so distinct from nation B, that it can be at peace when nation B is at war and at war when B is at peace, to insist that its flag and the flag of B are and must ever remain identical.
A national flag is a symbol of sovereignty, The sovereignty of Canada is vested in the Canadian people, as the sovereignty of the United Kingdom is vested in the people of the Kingdom. They are not the same sovereignty,-they do not need the same flag.
Without saying that the red ensign presents a confusing sight to foreign observers outside the commonwealth, when flown alongside the union jack, unless a strong breeze is blowing, the designs in the fly are lost in the folds of the flag, and the only distinguishing feature displayed on the top lefthand corner and taking up a full quarter of the flag is the union jack. Members of parliament coming up the hill can see this red ensign that we have on the flagpole. If they look they will find out that very seldom can they see the emblem on the flag containing the Canadian coat of arms, which is in the fly of the flag, when the flag is unfolded.
Some people will say, however, what is wrong with the union jack being incorporated in the Canadian flag? Nothing is wrong-


Some hon. Members:: No.


Bona Arsenault: -except that outside of having a great sentimental value for people of British origin, and of being a beautiful emblem which cannot be mistaken for any other emblem in the world, it represents the authority of the British government over the Canadian government at a time when we are looking for a national flag which will represent the authority of our own government, unless, however, in a Canadian flag we give the union jack an inferior position, for which action very few people in this country will stand.
What then is the solution in order to give our country a distinctive national flag of her own, and at the same time respect the opinion of the great number of Canadians who, for sentimental reasons or others, do not wish to
Canadian Flag
see the union jack discarded? Only one solution is possible that we can see, Mr. Speaker, the one solution to which England and Scotland resorted some three hundred years ago.
As we all recall, Canada's constitutional position today with respect to Great Britain is very similar to the position of Scotland with respect to England from 1603 to 1707. For over one hundred years the two kingdoms of Scotland and England were united under one king but had two separate parliaments.
For over one hundred years, from 1603, the year of the union of the two kingdoms under one king, until 1707, the year of the legislative union of the two countries, each of those nations, Scotland and England, had its own flag, Scotland St. Andrew's cross and England St. George's cross; but both nations used the same then union jack flown under specific conditions as the king's flag; that is, as the symbol of the union of the two nations under the same king. Today Canada is constitutionally the equal of Great Britain. Each country has a separate parliament but both countries are united under the same crown, under the same Queen. Our Queen, the Queen of the United Kingdom and of Canada as well, has an emblem of her own, the royal standard, as the Governor General also has an emblem of his own.
Why should not Canada through proper legislation introduced in this parliament formally adopt the union jack as the flag of the Queen of Canada to be flown alongside a national flag of our own, a Canadian flag which would be truly Canadian and fully representative of the Canadian parliament? One flag, the union jack, would continue to be the symbol of our devotion to the Queen and the official symbol as well of this country's partnership in the commonwealth of nations.
It is my deep feeling at this moment that Her Majesty the Queen, while on her six-month tour of the commonwealth and crown colonies of the empire, would be pleased and comforted if she heard of such action being taken by this Canadian parliament at a time when she, accompanied by her distinguished husband, is giving the very best of herself to strengthening the ties that bind the nations and the colonies of the empire together.
The other flag, the truly Canadian flag, free from any symbol which could be considered as discriminating against any group of different racial origin in Canada, would be a distinctive symbol of the sovereign authority of the Canadian parliament. To those who would say "Why two flags?" I would reply, "Why were there two flags in

Canadian Flag
England as well as in Scotland for a period of more than one hundred years?" Why two flags? Why two cultures in Canada? Why two languages? Why two national anthems, "God Save the Queen" and "O Canada"? Why is it that the Queen of the United Kingdom is at the same time the Queen of Canada? Why two flags? Simply because politics is the art of compromising.
We have unity today in Canada to an extent never enjoyed in the past. It is one of our first duties as members of the House of Commons to see to it that nothing does the slightest harm to this gift which Canada possesses today-the gift of an almost perfect unity among Canadians of different racial origins and various creeds.
Thanks are due to former Canadian statesmen, and sincere thanks also to our present statesmen, and above all to our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who perhaps has done more to weld Canadians of different racial origins together in the same unity of purpose than all other Canadian prime ministers before him.
For many reasons this unity among Canadians which we must preserve at all costs would be greatly endangered if we were by an act of this parliament to discard or abolish the official use of the union jack at this time in Canada. To many among us the union jack is the symbol of the freedom which has been won for the individual under its protection. For many Canadians of British origin the union jack has a sentimental value almost equal to a religion. To the free world, especially since the last war, the union jack means more to millions of people than any other flag in the world.
But it is not our flag. It is not a flag to which Canadians can look as being exclusively their own. However, I do not see any reason why we should not make it the flag of Canada's Queen, following the course adapted by Scotland and England some three hundred years ago. On the other hand, disunity would be in sight the day we incorporated in a national flag for Canada, especially one that was in a place of honour, the symbols of one privileged group of Canadians and left out the symbols of the others, especially when we consider that according to heraldry such an action would be interpreted by millions of Canadians and observers in foreign countries as a symbol of dependence by the Canadian parliament upon another nation's parliament.
Why two flags? All the nations of the world at times have used different flags for different tactical purposes, those flags being
IMr. Arsenault.]
described either as national, official or authorized flags or ensigns. In France, under Louis XIV, in 1661 there were 68 different designs of the French flag. Speaking before the joint flag committee on December 4, 1945, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) stated that Great Britain, at home, in her colonies and dependencies, uses over 100 different designs of national, official or authorized flags or ensigns.
The United States of America is today using at least six different flag designs. There are the stars and stripes, the president's flag, the United States union jack, the United States yacht ensign, the United States revenue flag and the Hawaiian flag.
I think it would come as a surprise if I stated that today in Canada, the only country in the world without a national flag, we are using twelve different kinds of official or authorized flags or ensigns. We have the flag of the Governor General, the design of which was approved in 1930 by His Majesty George V. This flag is symbolic of the position of the Governor General as the Queen's personal representative.
We have the union jack. We have the Canadian red ensign. Then there is the Canadian blue ensign with the coat of arms of Canada in the fly. Then there is the white ensign which, following agreements made in 1911 between the Canadian government and the United Kingdom, is hoisted on warships of Canada as a symbol of the authority of the crown.
We have the naval board flag which was approved in 1943 to be flown by the naval board of Canada on naval headquarters under certain conditions. Then there is the R.C.A.F. ensign which was approved by King George VI in 1940. That well-known flag is light blue with a union jack in the upper quarter next the flagstaff and a maple leaf in the fly inside two roundels.
We have the Royal Canadian Navy badge, which consists of a fouled anchor, ten maple leaves and a royal crown. We have the Canadian army badge which was approved in 1947 as a new badge for the Canadian army. It carries three red maple leaves and an imperial crown.
We have the R.C.A.F. badge, which was approved in 1943. It has within a dark blue circular band edged with gold the motto Per Ardua Ad Astra inscribed in gold and beneath are the words "Royal Canadian Air Force", the whole ensigned with the imperial crown.
Then there is the Nova Scotia flag, which is the blue cross of St. Andrew on a white

field with a royal lion mounted thereon. The province of Quebec flag adopted by order in council in Quebec in January, 1948, is generally known as the fleur-de-lis flag. It is a white cross on a sky-blue background, with the fleur-de-lis in an upright position in each of the four corners of the flag.
As everyone knows, we have in Canada today twelve different designs of official or authorized flags and ensigns, but we have not as yet a national flag formally approved by the Canadian parliament in the name of the people of Canada, and fully representative of the sovereignty vested in the people of Canada. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, since, according to heraldry, it is an absurdity for one sovereign country to give the place of honour in her national flag to the flag of another nation, and since it is in the best interests of national unity in Canada, let us keep the full-size union jack as the Queen of Canada's flag, and let us give to the Canadian nation a national flag of its own.
Great Britain and Canada are separate entities and each of these two countries requires a national flag which is distinctive. Great Britain already has a distinctive national flag. It therefore seems to me that the Canadian parliament should choose a national flag for Canada, a flag that neither begs, borrows nor encroaches on the flag of another nation.
One of the greatest needs in Canada is unity among all Canadians regardless of their different creeds and racial origin, and the symbol of such a national unity can be achieved only in a national flag for Canada which will be something truly Canadian and which will appeal to the entire nation. Like most countries, Canada has a symbol which is recognized the world over as an expression of Canadian nationality. That symbol is the maple leaf. On this one symbol the Canadian people, including the younger generation, are almost unanimous.
Let us give the maple leaf a place of honour in the proposed national flag for Canada, if it is to be a typical Canadian flag, and the maple leaf will then and forever be to the Canadian people of whatever racial extraction or creed the most significant symbol of unity in the world. We shall then look with respect and devotion to the union jack while singing "God Save the Queen"; and with love to our national flag of Canada while singing "O Canada".


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: 
Mr. Harris:: Two voted against it.


George Alexander Drew: Not when the committee of
1946 was set up.


Walter Edward Harris: In 1945.


George Alexander Drew: In 1945 two voted against it
but the committee that conducted the inquiry,

Canadian Flag
which was the committee that brought in designs and other recommendations, was not set up in 1945 but in 1946.


Bona Arsenault: In 1945 and again in 1946.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I prefer to make my own remarks. I shall refer to the resolution which was introduced in this house on March 26, 1946, by the then prime minister of Canada, Mr. King. At that time he moved that a committee be set up, and that was approved by the house. There had been an earlier motion the year before, on which occasion there had been two dissenting votes. However, that fact does not substantially affect any remark I propose to make. I would point out that the motion of March 26, 1946, presented by the then prime minister of Canada contained these words:
That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag; . . .
Mr. Speaker, the present resolution is in exactly the same words except for the addition of the words usually added when a motion is made by a private member, to the effect "that consideration should be given to the advisability of". On that occasion the committee conducted an extensive inquiry. In fact the number of designs submitted strained the accommodation of the railway committee room here in the parliament buildings. There were 2,695 designs. Those designs were all available for examination not only by the committee but by those who wished to have the opportunity to see them in the railway committee room at that time. Evidence was also given before the committee. In addition to that, letters, resolutions and other communications to the number of 42,168 were received by the committee and were given consideration.
I would remind the members of this house that the committee which was set up under precisely similar terms of reference, with the apparent agreement of the members of this house and at the instance of this government, under a resolution presented by the then prime minister of Canada as the head of the government, had before it all this information. So far as the first part of the present resolution is concerned, I repeat that there would appear to be no difference of opinion with regard to the desirability of having a clearly defined national flag for Canada which every Canadian knows to be the national flag of Canada. That was our position at that time; that is our position today; and it would appear to me that it is generally the attitude of the members of this house.

But then let us come to the second part of the resolution, which is that a committee be set up to inquire into this subject. Are they going to get any new ideas? Is it likely that there will be submitted a single design that was not before them when the committee appointed by this government conducted such an inquiry only a few years ago? Even if there were a hundred thousand letters this time, is it likely that there would be a single new idea that was not contained in the approximately 42,000 letters, resolutions and communications received at that time? Is it likely that the evidence presented could add one word to the evidence which was presented on that occasion? Mr. Speaker, if there have been new ideas, I have not been aware of any reluctance on the part of those who had such ideas to present them to this government or to anyone interested in the subject.
This present government in 1946 took the initiative of setting up a committee to inquire into this subject. It was not a private member's motion. It was the motion of the government. This is a subject of great national concern. That was the way to do it. It was done. On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to say that we are waiting for this government, which appointed that committee, to decide what it is going to do. There will be no disagreement about the fact that, under our system, with regard to a matter of national concern of this kind it is the responsibility of the government to state its position and to place before this house what it proposes with regard to this subject as a result of the information which it received by the procedure which was presented and adopted previously.
On numerous occasions we have been reminded that this government guards very jealously its responsibility, as the executive of parliament, to place before parliament those measures of national concern which, under our parliamentary system, a government must present and as to which they must ride or fall on the basis of the position they have taken. Most of the members in this house have, on various occasions, heard this government state that they were not prepared to disregard their responsibility and to delegate to anyone else the duty of the government to place their case before the house and to receive the support or otherwise of this house. On many occasions we have expressed our belief in the desirability of committees being set up to obtain information for the guidance and assistance of the government. We think that the government has gone very far in resisting our proposals on a number of occasions. For

instance, when we proposed that a committee be set up to examine the organization of government and a more efficient method of handling public business, we thought that the government might well have been prepared to accede to that request without saying that this might be some invasion of their responsibility under our parliamentary system. The government has chosen its way of obtaining information. It has that information, and it has had it now for several years. I find it extremely difficult to imagine any reason for believing that a new committee, set up under the terms of such a motion as this, would add any information whatever to the information which the government now possesses.
I wish to express my own belief, which I think is shared by everyone in this house, that we would like to be able to approach this problem in a way which will gain the support of all Canadians. The flag, in this or any other country, is a symbol of loyalty to our country, to our own society, to our own traditions and to the common purpose of our people. The idea of a flag or banner as a rallying point for the thoughts and aspirations of people is, in fact, older even than the idea of organized nationalities. It is as old as the dream of great causes and the dedication of individuals or groups of people to those causes.
The flag has a central place in the life of every country. It has a language of its own in every organized society. Silently it calls us all to the service of the state. We express national rejoicing by raising our flag to the masthead on holidays and on great occasions. We express national mourning by flying the flag at half-mast. In many instances we recognize the devotion of individuals by draping over their coffin the flag of the country which they served. We mark holidays by the flying of the flag. The poetry and literature of civilized man is filled with the record of heroic deeds which express the devotion of men and women to the things for which their flag stood in their hearts and minds.
We are dealing with a subject of great national importance. At the United Nations, where yesterday the hopes of men and women throughout the world were aroused by a great speech before that tribunal, the flags of the nations gathered there fly as a symbol of the unity of those nations in the common cause of free men and women. What is our flag? There seems to be some uncertainty. That is a question which the government alone must answer because the government is charged with the responsibility in this 83276-48J
Canadian Flag
matter, subject always to its appeal to parliament for support in such cases as may be brought before parliament for consideration.
I repeat, there is little reason to believe that a new committee, set up on the motion of a private member, would bring any information not now available to this government which had responsibility for setting up that earlier committee. I submit therefore, Mr. Speaker, that it will be to the advantage of the members of this house, and of the people of Canada, if the government will let us know what it proposes to do in regard to this very important matter.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: With the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) regarding the responsibility of the government in this matter, Mr. Speaker, I am of course in agreement. It is true that on a previous occasion the house established a committee at the instance of the government of the day, and that committee made recommendations. Those recommendations have not been carried out. Of course it may be suggested, and suggested I think with some weight, that this is a new parliament and theoretically we have a new government. Therefore, this resolution would be appropriately moved at this time. For that reason, when the vote is called, I propose to support the resolution.
The mover of the resolution gave us an outline of the meaning of the flag, the manner in which flags have been designed under heraldry in the past, the story behind the union jack and the desire that Canada should have its own distinctive flag. With what the Leader of the Opposition has said regarding the meaning of the flag, I am in complete agreement. I should like to say, however, that I believe we have no chauvinistic attitude towards our flag or our nationality in this country. One of the reasons Canada is so highly respected by other nations of the world is that the flag of Canada would not symbolize any domination of any other people, because we are not an imperial or a colonial power.
I should like to see Canada with its own distinctive flag. I am in agreement with the suggestion now because I believe we have made it many times. I have believed in the suggestion more than ever since 1944 when I had the great privilege, together with the former member for Melfort, Mr. Wright, and the present member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), of being the first members of the Canadian House of Commons to visit our troops in the battle line in Belgium and France in September, 1944. If I had not

Canadian Flag
believed before in the case made out for the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag, I certainly would have believed it then.
We flew into Brussels and drove through Belgium down along the coast line, by Calais to Dieppe and so on. All the way along we saw the flags flying-the flag of France, the flag of Belgium, the stars and stripes of the United States, the union jack-but the Canadian troops who were holding the whole of that coast line had no distinctive flag. As if they were anxious to show that they were Canadians they had painted maple leaves on pieces of cardboard, and nailed them to the telegraph poles and trees along the road. If up to that time I had not believed that Canada should have a distinctive flag, I would have believed it then. And ever since that time, whenever I have had the opportunity I have told that story, because I think it meets some of the arguments of those who think that we should not consider having a purely distinctive national flag.
The other point with which I am in agreement is this, that I think it would be wise now if the government of Canada, together with the governments of other commonwealth countries, were to discuss with the government of the United Kingdom the desirability of designating the union jack as the common emblem of the commonwealth. I am not suggesting that it be the flag of the Queen and of the commonwealth, because the monarchy has its own distinctive flag today in the royal standard. But I do think it would be proper to suggest that the union jack should be the flag of the commonwealth.
After all, as the mover of the resolution has said, the union jack has a symbolism not only to our country and the United Kingdom but to all the world. Under the union jack these institutions which today we use to govern ourselves were developed. This was done under that flag. And to me it has a still deeper meaning; it has a symbolism of the religions under which we have grown up and which have given us the ethical basis for our society. In the union jack we see the cross of St. George, the cross of St. Andrew, and the cross of St. Patrick representing the three great religions in the English and French-speaking world. We may think of St. George's cross as representing the Protestant established church in England, of the St. Andrew's cross as representing the established Presbyterian church of Scotland, and the cross of St. Patrick as representing the dominant church in Ireland and in several other parts of the commonwealth.
So I think the suggestion is a very sound one. Perhaps I might add this, that surely

there can be no objection to Canada having its own distinctive flag, when other parts of the commonwealth have their distinctive flags. We are the only self-governing commonwealth country without a distinctive flag at the present time. On many occasions in England and, I presume, in Scotland-and I know, in Wales; I do not know about Northern Ireland, because I have never been there on a national holiday-I do know that the appropriate national flag is flown. I know that on national holidays in England they fly the St. George's cross, the flag of England. In Scotland I believe they fly the flag of St. Andrew, and I know that in Wales on their St. David's day and on other national holidays they fly the Welsh emblem.
I believe that today the people of Canada would support an idea of the sort advanced this afternoon, namely the union jack flown as a symbol of our unity within this great commonwealth of nations, and a Canadian flag which would symbolize and identify our own country.
The Leader of the Opposition made reference to the flags flying outside the United Nations. There they are, the flags of all the nations flying on their respective flagstaffs. I have no doubt they are flying as I speak this afternoon. Each of those flags is distinctive; but the flag of Canada looks rather like the red ensign, and does not distinguish us as it should on such occasions and in such places. While I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that a long inquiry was made several years ago into the desirability of choosing a design, and a recommendation was made to the house that a certain design should be adopted, I also believe we should have had a recommendation from the government of the day in that regard.
No partisan recommendation should be made. When a recommendation is made to parliament the government should feel that it would be acceptable at least to the vast majority of members in all parts of this house. The matter of choosing a national emblem is too important to have connected with it any sort of political controversy either in the house or across the country. I wouid hope that we could choose a design which would be distinctly emblematic of our own country.
If my memory serves me correctly, the recommendation made by the committee was a very beautiful design showing a maple leaf in full autumn colours. I am told one of the reasons the design was not approved in some quarters was that it was very difficult to print or to make the design recommended. But the maple leaf in autumn colours is

emblematic of Canada. The autumn colours depict the glory of the autumn in this country; and indeed when one looks at the colours in the leaf he will see that they are emblematic of the rich natural resources of this country, and as such would be a most appropriate design, indeed.
And so then, not only on behalf of myself, but on behalf of the party for which I have the honour to speak in this house at the present time, I am supporting the resolution. For the last number of years our national conventions, held at regular two-year intervals, have approved the idea of a national flag; so that we know exactly where our supporters stand in this regard. I am very happy that this is so.
It is true that from time to time I have received communications from people and organizations across the country objecting to our choosing a new and distinctive national flag, but in replying to them I have always set out the reasons why we believe we should choose such a flag, and often I have recited to them the story I told this afternoon about the Canadian soldiers during the war who held the line from Dieppe right through to the Scheldt and who nailed to the telephone poles the pieces of cardboard on which they had painted maple leaves. I have pointed out that perhaps they did this because they had no flag to fly alongside the union jack, the stars and stripes, the Belgian tricolour and the French flag.
And so while I do not regard any flag flown in Canada as an emblem of any superiority, I support this resolution. Perhaps I should say that I am not in agreement with the hon. member who moved the resolution when he said that the flying of the union jack indicates on our part an inferiority complex. I do not think it should do that. We do not have to feel any inferiority complex to any country or to any flag; and a flag should not give us that feeling at any time. With other commonwealth countries we have achieved the status of a completely independent and self-governing nation. As such we should have the necessary emblems when we are in association with other nations, so that we may identify ourselves clearly. The same of course applies to a national song or national anthem. I do not want to prolong the debate, because I think it would be well if we could get it to a vote this afternoon.
In conclusion I wish to say I hope that if this committee is appointed and a recommendation is made, the government will accept that recommendation and bring it before the House of Commons for approval.
Canadian Flag


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, when I discovered that the resolution might be coming up today I tried to review my files on the matter of a distinctive Canadian flag, and I found that after seven years I had disposed of most of that file. I then resorted to the parliamentary library to get the reports of that previous committee, and on account of some of the books of the library being destroyed in the fire a year ago, only two copies were available, and they were out. I then asked for the Journals of the House of Commons for that year. I discovered there were only two copies of the Journals and they were out. Therefore what I say today, Mr. Speaker, will be largely dependent upon my memory of the matter.
I was a member of that flag committee in 1946. It will be recorded in Hansard, and in other places, that we did register our approval of a distinctive national flag. We stand with the mover of this resolution and with others who have spoken in our desire to have a distinctive national flag.
The committee that was set up some years ago was a joint committee of both the Senate and the House of Commons. There were 37 members on that committee. We sat for almost the entire session. I find in another publication-and I am taking it that the figures quoted in this other publication are correct-that there was an average of nearly 28 members out of 37 who attended all those meetings. Knowing something of the attendance at House of Commons committee meetings I regard that attendance as a fairly high average.
We went into this thing rather thoroughly. I find that 2,695 designs were submitted to that committee, and through a process of elimination we got the designs down to a possible two, either of which might be acceptable to the House of Commons. We did find, however, some little difficulty in getting the committee to be unanimous on either of those two designs. I might say in passing that of the two designs that were selected at that stage of the committee's meetings one was almost a duplication of the red ensign, with the exception that the union jack on the top lefthand corner toward the mast was there the same as on the Canadian ensign. But if my memory serves me correctly, we recommended that it be slightly smaller than the one on the red ensign and in place of the coat of arms we suggested a maple leaf surrounded by a rim of white that would cause it to stand out rather obviously. The other design was one with the top triangular half red and the lower triangular half white, and in the middle a large maple leaf.

Canadian Flag
Those two designs were the ones on which there seemed to be more unanimity than on any of the others. But it was difficult to get unanimity on either one or the other.
I wish to read now from this little publication that came to our desks this morning called the "Native Son". I do not know a great deal about the publication itself, but from their article it appears that they have studied the committee's reports and findings. Therefore I take it that if I read from this the record will be correct.
I read:
A motion for the adoption of the latter-
The latter one mentioned here is the one with the union jack on it. I continue:
A motion for the adoption of the latter as the flag of Canada was made but the vote was on an amendment supporting the former design-
-which is the one without the union jack.
Only twenty-three were recorded as voting, with eight in favour of the amendment and fifteen against.
If my memory serves me correctly, the committee did recommend the flag with the union jack and maple leaf on it, but the recommendation by the committee was not unanimous in the committee. When we struck the impasse trying to decide which of the two remaining flags was to be recommended, I made a suggestion in that committee. Perhaps the suggestion might have been scorned in some places. Nevertheless, I still think there was some merit in it, and if I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to read from the committee's report of July 10, 1946, what I had to say in making that suggestion. The report reads in this way:


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to keep the committee more than a moment because I cannot add very much to what I have already said. I am just wondering if there is any particular rush about this matter. It may appear to us that we have been a long time on it already, but it is not a matter of life or death for this country whether this is adopted at this session or not. I did suggest at the last meeting-not with any particular seriousness, but to get perhaps a little feel of the subject -that this matter could be presented to the people by way of a plebiscite. I am not going to press it; I am only going to make this observation. We could consider that in more or less a serious fashion, because I think that would be a way out, a way by which we could get the feeling of Canadians. I agree with the chairman that our responsibility in this committee is to parliament, that parliament itself decides. But we have reached this place where we have two designs before us. Part of the committee are in favour of one design and the other part of the committee are in favour of the other design. Nobody is talking about a third design now. Nobody is saying: "We do not want either of these." We all agree that either one or the other should be presented to parliament. I believe this could be done.
When I put out the feeler in respect to the plebiscite I saw only one editorial which spoke against that idea, and that was from the Ottawa Journal; and it indicated that I was somewhat of a

fool to present such a thing. I am not alarmed at that, because I know that occasionally I am one; but I am only one of many others. The point of the editorial was that plebiscites never settle anything and then referred to the plebiscite on conscription. I wish to say this in respect to that editorial, that the point was not well taken. The plebiscite on conscription did settle one thing. It settled what the people of Canada wanted. What was done afterwards by the administration in respect to what the people of Canada wanted is altogether another thing. This is a different matter. It is not a matter of administration at all. It is a matter of going to the people and saying, "which of these two flags do you want?" When the people speak, that is all there is to it.
I could read on, but I am not going to. I think someone raised the question of the cost of a plebiscite, and I suggested that since there was no particular rush it could very well be done at a general election. All that would have to be done would be to submit a second ballot containing two designs and ask the voters to choose which one they wanted. I still believe there is some merit in my suggestion.
I think the speech of the sponsor of this resolution was well thought out. Holding the convictions which I am sure he does, I think perhaps his suggestions were reasonable in the main. He suggested that the union jack remain the symbol of the crown and of our loyalty to Her Majesty the Queen, and that beside that flag we would fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
I cannot work up any particular enthusiasm about that, but I cannot work up any particular apposition to it. I think there is some merit in the suggestion. It would take a bill to carry out anything that was decided upon, and I would suggest that there be written into that bill the provision that the two flags should be flown on public and proclaimed holidays. I am sure that all lion, members of this house and all parties of this house are desirous of retaining in Canada the greatest possible unity among our people. If we have to have a flag and this a way out, then there may be some merit in the hon. member's suggestion.
Let me review this matter from another angle. First, let me say that if we are to have a distinctive national flag I think it is the responsibility of the government to come forward with that suggestion. I do not know that I am altogether in favour of a committee being set up on the basis of a private member's resolution.
Having said that, let me review another angle of the history of this whole matter, even before the committee of 1946 was set up. I do not know why it happened, but seemingly from the blue sky during the election in 1945 the papers came out stating

that the then prime minister had said that if he were elected he would recommend to parliament that there be a distinctive national flag. When I read that in the press it was a sort of bolt from the blue, because I did not think any move was being made anywhere in the country for a distinctive national flag.
Mr. King was on a national speaking tour and his train pulled in at some spot on the map which I have forgotten now. He did not get off the train to make a public address, but the school children had gathered around the train and were waving flags to greet him. That was when he made the statement. He said he was pleased to see their loyalty, he was glad to see them waving flags, and if his government were returned to office he would see that Canada had a national flag.
Whether that was a brain wave that Mr. King got when he saw the children waving the flags, I do not know, but that was the impression I had when I read the news item. Like many other political promises I relegated that news item to limbo, but the time came when Mr. King's government was returned and sure enough Mr. King proposed that a committee of this house be set up.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That there be a committee.


Ernest George Hansell: It was the government that set up the committee. I think it is the responsibility of the government now to come forward either with a committee or something in the way of a design. I feel that the government should take the lead in this matter instead of having it come from a private member.
Frankly I do not see the need of another committee. That committee held a number of meetings and did a lot of hard work. Every member of the committee was most conscientious in his attendance. The whole matter was thoroughly discussed. Have things changed in the last seven years? I do not think they have. We have the same people in Canada, with the same background and the same culture. History is the same, except that there are seven years more of it! Even the government is the same, although some of its personnel have changed. But it is still a Liberal government. Since everything is the same, why do we need another committee?
I am quite certain that the same designs will be submitted again. There were 2,695 designs submitted before; are we going to have a committee because there may be 2,696 designs? Is there one other design somewhere that will provide a solution to
Canadian Flag
this problem? I do not think so. I am sure it will be a repetition of what happened before, and it will be just as difficult to get unanimity in the committee now as it was then.
I do not think this matter should be instituted by a private member. Let the government accept responsibility for this.
We had a recommendation last time, though by a vote which was not unanimous. I thought when a committee had made a recommendation the government would take the initiative and bring down a bill on the basis of that recommendation. But a bill was never brought down, though I recall very distinctly the then hon. member for Moose Jaw, who represents Moose Jaw-Lake Centre today (Mr. Thatcher), rising in his seat and asking the prime minister of that day when he expected to bring down a bill on the basis of the committee's recommendation. The prime minister rose and, in his style and as ministers and prime ministers sometimes answer, informed the hon. member that the matter was under advisement.
The question was not asked any more that session, but when we met the following session the same member for Moose Jaw rose again and asked the prime minister if there had been any developments and when the house could expect the bill to be brought down. The prime minister-the same Mr. King rose again and said the matter was still under advisement, despite the fact that he had proposed the committee himself, that the committee had sat, and had made recommendations. What happened after that no one knows. At least no one on this side of the house knows. Perhaps Mr. King knows, but we cannot call him back and ask him what happened. But something did happen to deflect the government's attention, for they did not bring down a bill based upon the recommendations of the committee that Mr. King himself desired should be set up.
Can we hope there is going to be anything different this time, unless the government has changed its mind on the issue? If it has changed its mind I would like to know why, since all things remain the same from the beginning.
I believe I voice the views of the members of this group when I say this is not a party issue. I think the whole thing boils down to an individual issue, but again I think I express the wish or desire of the members of this group when I say we are agreed that Canada should have a distinctive national flag, but we believe the government of the day should take the lead.


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouaia):: Mr. Speaker, I have been most interested to

Canadian Flag
listen to the very able speeches that have been made by the gentlemen who have spoken on a distinctive national flag, and it is quite refreshing for a member who was a witness to very unpleasant discussions about that matter some years ago to realize the progress that has been made in what may be defined as true Canadian citizenship.
My hon. colleagues have realized the importance that Canada has in all the countries of the world, and we are all for a distinctive Canadian flag. Nobody has disagreed about it, and this is why I mention the fact with satisfaction and pride. It was not always the same. When the first proposal for a committee was made by the late prime minister, a committee to study the suggestion to have a Canadian flag, the Leader of the Opposition was not the hon. gentleman who spoke so well this afternoon. It was Mr. Bracken, and Mr. Bracken moved an amendment to the prime minister's motion saying in effect that it was unnecessary to have a committee to study the flag question but that the country should adopt finally the red ensign which had been chosen by order in council.
I appreciate what the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has said, but he should clarify his statement about the position of his party, and he must say that his party is not maintaining the same attitude now that Mr. Bracken expressed some years ago when he opposed the motion to form a committee to study the national flag question. I am not going to argue about it at any length. I know the present Leader of the Opposition is sincere about this, but I do not want him to confuse the issue and I want the position to be made clear, his own position and that of his party.
I do not want the flag question to be a political football, to be considered a political issue, and I mean with political partisanship. It is too great and too noble a question. It should be above all party considerations.
Of course the flag must be simple, and it must be easy to make. But what will it consist of? Well, we have an emblem that is recognized the world over, which is the favourite emblem of the army, the air force and even the navy; which is used by many corporations and big transport companies, as well as by private individuals as the distinctive emblem and symbol of our country. It is the maple leaf. The maple leaf is beautiful; it is significant to our country, and when anyone sees a maple leaf on a letter, on the lapel of someone, on the funnel of a ship, or on the cargoes that we are sending to underprivileged countries all over, they think of Canada, the great country we live in and are

so proud of. The maple leaf is well known, and people understand that it has the meaning of Canada attached to it.
Therefore in my humble view the easiest plan to choose would be a flag with a maple leaf on it. There are three colours of the maple leaf, namely green at first, then gold and then red. As to which colour is the most convenient or the most appropriate, it is not for me to decide. But the easiest way to choose a flag from among all the exhibits that have been sent to the committee would be to think of the maple leaf in the first place and, in the second place, to put it on a background of any colour that would be appropriate having regard to the colour which is chosen for the maple leaf. We would then have a truly national flag. There would be no confusion about it. Nobody could be prevented from hoisting the union jack with the Canadian national flag.
If I am in favour of a distinctive national flag it is because I am proud of my country and because I have had many representations from war veterans asking that we should adopt a national flag. In particular, on November 20 from Moncton, New Brunswick, I received this clipping:
The Transcript Letter Box
Moncton, N.B. July 23, 1953.
Editor,
The Transcript:
May I take a few lines to express my opinion. I am a Korean war veteran.
While in Korea I've seen soldiers from many countries of the world fighting together for a common cause. I've seen proud soldiers of France with their red, white and blue flag; soldiers of the United States with their stars and stripes; English soldiers with their union jack, Canadian soldiers with . . . nothing.
We are a great nation and I think it is time Canadians had their own flag.
"O Canada" would make a beautiful national anthem.
We are a nation within the commonwealth. We are a nation, not a "possession".
L. J. Williams,
Lance Corporal, Korean Vet.
Moncton
That is only one example of the numerous letters which have been sent to the press by war veterans who are extremely anxious that the parliament of Canada shall adopt a distinctive national flag.
As I said, I do not intend to play politics with the matter, but it should not be a political football kicked at the government. I am sure the government is ready to assume its responsibility at any time. When the Prime Minister spoke of unanimity about the flag, it did not mean unanimity amongst all individual Canadian citizens. Such a thing is an impossibility. But in a democratic country we must abide by the will of the majority.

In order to be fair and in order to consult each member of the house about a matter of such great importance, I think the question of choosing a distinctive Canadian flag should be discussed in the caucuses of the various parties and groups and that their whips should get in touch with the chief government whip to inform him that the majority of the members of all parties and groups in this house are in favour of the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag. That may be done next week, if there are caucuses of the various parties and groups, before we leave for our constituencies, or it could be done a little later on.
I hope it will be done before the Prime Minister leaves for his world tour, so that in all the countries to which he will go he may be greeted by the Canadian flag with the maple leaf on it. I am sure that will have a very good effect all over.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, let me say that I do not expect a distinctive national flag to be the gift of any political party but rather to be the gift of the parliament of Canada to the Canadian people.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworih (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure you and, through you, the members of this house that this speech, unlike my first one, will not spark a debate in this house which will continue for more than three weeks.
I have great pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault). My respectful submission is that there are cogent and compelling reasons why we should adopt a distinctive Canadian flag in the near future.
I believe that it is pertinent here to note the historical background for my contention. Prior to the Statute of Westminster there was no reason why we should have a distinctive Canadian flag; but when the Statute of Westminster was passed in 1932 this was the first big step toward Canada becoming an independent nation in the British commonwealth. Today we have achieved the status of full nationhood. So I say let us indicate that we have the warp and woof of an independent nation.
In law we have abolished appeals to the privy council and have made our Supreme Court of Canada the final court of appeal, yet we have no Canadian flag. We have a Canadian Governor General representing the Queen of Canada, but we have no Canadian flag. I have heard members of all parties proudly declare that they are Canadians. Still we have no Canadian flag. The children of the province of Quebec know a provincial
Canadian Flag
flag. The children of English-speaking Canada know the union jack and the red ensign. But the Canadian children do not know a Canadian flag because, sad to relate, we have none. So I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should have a distinctive Canadian flag having a symbol incontestably Canadian-for example a maple leaf or a beaver-with a suitable background.
Another point is this. A distinctive Canadian flag will help us to develop a truly Canadian culture, a truly Canadian national feeling or what I shall call, for lack of a better term, a Canadian way of life. We are slowly developing this Canadian way of life. We are a modest, unassuming, moderate, sensible people. We are not inclined to shout our virtues from the housetops. But I say we are developing a Canadian pride in our own quiet way. I feel that a Canadian flag will act as a catalyst in the crucible of a Canadian national development.
Let it not be said that by supporting a Canadian flag I am endeavouring to undermine the commonwealth connection or lessen commonwealth ties. The union jack, or some version of the red ensign, might well be retained as a commonwealth flag. Personally I should like the Secretary of State (Mr. Pickersgill) to take up this matter with other countries of the commonwealth at the first opportunity, or we might have what the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) has suggested. No one appreciates the meaning or the significance of the union jack more than I do. To me, the union jack stands for freedom, for the dignity of man, for the impartiality of justice, for tolerance and fair play. I realize that there is not a more exalted legacy in the annals of history than the legacy of British justice and fair play. To even intimate that Canada should ever break those bonds with this unique, this great organization called the commonwealth, is both incomprehensible and fanciful in the extreme.
We must remember, however, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is no longer predominantly an Anglo-Saxon country. Canadians of French descent make up more than 30 per cent of the population of this country. There are many more Canadians of European origin. I am happy to say that some of them are included in the membership of this house, and they belong to all parties. All these people are making an outstanding contribution toward the development of Canadian culture, industry and commerce. Naturally enough they do not feel the same sentimental and emotional attachment to Britain that we Canadians of Anglo-Saxon descent have.

Canadian Flag
They think of themselves primarily as Canadians. Perhaps some Canadians of Anglo-Saxon descent are inclined to be almost more British than Canadian.
I am convinced that the Canadians of French descent do not want the fleur-de-lis, as their attachment is to Canada and not to pre-revolutionary France. I think that we Canadians of Anglo-Saxon descent should also agree to a distinctive Canadian flag. Canada is, and I stress this again, a country built upon diversity, built largely by the joint efforts of two different cultures, one with French Roman Catholic background and one with English Protestant background. I am very proud to be a member of the latter culture. Both cultures have contributed equally to the development of a nation, in the soil of which the plant of tolerance, mutual respect and affection is growing vigorously.


Mr. E. T. Applewhaife (Skeena):: I believe every hon. member who has made an address on this subject, Mr. Speaker, has started by agreeing at least in part with the sponsor of the resolution, that it is desirable that Canada should have a national flag. I feel that way, too. I prefer the word "desirable" to the word "expedient". I should like us to have eventually a truly Canadian flag because it is desirable. In the short time I have been here, sir, I think I have had reason to realize how passionately attached to this idea the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) is.
I feel, therefore, we should compliment him upon the extreme restraint and deep understanding of other people's views which he showed throughout his masterly introduction of this resolution.
However, I do not agree with him when he says this matter is one which we should approach from our intelligence rather than from our feelings. In other words, I assume he means that we should decide this question solely by the mind rather than by the emotions. I regretfully feel that any national flag which might be adopted through intelligent reasoning would not serve the purpose for which I believe a national flag has some value. If a national flag has any value at all, surely that value is in being a symbol of national pride, of national loyalty, and of national unity. I do not think you could work up national pride, loyalty or unity by cold reasoning or by intelligence alone. In other words, I feel this whole question, whether we like it or not, has to be viewed very largely from the point of view of emotion. If the final decision does not have any emotional appeal, we are not going to be able to sell anything in the nature of a national flag to the Canadian people.
[Mr. Hollingworth.J
We have to admit that throughout the
length and breadth of this country there is not so much disagreement as lack of agreement. I do not believe that in Canada today there is too much strong antagonism to any particular idea in connection with the Canadian flag. I do believe there is a great lack of enthusiasm for any particular Canadian flag. As the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) said, in the committee of both houses which studied the matter for a session, and which I think we can assume was doing its best to come to a united decision on behalf of the people of Canada, the final vote was 15 to 8. There was not much unanimity in that committee, which had doubtless had the benefit of all kinds of representations made to it. Then to what extent are we going to get unanimity in the country, unless we try to work up that unanimity?
I am of the opinion that it would not matter what the Canadian flag consisted of; if this house unanimously adopted it today and said to the people of Canada tomorrow, "That is your flag, whether you like it or not", better than 20 per cent of the Canadian public would resent it. They might feel that it was the privilege of this government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), to tell them, "That is your income tax rate, whether you like it or not". They might feel it was the privilege of this government, through the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote), to say, "You get so many mail deliveries a day, whether you like it or not". But is it the privilege of this government or even of this house to say, "There is the flag to which you and your children are to be loyal for all time to come, whether you like it or not"?
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is. I know that I am not in a majority in this house, or even on this side of the house at the moment, when I say I am far from satisfied that we have reached a stage in public education, if you like to call it that, where we could offer the people of Canada a flag which would arouse that pride and loyalty which we want the flag to arouse. I am not, for a moment, claiming that should not be our objective. It is a most worthy objective and one toward which we should all work. But I am afraid you have to show me that we have reached that stage in our national development.
I have gained quite a little name for making myself unpopular in certain quarters by calling a spade a spade and by dragging some things out into the open, looking at them and forcing other people to look at

them. I come from a place which is quite a distance from this part of Canada, and I am afraid there is going to be not too happy an impression in various parts of the country as a result of this debate, no matter how the debate finally ends. I think there has been and there will continue to be worked up in pants of the country a certain line of thought which is most undesirable.
May I pause here to say that I am not referring to the members or to the policy of any political party. I consider this matter one which should be considered entirely outside of party politics and that, in so far as there are inherent prejudices in all kinds of Canadians, there are inherent prejudices in the members of all political parties.
But I know in my part of the country, as the result of this type of debate, the impression has gone abroad-and it has been worked up deliberately in some quarters-that the sponsoring of the move for a Canadian flag is an indication that our French-speaking compatriots in Canada are not truly loyal either to Canada or to commonwealth connections. I want to say that, because I think it is time someone from that part of the country-and I am going to be the one- said he did not believe a word of it.
I want the house to know, just as an indication of what might be described as parochial thinking-and I do not think it is confined entirely to my province-that eight or ten years ago, living away out there on the fringe, when my knowledge of French Canada could be put in a hat-and I do not know too much more even now-I did assume that that was so. Now, having had the privilege for the last five years of meeting and working with, and sometimes working politically against, my French-speaking compatriots, I know there is not a word of truth in that view. I know the answer I gave to an organization about a year ago-and it shall be nameless-was perfectly true. When a suggestion of that sort was made I said to those people that if they would read and study the history of Canada they would realize that had it not been for the wholehearted loyalty of French-speaking Canadians between 1812 and 1815 to those things for which the union jack stood and for which it now stands, there would not be any Canada today for which to design a flag.
I think perhaps this debate gives us an opportunity to think not only of the flag but of the things the flag should stand for, and the desirability of knowing more and understanding more about the thinking in other parts of the country, just as this afternoon the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault)
Canadian Flag
indicated so clearly that he understands the thinking in many parts of the country other than the part in which he lives.
Having said that, I wish to make a few rambling comments about the flag itself, because I do not agree with some of the statements made today while, on the other hand, I agree heartily with others.
I believe I am in a minority over here when I say I was sorry to hear the sponsor of the resolution say-and I think I am interpreting him correctly-that he was not anxious to have or did not want to see either the fleur-de-lis or the union jack in a new Canadian flag, that he did not want to see any racial emblems on that flag.
Well, in so far as racial emblems are concerned, fine and dandy. As I said, I do not know very much about French-speaking Canada. I do not know whether the fleur-de-lis is, as we in British Columbia think, a sort of symbol of the French ancestry of part of our population. We regard the fleur-de-lis and its position on the coat of arms as indicating that the first Canadians, other than the red Indians, were the people from France who came to settle here. That is history for which we, who never spoke French in our lives, have great reason to be proud. And I think from the point of view of historical association, apart entirely from racialism, it would be quite advisable that we should retain in our flag and in our national symbol something which would indicate that those of us who came here afterward, or our predecessors who came, were not the first Canadians.
I know we have valuable Canadians whose ancestry may be German or South American, or perhaps Hawaiian. But you cannot get away from the fact that this country was built by the people who came here under the fleur-de-lis or the union jack, and I do not think we want entirely to forget our history, or to lose sight of those facts.
Mind you, in some other connections we take darned good care that we do not lose sight of that. As my hon. friend said, and quite truly, we have people here of German, Portuguese, Dutch or other descent; but we have retained our historical associations in our two official languages. And if there is any other argument required to prove overwhelmingly that this country is either Englishspeaking or French-speaking, I do not know what it is. I am in favour-and I shall make a speech about it some day-of doing something I have in view to promote bilingualism in this country. If bilingualism is justified, as

Canadian Flag
it is, it must rest on the history of the country of which, so far as I know, the symbols are the fleur-de-lis and the union jack.
At the moment I am not going to design a new Canadian flag. The Leader of the Opposition gave us the number of people who had done so, and none of those designs has yet been accepted. But there has been some reference to design, and I am going to take issue with the mover of the resolution on one or two statements he made. It does not necessarily follow that I entirely disagree with him, but I think his logic is wrong. He implies that the red ensign is principally and originally a marine flag-and in this he is perfectly correct-and that therefore it is inappropriate that it should be the basis of a flag flown on land as well as at sea.
Well, if the red ensign is-as it is-primarily a marine flag, much more so is the blue ensign, which is the base of the national flags of two of the members of the British commonwealth, and which so far as I know have proven acceptable to them. Of course they did not have our advantage of having behind them two ancestral countries.
Another reason why I believe we should include something which bears some relationship to the fleur-de-lis is that there should be some indication in our flag that we never intend to forget the fact that Champlain and Frontenac and the other early explorers were here long before Thompson and Fraser discovered the rivers out in my part of the country.
I believe it was the hon. member who sponsored the resolution who said that the union jack was a symbol of the superiority of the parliament of Great Britain over the parliament of Canada. If it were so I certainly would have nothing to say in its defence. That it has been so is perfectly true, just as the fleur-de-lis, about which I am talking, was the symbol of a French regime which no longer exists.
Symbols and their meanings change. It is my understanding that in the very early days of the Christian church the symbol of Christianity was a fish and not the cross we use today. Not so many years ago I will admit that the union jack was, shall we say, the symbol of Great Britain as the head of the commonwealth. Today in the eyes of the world the union jack is now no longer a symbol of a parliament, a queen or a country; it is the accepted symbol of a commonwealth and as such, as the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) so fairly says, it should be retained in Canada; and I thank him for making that so clear.

Whether it should be retained as a separate flag or as part of the new Canadian flag I do not know. But one thing I would not like to see us do is to fall into the trap which one of the dominions fell into, when a resolution was bitterly debated and carried, I think with a majority of one or two, and a committee of experts was instructed to design a flag. They were instructed to include the union jack therein, and they did. The flag as it finally emerged has, if I remember correctly, a union jack occupying one fifty-second part of the area of the flag. When you cut a flag down to the size of a postcard for distribution to the schools you can see where the one fifty-second part will get you. I would suggest that whatever else we do we make certain that the flag we eventually do produce will be one that will retain its distinctiveness even though its dimensions are reduced pretty small.
The hon. member of course is asking for a committee, and at the same time he, as others, has quite firm ideas himself as to what the design should consist of. He quite definitely seems to favour the maple leaf. The only reason I mention this is to indicate that even before we set up a committee we all have some preconceived ideas as to what the flag should consist of, and most of us are likely to express them. And if we have those preconceived ideas it is going to be pretty difficult for us to swallow something else. That is why I should like to see the idea discussed in all the periodicals and publications in Canada that will do so until we find out whether we can discover a design upon which not less than 85 per cent of the people of Canada can look with favour.
I will say this, and I think most likely every member of parliament would say the same. Whatever this house adopted we would likely support, provided that it was a design of the house and not just of one party. I do not know whether the people of Canada as a whole are going to look at it in that way; and I think, as I said earlier, the people of Canada should have their preferences consulted. I know it was done some years ago, but 1946 is seven years ago, and thinking is changing all the time.
So far as the maple leaf is concerned, I feel a particular loyalty to it. It is most likely the most desirable emblem to include. When I went to school "The Maple Leaf Forever" was our national anthem, and of course I never could get over the fact that we changed it. However, if we are going to discuss colours I would suggest in passing that the gradations of autumn colours are

impossible in a cheap reproduction of a flag such as we would want to distribute on school holidays and so on. But I see nothing the matter with the springtime green, because after all this country is, and is going to be for a great many years, in the springtime of its life; and green, if I remember rightly, is supposed to be the colour of hope.
I want to take issue-not very vehemently, because I do not want us to get vehement on this subject-with the Leader of the Opposition, and I think in this he was supported by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well). He said it is the government's responsibility to take this matter through the house. I am paraphrasing him, and I hope his supporters will correct me if I am paraphrasing him wrongly. I understood him to say that the government, following the activities of the committees which have been appointed, should bring down a national flag for Canada.
It is not the responsibility of this or any other government. The matter of a national flag should be the people's choice. A lot has been said in this house in previous years and in this session about the fact that the charter of the United Nations does not start out by saying "We the governments." It starts: "We the peoples." While the United Nations Organization is handling a lot of matters which are material, still the origin of that organization was a little greater than material; it was to handle matters which have their spiritual, their moral implications as well. It was to handle matters in which it was hoped the people of the world might become emotionally enthusiastic, and that is what we want the people of Canada to do with a national flag.
I suggest that it makes very little difference for the purposes of my argument whether the government of the day is Conservative, Liberal, C.C.F., Social Credit or what have you. The very introduction of a bill by the government before such time as it had been unanimously accepted by all parties represented in the house would most likely throw the whole question of our national flag into the realm of party politics, which heavens knows is the last place we want to see it. I believe that for a discussion such as we are having today, and for the preliminary steps to the action which we hope will be taken some day not too far distant, a private member's resolution is the proper way to introduce a measure of this sort, at least until we have reached the stage where whoever happen to be occupying the government benches can get up and introduce a measure knowing they can call upon the
Canadian Flag
Leader of the Opposition to second that measure; and that is the way a national flag should be adopted.
With these more or less disconnected remarks I would leave the subject, with the exception of one other point. As I did so often during the election campaign, I now propose in this house to state a problem. I hope I may state it in such clear terms that it may sound like a solution, but it is a problem nevertheless for which we have to find a solution.
If you will assume that the remarks I have made are basically sound, that this is a matter more for the heart than for the head, more for the emotion than for the intelligence; if you are going to assume as I do that more harm than good can be done to Canada by forcing an unpopular flag down the throats of 15 or 20 per cent, then you will also agree that our duty, our toughest task-because it is one we cannot see our way through-is not either to set up a committee or to consider designs. It is to work up within the country a unanimity amongst the people. That is going to be very difficult. There are large sections of my province where they would almost be willing to proceed to bloodshed if you suggested dropping the union jack. There are sections in Canada undoubtedly where they would definitely consider it a stigma of inferiority if you included the union jack.
In the face of these two propositions-and these are only two of the difficulties-I do not think we have the right to try to decide on a flag at the present time. I think our duty is to try to reconcile those apparently irreconcilable differences of opinion. It can be done. Nothing is impossible. I do not know how it can be done, but perhaps the best way of all would be to take some members of parliament and other people of all political complexions from the province of Quebec to British Columbia so the people there could meet them, not just read speeches they had made. They would then have an opportunity to appreciate their way of thinking on matters of national importance.
Let us take some people from the industrial or imperialistic, if you like, Ontario and send them to the Atlantic coast, to Quebec or some other province. Let us send some people from British Columbia to Newfoundland. As long as we try to get a unanimous solution to a problem like this, which comes almost as close to the heart as religion, by using intelligence, by using a parliamentary committee or by some other method at long distance, we are going to finish up just where we started, or perhaps a little more distant than we were when we started.

Canadian Flag
(Translation):


Mr. Andre Gauthier (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words in support of the resolution moved by my colleague from Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault).
For some years now, there has been unanimity of opinion about the project of a distinctive flag, exclusively Canadian; that unanimity of opinion became more evident as our country acquired sovereignty and independence.
We have achieved national unity through the efforts of the Liberal party and of those who have been its leaders for the past 50 years. It is also under Liberal administrations, and more particularly through the efforts of our present leaders, that our country progressed through the various stages that led to complete sovereignty and independence. The logical consequence of our previous moves would therefore be to endow our country with a distinctive national flag.
The dignity of a truly sovereign nation should make it imperative for its citizens to press for a symbol of their common aspirations.
National unity, the Canadian people's aspirations, our past history, the sacrifices of our soldiers on the field of battle, the difficult conquest of our political liberties, national prestige, well-founded patriotism, all these are reasons which call for an immediate and definite solution to the question of a distinctively Canadian flag.
There has been much thought of national unity. To my mind there is nothing more important for the furtherance of that national unity than a flag which, in every circumstance, should serve as a rallying sign for all Canadians. Every citizen of this country is proud of belonging to this great Canadian nation of ours. The best way to give concrete form to this pride is to give them an exclusive Canadian symbol.
Certain timorous individuals, more imperialistic than Canadian, fear that by doing away with the union jack we will weaken the ties that bind us to the commonwealth. To them I would say that the strength of the whole is the sum total of the strength of the parts. In any event these people should now understand that sentimental links are a thing of the past so far as Canada is concerned and that if we remain in the commonwealth it is because we find it to be in our interest, to begin with, as well as in the common interest of the free peoples and of the cause of world peace.
I listened with satisfaction to the speech delivered by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). He has remained

faithful to the principles he set out on November 8, 1945:
I wish to see the intent of this resolution carried out. I wish to see Canada with a distinctive flag, and in my opinion the red ensign with a coat of arms on it, which I would rather say nothing about, is not a distinctive flag.
The same day the then minister of veterans affairs, Mr. Mackenzie, had this to say:
We in Canada have shared the union jack and we shall always honour it as the symbol of much that is best and most precious in our heritage; but we have had nothing that has been peculiarly and indisputably our own, that would symbolize Canada, -all of Canada and everyone in Canada. There should be something that all can see and look to with pride, as the symbol of this great nation of ours, to which affection and loyalty can attach, and which can become the sign of the unity and purpose that will make Canada great.
The present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has declared repeatedly that he is in favour of a really distinctive flag, but he believes, quite wisely, to my mind, that the adoption of such a measure must not give rise to such controversial discussion as may disrupt our national unity.
But how can we assess public opinion in Canada? This afternoon, I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) state that the government had everything necessary to make a decision, and this statement was based on information obtained in 1945. Well, since 1945, public opinion in Canada has changed considerably. Canada became a sovereign nation in 1947 and the Supreme Court of Canada has now become the last court of appeal for this country.
In other words, public opinion in Canada has shown an increasing interest in this matter for the last few years and therefore we cannot rely only on information dating from 1945 to make a decision now.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that we take first a recorded vote on this notice of motion and then, that we call a plebiscite. This appeal to the people should be held without delay and I am convinced, personally, that 80 per cent of all Canadians are in favour of a distinctive national flag.
I do not wish to emphasize this point any longer, because I want this motion to be adopted this afternoon. In conclusion, I would ask the government to take immediate and appropriate measures to sound out public opinion in Canada, in order that we may have, if not this year, at least next year, this emblem of our sovereignty, which would be the symbol of our national unity and patriotism: a typically and truly distinctive Canadian flag.

(Text):


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, as I served on this committee I feel I should say a word. I was grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for the tribute he paid to that committee. However, I do not agree with him when he says they knew it all-this is my own language-because I think another committee might know a little bit more. I certainly do not agree with the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) when he says that Canada is the same, that the people are the same, that there are the same parties in the house. He must remember when he was a small boy at school being taught that you cannot step into the same river twice. We are always changing. It is a universal law that not for two seconds are things the same. This country should be better, if we have been giving the proper kind of service, than it was at that time.
No matter what a former government did, I submit that an individual member has a right to introduce any resolution or bill he likes if he feels it is his duty to do so, or that it is in the best interests of Canada. I agree also that every hon. member has the right to vote as he likes.
I sat on that committee and I shall never forget it. I remember one hon. member who has now gone to his reward, the former member for Davenport, who had convictions a good deal like my own. The friendship that developed there was real. I thought the chairman of that committee was a young man of great promise, and he handled that committee, and those of us who were hard to handle, in such a way that we agreed with him before we were through.
I am thankful that we have a Prime Minister who champions the cause of unity in Canada. He made that one of his pleas during the election. He has stood for unity in the past and he will stand for unity in the future, and anything that tends toward disunity in Canada will get no support from him. For that reason, in introducing legislation I think we should be very careful to avoid anything that tends toward disunity.
I remember the final vote on a flag including the union jack and the maple leaf. It was not a unanimous vote, but it was so near to it that it might well have been, for I believe only one member voted against it. If I am wrong I stand corrected. If I served on that committee again I would support the same flag because it has sentiment, ties that are tender; because I was born in a part of the British empire that takes second place to no other in loyalty or ability to serve king or queen; and because I am not yet prepared to support any national flag for Canada but a flag with the maple leaf and union jack.
Canadian Flag
That flag was first drawn by a young man down east, I think in Halifax, who was an invalid; and he demonstrated great sense and wisdom. Whether that flag will be adopted as a national flag I do not know, but as yet that is the only flag for which I am prepared to vote.
I have mentioned the land of my birth, and let me add that Ireland is cursed with religious bigotry, both Protestant and Roman Catholic. Both sides are narrow and selfish, and only once in a while do they rise above their narrowness. I do not want our great Canada to become like that, and anything that tends to divide our nation will be opposed by me.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important discussion we have listened to today, and in dealing with this issue it is my opinion that we should make haste slowly. For many years in the history of our fair nation we have tried to evolve the maximum amount of harmony, unity and good will amongst Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific. We can all recall the efforts of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, R. L. Borden, Mackenzie King, and in more recent times the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), toward the establishment of a sense of unity which is completely opposite to bigotry and disunion.
In my younger days I belonged to an organization which had the issue of a distinctive national flag as one of the main planks in its platform. There were many other planks in that platform, and some of the members in that organization felt that all our aims should be realized immediately. Wiser counsel prevailed, however, and we became satisfied making haste slowly.
Along with many other hon. members of this house I fought in world war I and world war II. I fought under the flag of our forebears, and I was as glad to fight under that flag as were many others. But I do not think the feeling among many sections of our people has approached any degree of unanimity as yet with respect to the development of a distinctive Canadian flag. We cannot continue our progress toward unity by tearing to rags and tatters the degree of unity we have accomplished over the past 55 or 56 years.
It is only human for certain members of the house to decide, possibly within their own minds, that this matter of a distinctive Canadian flag is something that should be decided by the government. However, I do not agree with that and, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Applewhaite) pointed out so clearly in his address, the people of Canada are the people whom we serve in this house.

Canadian Flag
To the best of my knowledge and belief, certainly as far as the Pacific coast is concerned, there has been no terrific upsurge for the immediate adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag. There may be such an upsurge, but it remains for us to listen and learn if there are sections of the nation clamouring for such a change.
I cannot say I am too enthusiastic about the ensign that we now consider to be our national flag, but regardless of whether or not I am personally 100 per cent for it, the point of consequence is that if and when a change is made we do not, in making that change, destroy the many fine acts of unity that have been performed by prime ministers of various parties in the last 55 or 56 years.
I am moved, Mr. Speaker, by a debate that took place in this House of Commons last spring-and it is something I wish to refer to at this time

when the bill to bring about the establishment of the royal style and titles of Her Majesty the Queen was under discussion. All of us who sat in the chamber during that debate I think will agree that it was one of the most moving moments in the history of the twenty-first parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) delivered a magnificent oration on the subject, and the leader of the official opposition designated the then hon. member for Lake Centre, now the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Dief-enbaker) to make the official reply for the opposition.
On a matter of such great national importance I think it would be well for us on this occasion to refresh our memory of what was said then by the Prime Minister and the reply that was made on behalf of the official opposition in the house at that time. As will be recalled, the Prime Minister had just returned from a conference of the prime ministers of the commonwealth. During the course of his remarks he stated the object of the bill. I now quote from page 1566 of Hansard of February 3, 1953. The style and titles incorporated at that time in the bill were as follows:
Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
That style and title remains today-as I hope it shall for a long period of time-as the way in which we in Canada designate our most gracious and beloved sovereign.
I will not quote the full text of the remarks by the Prime Minister at that time, but in speaking of the previous gathering of the
(Mr. MacDougall.j
prime ministers of the commonwealth he had this to say, as reported at page 1566 of Hansard of February 3, 1953:
The question then arose whether it would be proper to have in the title we would use the traditional words, "by the grace of God", sovereign. We felt that our people did recognize that the affairs of this world were not determined exclusively by the volition of men and women; that they were determined by men and women as agents for a supreme authority; and that it was by the grace of that supreme authority that we were privileged to have such a person as our sovereign. Then perhaps the rather more delicate question arose about the retention of the words "defender of the faith".
In England there is an established church. In our countries there are no established churches but in our countries there are people who have faith in the direction of human affairs by an allwise Providence; and we felt that it was a good thing that the civil authorities would proclaim that their organization is such that it is a defence of the continued beliefs in a supreme power that orders the affairs of mere men, and that there could be no reasonable objection from anyone who believed in the Supreme Being in having the sovereign, the head of the civil authority, described as a believer in and a defender of the faith in a supreme ruler.
The Prime Minister went on at some length to make the position clear about the position that was taken by the prime ministers of the commonwealth on that occasion. I think it is well that we should take cognizance of some of the additional things that were said, and which were carried back to us from that conference by the Prime Minister. He also said this, as reported at page 1567 of Hansard to which I have referred:
We are all proud of being Canadian citizens because we can be so and can exercise all our rights as such without forgetting our racial origins, our ancestral traditions, and without there being any effort by any of our fellow citizens to make us over into any other kind of Canadian than we happen to be because of our racial origins and with our ancestral traditions.
As I said, the then hon. member for Lake Centre made an extremely stirring speech following the Prime Minister. In it he said, as reported at page 1568 of Hansard of the same date:
Mr. Chairman, it was a most moving address to which we have just listened. It is evidence of the strength of the parliamentary system that while we may be separated in smaller things, in respect to our system of government and to the unity that is provided by the crown, there is no division, there is no diversity of opinion, there is but a common devotion ... As we listened to the Prime Minister without regard to party considerations this parliament became cathedral in devotion to our history, to our heritage and to our common pursuit of freedom.
Mr. Speaker, I have read certain passages from the speeches made on that occasion by our Prime Minister and the then hon. member for Lake Centre, who acted on behalf of the

official opposition. It seems to me that in those words we have the core and crux of what we wish to hold dear within this land of ours. As the then hon. member for Lake Centre said, the house on that occasion became cathedral in devotion. In the name of all the things we hold dear, Mr. Speaker, let us not now take action that in any way is going to disturb, even to the most minute degree, the sentiments of the house on that occasion and, I am sure, the sentiments of the house as they prevail today.
It would seem to me that in our great land of Canada today we have a large number of people who do not come from the United Kingdom. We have a large number of people who come from various parts of Europe and who, by our standards of unity and freedom in Canada, are rapidly becoming loyal Canadians, ready to stand in defence of our beloved land. We also have those who have come here at terrific sacrifices of their own, and quite possibly extreme sacrifices by the members of their families whom they left behind. These people have come to Canada to enjoy a life of freedom in a land where prejudice, racial antagonism and religious antagonism play a minor part.
If we are to judge from past experience we could bring into this house not 2,600 designs for a national flag but possibly 26,000 designs. The likelihood that this would result in a majority opinion of the cosmopolitan groups of people who today are the real backbone of our nation in favour of one design is not very real. I admit that in this discussion we have heard the opinions of individuals; but I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that none of us is able to speak for any large number of people in the areas from which we come on this particular subject.
We have, as I have stated, many ideas as to what constitutes patriotism. Some feel that our patriotism in Canada should extend many miles beyond the borders of our own terrain. Others feel that it should be confined within the geographical limits of Canada. With this divergence of views in mind, let us not hurriedly do something that is going to turn out to be a retrograde step.
I could give you my opinion as to what a distinctive Canadian flag should be like. I cannot say, however, that any great number of people in this house would agree with my opinion. I would say without fear of contradiction that as members of this house we have sworn our allegiance to our gracious sovereign. History tells us that certain concessions have been granted by the sovereign to certain societies. I think it is fair to
Canadian Flag
assume from this that if concessions were granted by the sovereign to these societies similar concessions might be granted to a nation. I would hope we might keep that specifically in mind. If we allowed a decision on this matter to be made hurriedly, in all likelihood it would bring about a greater divergence of opinion than now exists and might affect the whole future of the Dominion of Canada.
After having listened to quite a number of speeches today on this issue I would hope that we might be able to take a second look at this issue. It is always well, when you are dealing with a subject which has a particular emotional appeal, not to let your emotions run away with you. That being true, it would seem to me prudent that we take not only a second look but perhaps a third look at this issue before a decision is made. We have had a long history of progress and development in this land. This progress and advancement evolved because most of the people of Canada were behind the steps that were taken to bring about that measure of progress which we enjoy today.
With that in mind, sir, I take pleasure in moving the adjournment of the debate.


Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we will begin
with the house in committee of the whole on Bill No. 6, respecting the department of northern affairs and national resources; we will then take up the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Resources and Development having to do with amendments to the acts respecting the Northwest Territories; then the resolution having to do with the financial agreement with the United Kingdom; then second reading of Bill No. 27, to amend the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act; then the second reading of Bill No. 28, to amend the National Parks Act; then the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of National Defence with respect to the Defence Services Pension Act.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 10, 1953