1961-01-23

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, during the past few weeks I have received representations from various parts of the country and from various groups to the effect that certain of the population census questions which have been used for some time do not produce the exact statistical information required in some respects for the analysis of the characteristics of the Canadian population for such purposes as social analysis and some general business requirements. For this reason I asked the dominion statistician and his staff to give me their opinion as to whether improvements are possible in the questions in order to produce more accurate results so that the needs of the users may be better served.
I have received from the dominion statistician this letter, which I shall read to the house, dated January 20:
Dear Mr. Hees:
You asked us a short time ago to let you have our considered opinion about the adequacy of the form of questions on the ethnic and cultural and religious background of the Canadian population and their birthplaces as obtained through Canadian censuses over the years. We have given this matter some study and we have some observations and suggestions to offer.
An example of the type of change which I believe would be most desirable is found in the existing questions on citizenship and origin.
The existing form of the origin question has, indeed, limitations, some of which are very difficult to overcome and others which we think can be remedied. The principal problem arises from the practice which originated with the 1951 census of accepting Canadian as an answer to the question on origin, whereas in fact the information which was being sought related to the ethnic groups and cultures of the old world. It would be desirable to bring the 1961 census data back into line with information obtained prior to 1951 and to avoid the confusion which inevitably arises out of mixing North American with European and other origins. This could be done by rephrasing the inquiry to make the intent of the question clearer to the respondent.
If it were felt advisable to take steps to overcome this difficulty to the extent possible in a general census, it would be necessary to rearrange the questions somewhat.
I believe that the question on citizenship should be asked in the following form:	"Country of
citizenship-Are you a Canadian? If not, of what country are you a national or citizen?"	.
To clarify the question of ethnic origin, it should now read, "To what ethnic or cultural group did you or your ancestor-on the male side -belong on coming to this continent?" Obviously there will be some change in the listing of possible answers to the question on cultural origin.
The rephrasing of these questions will result in considerable increase in the clarity of the information and help to avoid the confusion between citizenship and origin.
There are several other changes which could be made in the population form at the same time to facilitate the operation of the census. If the suggestion set out above appeals to you, I shall have a new census form prepared and submitted for your approval.
Yours faithfully,
Walter E. Duffett, Dominion Statistician.
Mr. Speaker, I am much impressed with what the dominion statistician has told me about the need for revision of the census population form so that it will produce the exact information required. I have therefore asked the dominion statistician to submit a new and revised form embodying the changes which he and his associates believe are necessary to produce the information for which the census is intended. These changes will, I am sure, meet the points raised by the various groups who have pointed out to me some deficiencies in the form as originally proposed.
(Translation) :


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with great interest to the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees). Of course, we would have to look carefully into this statement before we express an opinion.
For the moment I shall only say that it is obvious that the minister has completely reversed his position on the census.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Morisseiie:: That is what you think yourself.


Lionel Chevrier: It is also obvious that because of the unanimous views held not only in one province but elsewhere in this country, the minister has seen fit to revise his position, as the government has done.
(Text):
Here, sir, I would like to add that the distinction, as we on this side of the house have maintained all along, is with reference to questions 7, 8 and 10. One of these questions had to do with nationality and the other
1302	HOUSE OF
Suggested Census Changes with racial origin, and by the conduct of the government there was confusion with reference to the origin of a citizen. That confusion would lead to only one thing, that those who are interested in compiling data for the information of all Canadians on the complexity and diversity of the Canadian population could not have found it possible to obtain that information by means of the manner in which question 10 had been established.
Then again, there is the very important problem for which the census has been established. The census has been established for the purpose of obtaining information with reference to the diversity of the population, the age, the occupation, the racial origin, the religion, and so forth. That has been the practice since 1891, I am informed, and the position so far as we on this side of the house are concerned was this. We could not understand why it was that this practice which had been in existence since 1891 should be changed at this time. As I said earlier, we would like to study the statement made by the minister now to ascertain just what its effect will be on the representations that have been made, but on the whole there can be no doubt that the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who considered this matter not too serious in the house when questions were put to him earlier-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I remind the hon. member that this statement is a statement of intention, of fact, of action being taken on a subject which has been controversial in the house. We have debated the same point in the course of the budget debate.
I hope that the hon. member, in commenting on the proposed action, will refrain from this kind of controversial or argumentative approach to the announcement that would necessitate or evoke an answer at this time. I say this because this is not a debate on the matter; it is a statement of intention presented to the house, without argument, and it seems to me to be appropriate to comment on it without provocative or controversial language.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded that the Prime Minister has indicated that there would be an opportunity to discuss this on a later occasion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Ricard:: Now that everything is settled.


Lionel Chevrier: -and that opportunity may or may not have to be taken, having regard to the statement which has been made.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Where were you on Friday?


Lionel Chevrier: But there is one thing which I think should be brought to the attention of the house, and it is this. It is unfortunate that the minister and the government should have seen fit to rely now on the recommendations of the dominion statistician. If those recommendations had been followed in the first place-they were made quite clear-there would have been no difficulty at all about the matter.


Mr. Balcer:: St. Laurent.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You are criticising Mr. St. Laurent's decision.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but it seems to me he is debating the issue. If he proceeds in that vein it will be very difficult for me to prevent a debate arising at this time. This is not the appropriate time at which the matter may be debated in full, and I would ask the hon. member to leave his remarks at that point.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, my only purpose in making the statement I did was not only in answer to what was said by the minister, but in answer to interruptions which came from the other side of the house. I think I am entitled to reply to those interruptions.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard no interruptions and hope that they are not part of the record.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome the statement that has been made by the minister this afternoon. With the hon. member for Laurier, we will study it carefully. It is a fact that because of the original form in which this census questionnaire appeared, certain difficulties have arisen and there have been certain criticisms. We hope that the suggestion made by the minister will in fact solve those difficulties, and that the government's suggestion will be acceptable to all Canadians. We in this group think that the form used in the taking of the census should be such as not to cause conflict and criticism, but that it should be a form to which all Canadians would very readily give their approval.


George Harris Hees: Might I suggest, answering the hon. member for Laurier, that the intention of the government is not to confuse anyone but to clarify the mistake which Mr. St. Laurent and the Liberal government made in 1951.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the minister feels that something which has been said is in conflict with the truth, or gives a wrong impression of his announcement, he may, I think, properly explain what he thought was the misinterpretation, but if it is a question of answering along lines which I feel he should not pursue, I would ask him to leave it to a more appropriate occasion.


Mr. Winch:: Is there anyone here who objects to saying he is a Canadian in answer to a census question?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I am
pleased to be able to report to the house that negotiations between the Canadian wheat board and the representatives of the China Resources Company, Hong Kong, who are in Canada, are continuing. The Canadian wheat board anticipates that 12 cargoes of feed barley, representing approximately 120,000 tons, will be booked within the next few days for nearby shipment out of our west coast ports.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): By leave of the house I should like to make a statement at this time. On August 6 last I said that if and when we received an official notice of abandonment from the United States government in regard to the Pepper-rell air force base there would be the fullest consultation with the government of Newfoundland on this matter. Formal notice was received on August 11 to be effective a year later, that is in August of this year, 1961.
We have had a number of informal discussions with the government of Newfoundland on the reversionary rights respecting the ownership of the base and on the equitable distribution of the facilities between the government of Newfoundland and the government of Canada. We have come to the conclusion that the question of ownership should be the subject of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, and preparations are now being made for that reference.
The premier of Newfoundland has been informed of our decision in this regard, and I hope it will be possible to reach an agreement on the statement of facts to be presented to the court. In the meantime, informal arrangements have been worked out with
External Affairs
the government of Newfoundland and the United States authorities to ensure that the facilities of the base are adequately maintained and protected pending the determination of their disposition.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: On Friday next the Warsak hydroelectric project in Pakistan will be formally inaugurated, with the Minister of Veterans Affairs representing the government of Canada. This is the largest Colombo plan project in which Canada has participated. It is also the largest project of its kind in Pakistan. Warsak will produce 160,000 kilowatts of power and help irrigate 110,000 acres of virgin land. In the process of construction some 10,000 Pakistanis, mostly tribal people, have had training in modern trades and techniques.
In the course of his current visit to Pakistan the Minister of Veterans Affairs is also representing the Canadian government at the inauguration of two other projects in which Pakistan and Canada have co-operated under the Colombo plan. Yesterday the Shadiwal hydroelectric project in West Pakistan was inaugurated, and tomorrow there will be a similar ceremony at the Goalpara thermal power station in East Pakistan.
With the completion of these major projects we are now discussing with the Pakistan government other projects in which we might assist Pakistan to further its economic development. From the $50 million appropriated for Canadian aid under the Colombo plan in the fiscal year 1960-61, $15 million has been allocated for capital assistance to Pakistan. Discussions have been proceeding with the government of Pakistan on the projects to be financed out of this allocation, and I am now able to inform the house that Canada has agreed to provide the following goods and services to Pakistan in 1960-61: wheat to the value of $3,650,000; fertilizers to the value of $2 million; aluminum to the value of $1,140,000; wood pulp to the value of $1,300,000, and an aerial survey and forest inventory in the Chittagong area of East Pakistan at a cost of $500,000.
These grants total $8.6 million. We are continuing our discussions with the Pakistan government on projects which might be financed with the remainder of the $15 million. I will be making further announcements when we have reached agreement on other items in this year's Colombo plan program for Pakistan.
In the case of the wheat, fertilizers, aluminum and wood pulp, the government of Pakistan has agreed to set aside counterpart

External Affairs
funds in local currency equivalent to the value of the Canadian grant. The counterpart funds will be spent on economic development projects in Pakistan to be agreed upon between the two governments. The aluminum will be used to help maintain an adequate level of production and employment in Pakistan's metal working industries. The fertilizer is urgently needed for increased food production in Pakistan to meet the demands of the increasing population. The wood pulp will enable a new paper mill in East Pakistan to operate while adequate local supplies of pulp are being developed. These commodities will help provide imports essential for the maintenance of the Pakistan economy and the success of its development plans in the face of an acute shortage of foreign exchange.
The aerial survey and forest inventory will provide essential information on which Pakistan can base plans for a program of development of resources in a forested area of East Pakistan.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding assistance by Canada to an Asian member of the commonwealth during the last few days. The announcement the other day had regard to the completion of the atomic project at Bombay, and now this announcement with regard to Canada's assistance to Pakistan under the Colombo plan is further evidence of the interest which this country and all hon. members of this house take in the assistance that is provided under the Colombo plan.
The minister has mentioned a number of instances of gifts to Pakistan which Canada is continuing in one form or another. Among those mentioned today, of course, was that with regard to the Warsak dam, which is situated on the Khyber pass between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is a matter that I know has engaged the special interest of the Leader of the Opposition. The Secretary of State for External Affairs will recall that not only was this project begun when the Leader of the Opposition was secretary of state for external affairs, but that hon. gentleman had the distinct honour of pushing the button which began the entire operation. Other hon. members of this party have had something to do with the Warsak dam. I, too, had the great honour of visiting this project, as did the hon. member for Ottawa West.
I hope that some time the Prime Minister, who evinces great academic interest, will also have the opportunity of seeing that the very worthy projects which hon. gentlemen of the

present government are carrying on were well founded by the administration of which the present Leader of the Opposition was the secretary of state for external affairs.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this group have been longtime proponents of increased expenditures under the Colombo plan, we are naturally interested in and welcome the announcement made this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. However, Mr. Speaker, the fact that during recent weeks the Secretary of State for External Affairs has taken the opportunity about once a week to announce some further development or expenditure under the Colombo plan indicates that the government's ear is attuned to the popular will in this case. In our view expenditures on behalf of countries within the commonwealth are a method for building peace.
Finally, I simply say on behalf of this group that we urge the government to transfer some of its expenditures on obsolete and useless weapons to the Colombo plan and greatly increase its expenditures under that plan at this time. I am sure that in so doing they will receive the approval of the vast majority of the Canadian people.



REPRESENTATION ACT


Mr. W. F. Matthews (Nanaimo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-59, to amend the Representation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Walter Franklyn Matthews: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the electoral district of Nanaimo to Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the first time.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
January 20-The Prime Minister-the following
proposed motion:-
That the report of the Canada council for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, laid before the house on July 13, 1960, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to provide for a review thereof pursuant to section 23 of the Canada Council Act.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS AND REPORT OF AUDITOR GENERAL

[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Government notices of
motion:
January 20-The Minister of Finance-the following proposed motion:-
That the public accounts, volumes I and II and report of the Auditor General for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, and the financial statements of the Canada Council and the report of the Auditor General thereon for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1960, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of standing order 21 this government notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the house.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Dupuis:
For a copy of each of the reports made by the economists and engineers of the Department of Transport, in connection with the possible dredging of the Richelieu river between the St. Lawrence river and lake Champlain.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, on the two previous occasions when this motion was called I explained that the papers requested are departmental reports and therefore privileged under the established practice of the house. In the circumstances I would hope the hon. member would agree to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Dupuis:: Could I have the motion stand?


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has been put. With the consent of the house it may stand or be withdrawn.


Yvon Dupuis: I will withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The mover of the motion requests leave to withdraw the motion. Is it the pleasure of the house that the motion be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



POST OFFICE BUILDING, RESERVE MINES, N.S.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 29-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, resolutions, petitions, and other documents exchanged between the federal government and the municipal council of Reserve Mines, Nova Scotia, the government of the province of Nova Scotia, and any other persons or organizations since January 1, 1960, regarding the erection of a post office building on the Sydney road at Reserve Mines, .Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minisier of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, we accept this motion subject to the usual reservation.
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 30-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Prime Minister, the Postmaster General and the Minister of Public Works since January 1, 1960, regarding the erection of a post office building on Sydney road at Reserve Mines, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia.
David James Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the hon. member for Assiniboia withdraw this motion in view of the fact that these documents are privileged.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, the minister is completely accurate in making this suggestion. I was rather surprised that the motion got to this position and, for the reasons the minister has given, I shall be very happy to withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: As the motion has not been placed before the house and the hon. member who is the mover consents to its withdrawal, it is withdrawn.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PENSION VESTING FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 33-Mr. Herridge:
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence or other documents exchanged between the Minister of Finance and the Minister of National Revenue or any officials of their departments and any officers of any trade union with respect to pension vesting for income tax purposes, since January 1, 1958.
Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Slate):: Mr. Speaker we accept the motion in so far as it has to do with documents exchanged between the federal government and organizations and persons outside the government.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I accept that condition.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who moves the motion accepts the reservation expressed by the minister. Subject to this reservation, is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Notices of motions:
November 17-Mr. Regnier-the following proposed resolution:-
[Stage Direction]
Flags of Canada
That, in the opinion oi this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag.
That the questions submitted in said referendum be as follows:-Are you in favour of a flag consisting of (a) a green maple leaf on a red and white field, or (b) the red ensign?
Mr. Speaker:: Before placing the motion of the hon. member for St. Boniface before the house may I note a technical difficulty which results from the fact that there are two public bills standing on the order paper both dealing with the question of a distinctive national flag, which is also the subject matter of this motion.
The problem of conflict between two items on the order paper dealing with the same matter has arisen before in the house. Hon. members will recall that there were two bills dealing with the printing of negotiable securities in French, and that debate on one of them was refused pending the disposition of the other on the grounds that the house will not enter into a discussion of identical subjects under two categories.
As this motion is now, I take it, about to be offered to the house, there is before us not quite the same problem of the same subject matter in two bills on the order paper, but rather the same or a similar subject matter in a motion and in two bills. That raises the question of whether discussion of this motion now would not be in anticipation of the order for resumption of the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill No. C-8, an act to authorize a Canadian flag, which was moved by the hon. member for Lincoln and discussed some days ago, as well as in anticipation of second reading of Bill No. C-17, an act respecting flags of Canada, which stands in the name of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska. The relevant citation from Beauchesne is citation 131, in his fourth edition, which reads as follows:
The anticipation rule, which forbids discussion of a matter standing on the paper being forestalled, is dependent on the same principle as that which forbids the same question being twice raised in the same session. In applying the anticipation rule, preference is given to the discussions which lead to the most effective result, and this has established a descending scale of values for discussions -bills, motions, amendments, etc. Thus a bill must not be anticipated by discussion of a motion, amendment, or subject raised on another motion.
Then citation 148, section 1, is to similar effect.
It is a wholesome restraint upon members that they cannot revive a debate already concluded; and it would be little use in preventing the same question from being offered twice in the same session if, without being offered, its merits might be discussed again and again.

Citation 200, section 3, reads:
A motion dealing with the same subject matter as a bill standing on the order paper for second reading cannot be considered.
I think that sufficiently indicates the principle involved. A question remains whether the subject matter of this motion is the same as that of the two bills, or either of them, and I should be glad to hear the hon. member on that point. In discussing this, I think it is relevant to consider whether, if this motion proceeds, the debate can be restricted in any way to distinguish it from the debate on the other bills, both of which are for a method of selecting a flag.


Mr. Laurisr Regnier (SI. Boniface):: The
resolution relating to the flag is No. 2 on the order paper as the result of a draw made prior to the opening of the session. The bill presented by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) was No. 8 on the list. This is the first point I want to make. If this line of reasoning were followed there would be danger that a resolution might be defeated, although it had priority on the order paper, by the placing of a number of bills on the order paper.
My second point, Mr. Speaker, is that the principle of this motion is not the same as the principle of the bill. My motion requests a referendum to choose a flag. Not only is this resolution in a place of priority on the order paper, but I believe this is the first time this subject has been introduced in the house for discussion. I do not believe the subject of a referendum to choose a flag has been debated before. I would say there is as much difference between the resolution and the bill introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln as between night and day.


Lionel Chevrier: I have listened to the citations which you have just given to the house, Mr. Speaker, and it would seem to me that the point made by the hon. member for St. Boniface is one which should commend itself to Your Honour.
The reason for that is that it seems to me that the principle involved in the motion now before the house is entirely different from the principle contained in the bills. Bill No. C-7, respecting flags of Canada, which was submitted to the house by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has not been brought to our attention thus far. As the hon. member has said the other bill, No. C-8, moved by the hon. member for Lincoln, is one that deals with one matter; but this motion deals with a referendum and the principle, on the face of it, strikes me as one which is entirely different. We have from time to time in the house matters that are

amended because of a different principle, and Your Honour has had to deal with that.
It strikes me, on the face of it, that it would not be in order-I say this with respect to Your Honour-to give priority to either of these bills in view of the fact that the matter of referring this subject to the country is one which is not contained in the other bills.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the hon. members for the distinctions they have drawn. There is, of course, a very distinct principle in this motion; that is, that there be a referendum to the Canadian people to decide as between two flags. I assume that referendum is for some purpose, and that purpose is to provide a method of establishing a Canadian flag. I am quite prepared to accept that distinction, if the house is agreeable, and to allow the debate to proceed, although I must say I have little hope of maintaining any distinction between the debate which will arise on this motion and the debate which we have already had or will have on the other bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My group believe this resolution is much more acceptable than asking the lord lyon king of arms of Scotland to design a flag for us.


Mr. Speaker:: If the house will then permit me to accept this motion, with the very definite reservation that it will not be too weighty a precedent, I shall be glad to call upon the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag.
That the questions submitted in said referendum be as follows:-Are you in favour of a flag consisting of (a) a green maple leaf on a red and white field, or, (b) the red ensign?
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride and humility to speak in favour of the resolution appearing in my name on the order paper with regard to a referendum on a Canadian flag. Lacking the eloquence to deal with a matter so dear to the hearts of all Canadians, I shall be brief.
If I rise today to discuss the matter of a referendum with regard to a national flag, it is because the people want it. Canada needs a flag. It is a necessity. The pride of the whole nation is at stake. It is not only a matter of self-esteem, but of national pride. It is essential for strengthening the unity and harmony of the two great races which, along with all the other ethnical groups 90205-6-83
Flags of Canada
living together in Canada make up the Canadian people. A country must be proud of the flag which represents the nation. A flag would be the symbol of our independence and brotherhood.
Personally, I believe that the love and faithful devotion we feel for our country can only be strengthened by such a symbol.
Comparing nations with individuals, the lack of a flag makes us like a man who has grown up without a name and, who wants to gain not only the respect of his fellow men, but hopes to become a leader or chief. He cannot succeed for want of a name.
Canada has been making tremendous efforts in favour of peace and disarmament. That is an excellent reason why as an independent country with a growing influence in world affairs, Canada should have its own flag. Because it has no flag, other nations can say that Canada cannot speak with a single voice. We lack the unity we are urging other nations to achieve as a prerequisite to peace and disarmament. As a result, our efforts to get the support of other nations in favour of peace and disarmament can only be weakened. If we are unable to pick our own flag, it means we are controlled by another country, and therefore incapable of independent action.
Mr. Speaker, a number of my Frenchspeaking fellow Canadians are afraid that the resolution I am proposing involves some risk. They fear that the Canadian red ensign may be chosen. By way of reassurance, I shall tell them that, if my grandfather had borne the same name as my grandmother, I would be called Macintosh, and as a true Scotsman, I only go in for a pretty sure bet.
I am certain that the province of Quebec has no monopoly on patriotism, and also I am sure that if a referendum did take place Canadians would choose a flag with a maple leaf design and without any symbol from some other country. In fact, when the special joint committee on a distinctive Canadian flag met for nine months in 1945 and 1946, an hon. member, Mr. McNicoll, spent 25 hours studying the 2,409 designs which had been submitted at the time. And this is what Mr. McNicoll found. Of the 2,409 designs submitted 1,611 showed a maple leaf, which means two in three, or 61 per cent; 383 had a union jack, that is one in six, or 16 per cent; 231 had stars; 184, fleurs-de-lis; 116 a beaver; 49 a crown; 22 a cross, and 14 the great bear.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that was a real referendum taken among all Canadians who were interested in the choice of a flag. Sixty seven

Flags of Canada
per cent wanted the maple leaf and 16 per cent the union jack.
The institute of public opinion reports in the Star Weekly of March 21, 1957, after having taken a poll involving 1,110 adults of all ages and professions, that is four times as many as in the ordinary Gallup polls, that in Canada, three people in four are favouring a distinctive flag, which would differ from that of any other country.
At the junior chamber of commerce the answers of 2,400 of its members to a set of questions gave the following results: Englishspeaking members: 79 per cent in favour of a Canadian flag with no emblem of any other country.
Of 3,800 English-speaking Canadians asked to take part in this vote, 70 per cent were in favour of a distinctive flag. According to press reports during the recent Liberal rally, a referendum by the Calgary young Liberals indicated that 7 per cent voted, at the Calgary Stampede, in favour of a flag showing a maple leaf and nothing else.
Moreover, it may be concluded from the fact that in 1946 the joint committee recommended the adoption of a flag with a maple leaf in autumn colours and the union jack in the canton and that this proposal remained buried in some office drawers for 15 years, this decision was certainly not based on evidence received by the committee. If we take as basis the analysis made by Mr. McNicoll, M.P., we are satisfied that the members of the joint committee in 1945 and 1946 did not take any decision with regard to the evidence submitted, because as can be recalled and as I have read in the official record for 1945 Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent, who was then minister of justice, had, during the three days of debate on this matter, expressed the view that the union jack should be included on any flag that might be chosen.
When the leader of a party in power or the minister of justice gives his opinion to the committee, can the committee be expected to take a decision contrary to the opinion stated in advance by the government? That is why this flag has remainded and still is out of sight.
This is why I am asking for a referendum the possibility of which has already been considered. Indeed, I feel that a referendum is not necessary, because every day, the Canadian people express their opinion on the matter and this is enough for the present government to act upon.
Maybe the government declines the honour of selecting a flag for Canada. All the same, that honour should not be denied to the Canadian people.
[Mr. Regnier.j
If a referendum takes place, I suggest that it should be held at the same time as the next election, so as to avoid additional expenses.
Mr. Heward, an Ottawa lawyer, had this to say about the 1946 flag committee:
(Text):
This recommendation was made by the committee:
(Translation):
Pardon, Mr. Heward then refers to the committee's recommendation. I quote:
(Text):
Your committee recommends that the national flag of Canada should be the Canadian red ensign with a maple leaf in autumn golden colours in a bordered background of white, replacing the coat of arms in the fly; the whole design to be so proportioned that the size and position of the maple leaf in relation to the union jack in the canton will identify it as a symbol distinctive of Canada as a nation.
(Translation):
Such was the recommendation, Mr. Speaker. This is actually the flag that I should like to see included in the referendum.
(Text):
This recommendation was arrived at by the committee on the 11th July, 1946. A bill was not introduced by the government at the session then sitting to implement the report and was not introduced at the next session. The government no doubt recognized very well that because of the very great opposition to such a flag, as recommended by the committee, they would lose the support of Quebec certainly and also lose some support in other places. The government might, quite possibly, be defeated on such a bill.
(Translation):
And further on, he stated:
(Text):
The introduction of a bill to adopt a flag has apparently been indefinitely postponed. This, it is believed, is a very proper policy for it is much better to wait even for some years to adopt a flag than to decide on a design now which is opposed by so many Canadians. Canadians are not yet sufficiently Canada-conscious to appreciate the necessity for a flag of purely Canadian design; the patriotism of very many of them is still given to the United Kingdom and only what is left is given to Canada. They do not consider, as do their French compatriots, that Canada is their homeland, their fatherland. This unfortunate condition is being rapidly changed; the effects on the soldiers who have been overseas have been very great. They have come back Canadians. And until Canadians have acquired a Canadian national consciousness it would only divide the country into distinct opposing groups to adopt a flag that has the union jack in the upper staff quarter. How long this delay should be depends on the development of that national consciousness-three, five or perhaps more years might be needed, but it would be time well spent in doing nothing towards adopting a flag but spent in education in Canadian citizenship and appreciation of the fact that Canada is now, and has been for some years, a sovereign independent state entitled to a purely Canadian flag.

(Translation):
In my opinion, we have waited all those years mentioned by Mr. Heward in his book on the Canadian flag. I am convinced that today Canada is ready to be given a flag by its government or to select one if the opportunity arises.
(Text):
Mr. Speaker, I know that many still believe and are sincere in their opinions that the union jack should be chosen in any Canadian flag. I have been indebted to Mr. Cumberland, who was the supreme president of the native sons of England, for his book "The History of the Union Jack".
I have great respect for the union jack and great admiration for what it represents. I do not believe that Canadians, by adopting a flag which is absolutely different than the union jack, would have less love or respect for the union jack or what it represents. To use a famous phrase of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when speaking on another subject, "It is not that we love Great Britain less, but it is because we love Canada more".
The union jack dates from the time of the third crusades, when Richard Coeur de Lion, instead of going overland like most other nations, equipped a fleet and had a naval battle against the Saracens near the city of Beirut. Close to that city there was a grotto dedicated to St. George. As the result of a visit there Richard Coeur de Lion decided to choose the cross of St. George for the flag of England. It has been argued by many people that Richard Coeur de Lion was a French Norman king, and that really we should have nothing against the union jack because, after all, there were some French connections. But the racial connections should really have nothing to do with the flag that is the flag of this country.
In reading this book I find that it was James VI of Scotland who in 1603 became king of England. He was, I believe, the second cousin of Elizabeth and the great-grandson of Henry VIII. In 1606, in order to avoid quarrels between Scots sailors and English sailors he decided to have a flag that contained the cross of St. George and the cross of St. Andrew. But this flag was what they called an additional flag, and each country kept its own national flag. It was only on merchant ships that this new flag, called the union flag, would be at the main-top mast and the national flag was fore-top.
However, in 1707, in the reign of Queen Anne, the parliament of Scotland was abolished, with the result-and only then-that the union flag of what they called the two Britains, north Britain and south Britain,
90205-6-83!
Flags of Canada
was adopted as the flag used all over Scotland and England. But it was not until 1801, when the parliament of Ireland was abolished, that the real union jack was formed by also including in the union jack the cross of St. Patrick.
So we have a formula. That is, if it is necessary to have the union jack as a flag we must have unity of parliament. As long as Scotland had her own parliament, the Scots people had their own flag and the English had their own flag. Only when the Scots parliament was abolished was the union jack used in Scotland and in England. But the king of England was the king of Ireland long before he was king of Scotland, and the Irish used their flag as long as they had their own parliament. It was only in 1801, when the parliament of Ireland was abolished, that they adopted the union jack. So, while they had the same king, they had different flags.
To be logical, those who want the union jack as their flag should be in favour of abolishing our parliament here and having it in London. Then we would be part of the same kingdom; then we could accept it. But as long as we have different parliaments we cannot have the union jack as our flag unless we first admit that we are not independent, that we are a colony. If we are prepared to do that, yes.
As far as the red ensign is concerned, the way the red ensign is now composed, every time I see it I feel a deep humiliation because the place of honour of the flag does not belong to Canada. It belongs to another country. I prefer the old union jack which we use in Manitoba to the flag which shows Canada to be subservient to another land. This is no reflection on Great Britain. It is no reflection on the other country whose emblem is in that flag, because it is not there because the other country wants it; it is there because Canadians have not had the courage to do anything about it up to now.
I am asking for a referendum because this question has been discussed for the last 35 years without action being taken. Motions and private bills have been brought down by members of all political parties. Perusing Hansard I find that as far back as 1925 an order in council is set out fully in Hansard providing in part as follows:
The minister therefore recommends that a committee be appointed to consider and report on the most suitable design that should be adopted for a national flag.
In 1934 and again in 1935 motions were introduced by Mr. Dickie, the then Conservative member for Nanaimo, respecting a Canadian flag. In 1938 the Liberal member for North Battleford, Mr. McIntosh, put forward

Flags of Canada
in this house a proposal for the adoption of a Canadian flag. This resolution was debated on February 14, 1938 and during the discussion both the then prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, and the leader of the opposition of that day, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, declared themselves in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. I should like to quote excerpts from the speeches of these two statesmen. On February 14, 1938, as reported at page 438 of Hansard, Mr. King said:
I would conclude this part of what I have to say with the observation that the continued use of the union jack gives a false impression abroad, and particularly in the country immediately adjoining.
Further on, as reported on page 440 of Hansard, Mr. King went on to say:
Let me conclude with these words. There has never been a time, I believe, when the relations between Canada and the mother country were so cordial so completely friendly, helpful and co-operative in every way as they are at the present time. The present is the time, then, to consider this question. It will not be disposed of, in my opinion, until it is settled in Canada as it has been in the other dominions. If we do not settle it now, some issue may arise in the course of a few years which will provoke another discussion .and lead to the settlement of the question in a manner that may be misunderstood elsewhere. Today there is no possible danger of misunderstanding on the part of anyone in this country, in Britain, in Europe or elsewhere in the world, as to what Canada has in mind in seeking to have a distinctive national flag.
Now I should like to quote the words of Mr. Bennett as reported at page 442:
Upon the large question, I expressed an opinion in the house some years ago that I believed it was desirable, as I do tonight, that the country should have some flag by which it could distinguish itself from other parts of the world.
I might also refer hon. members to page 415 of Hansard of 1938 where there are quotations given in support of a distinctive flag from the Winnipeg Free Press, the Hamilton Herald, the Winchester Press, the Stratford Beacon-Herald, the Collingwood Bulletin, the Recorder and Times, Brockville, the Kingston Whig-Standard and many others. The Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association, Saskatchewan division, passed a resolution calling unanimously for the selection of a suitable flag to be known as the flag of Canada.
As I said earlier, the greatest work in this direction was done by the joint committee of 1945 and 1946. In 1956 at Windsor, Ontario the Ontario command of the Canadian Legion adopted a resolution demanding a referendum in respect of the two flags which were submitted by the minority and majority reports of the committee of 1945. This was, in a sense, erroneous, because the committee only reported one flag, but two flags were

voted upon during the sittings of that committee, I believe on the last day of its deliberations. One of them was the flag coloured red and white and containing a maple leaf. The other was a flag which had not, in fact, been submitted at all. It was a flag which had been manufactured by members of the committee, though it is claimed some ten models had been produced to which the latter flag was similar.
The line of division in that committee was between those who were in favour of a maple leaf without the union jack and those who were in favour of a maple leaf with the union jack. As I mentioned earlier, if the committee had decided on the evidence before it, the position would have been clearer. The division was 67 per cent in favour of the flag with the maple leaf without the union jack, and 16 per cent for the flag containing both the maple leaf and the union jack.
In my first speech in the House of Commons I dealt with the subject of a distinctive flag for Canada, and I give credit for that, in part, to the first two people who wrote to me after my election in 1958. These letters were both dated April 2, and they asked me to work for a Canadian flag. I have also received cards from people in my own constituency, some containing pictures of a suggested Canadian flag, asking me to do the same thing. One of the letters I received came from an old man, who claims he was 90 years of age last October. As a matter of fact I received three letters. The first two letters were written by the man's daughter explaining that her father was too old to write. I answered those letters, and the third letter arrived in the handwriting of this old Canadian. I should like to name him; Mr. W. Gascon, of the city of Ottawa. He had kept clippings on the subject and had himself written to newspapers in an endeavour to have a flag adopted.
I should like at this point to commend the past president of the Canadian Legion, Montgomery command, who has a file about six inches thick on this subject. He is the one who brought me the draft of the resolution which was passed by the Ontario command and also the draft passed by the dominion command at the convention of 1958 held in Edmonton, asking for a referendum on the two flags which had been voted upon in the committee of 1945.
In the committee of 1945-46 a number of questions were raised. I wish to quote from the proceedings dated May 29, 1946 of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place:


The Chairman:: I will ask Senator Lambert to present the report of the steering committee.


Hon.   Mr. Lambert@: The subcommittee beg to submit a resolution in the following form bearing upon the further procedure to be adopted in connection with the two flags voted on yesterday, namely:
That a subcommittee be appointed to which the two remaining flags be referred and that the subcommittee be directed to make suggestions that will go as far as possible toward reconciling the conflicting views expressed in the committee and toward working out a design which will be generally acceptable to the committee.
At page 119 of the proceedings Mr. Hansell, the then hon. member for MacLeod, said:
So what is there to compromise on if it is not the union jack? Therefore I think I am reading into this motion something that is pretty true, and I cannot see my way clear to vote for it! I do have a suggestion to make. It is not along the line of a motion at all. I do not know whether it will be acceptable to the committee, but I should like to see these two flags submitted to the people of Canada and let them decide. I think it would be well worth the time and money that would be involved. Let them decide.


Hon.   Mr. Howden@: In what way?


Mr. Hansell:: By way of a plebiscite.
At page 130 Mr. Hansell said in part:
Here is my point-and this could very well be done without taking any political sides at all. When the next election comes along, I suggest that a referendum be taken at that time. The parties do not have to kick the thing around as a political measure. All they have to do is this. When the people go to elect their government, they are also given another ballot with two designs put on the ballot. You are not voting Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit, C.C.F. or anything else. That is a separate matter altogether. That can be done without costing the country a dollar except for the printing of the paper with the two designs on. Let the people mark X opposite the one or the other design. That I say is a reasonable suggestion and I do not know if it is in order-


Jacques Flynn: No, it is not.


Ernest George Hansell: The chairman shakes his head, so I presume it is not in order.


Jacques Flynn: You can make that suggestion in the house.


Ernest George Hansell: But if the decks were cleared-


Mr. LaCroix:: Everything which is common sense is always out of order with you, Mr. Chairman.
I should also like to quote extracts from the second and final committee report dated Friday, July 12, 1946:
The joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for a distinctive national flag for Canada, begs leave to present the following as a second and final report: Your committee held fourteen public sessions. The submission of designs to the committee was publicly invited and up to and including this date, 2,695 designs were received and considered. In addition, communications in the form of written letters, resolutions and printed form cards and printed form letters to the number of 42,168 were received and whenever the sender's name and address were given, receipt was acknowledged-
In the discussion of all phases of the subject assigned to the committee an admirable spirit of tolerance and co-operation was reflected.
Flags of Canada
The committee adopted a flag. I presume that the choice of design was directed by the government of the time. I do not think the committee decided on the evidence. As I said before, both prime minister Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent, the then minister of justice, had indicated what should be on the flag.
I think the evidence is clear. It is open to the government to give the Canadian people what they want. If we simply study the type of designs submitted it will be clear that the Canadian people are interested in having a flag. I believe that action should be taken not by the government but by the people. If the government does not want to take the glory, then it should let the people have it.
Perhaps it is a good thing that the government should not impose its choice of a flag on the people. Such a flag would not please everyone. A flag chosen by referendum by a large majority of Canadians would be more acceptable to the nation than one selected by the government. There would always be people who would bear a grudge against any party that imposed its choice of a flag upon the nation. Resentment would build up, and the design would not be wholly acceptable. If, however, the design were picked by the nation it would be readily acceptable.
It is almost scandalous that a nation of 18 million people does not have its own flag. Young nations like Ghana and others who are also members of the commonwealth adopt their own flags the same day they attain their independence. It is my sincere hope that long before the celebration of our centennial this nation will have adopted a flag of its own that will be a symbol to everyone of our independence, unity and fraternity.
(Translation):	.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to rise after my hon. friend to tell him how glad I am that he has brought the flag question into this house, a question of great interest for all Canadians who are proud of that name. I am particularly happy that the hon. member who put forward that motion represents a Manitoba constituency. Not so long ago we had an opportunity to hear the matter of a national flag raised in this house by a member from the province of Ontario.
For the first time, Mr. Speaker, I should like in turn to voice my opinion on the flag question, and more particularly on the referendum suggested in the motion before us, whereby the Canadian people would be asked whether they favour a flag bearing

Flags of Canada
a green maple leaf on a red and white background, or what is known as the red ensign, the flag of the Canadian merchant marine.
I would say first, Mr. Speaker, that the flag question is a burning issue today, because more than ever we can discuss it without fear of hurting anyone's feelings in this beloved country of ours, Canada.
In this country we have Canadians whose relatives are still living in the old European countries and especially Canadians who came to Canada quite recently and who, in fact, still have in England, Ireland, Scotland or elsewhere relatives who are still close to their hearts. It is among those Canadians that we find the majority of those who are emotionally bound to the union jack and would like to keep it in the design of a Canadian flag.
A few years ago, Canadians whose French origin goes back approximately 100 years would certainly all have preferred to have the fleur-de-lis on our new Canadian flag. But over the years, and as Canada grows and acquires greater maturity, Canadians are becoming increasingly conscious of the need for a truly Canadian flag. It is so true and so right that the longer we have been in Canada, the more we feel ready to accept the idea of an essentially Canadian flag.
As an example, let me only mention the province of Newfoundland which joined confederation a few years ago. Its people, having only recently become Canadian citizens, are more devoted than Canadians anywhere else to the union jack, which only yesterday was their official flag.
All those attitudes are understandable. However, since the trend is that the longer one has been a Canadian the more one wants a distinctive flag, why not accept immediately the fact that an essentially Canadian flag, without any symbol from any other nation, would be best suited for a nation which now claims to be sovereign?
Mr. Speaker, I could recall several incidents but I shall mention only a few to draw the attention of this house to the many disadvantages resulting from the fact that we do not have a truly distinctive flag.
Last October, while in Paris, with my colleagues I happened to attend a reception given in honour of the chairman of a Canadian company. When the time came for us to enter the banquet hall, we noticed a small American flag on the table in front of the cover of the guest of honour who was a Canadian. So we asked: Why did you place a small American flag where the guest of honour is going to sit? The answer was:

Well we wanted to please our visitor, as we do every time we play host to a distinguished guest from abroad. We always place in front of him the flag of his country. And since we have tonight a Canadian guest, we also wanted to please him by placing his flag in front of him. We inquired about the Canadian flag and none of those we questioned knew anything about a Canadian flag. That is why we placed an American flag in front of the guest because he came from America.
Well, Mr. Speaker, you can see from this incident how clearly the lack of a Canadian flag is prejudicial to us not only here in Canada but also abroad. Canada is a sovereign country, a country we are proud of, a country which has its independent government as well as its independent army and to which Canadian citizens are proud to belong.
Recently, on a C.B.C. television program, I saw visitors from India, Germany, Switzerland, who were discussing with a commentator that ticklish subject and who were asking: "How is it that you, in Canada, have no distinctive emblem, that you have as yet no Canadian flag"?
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useless for me to insist further on the urgent need of a Canadian flag. I would not like to labour the point unduly. So I come at once to this resolution now before us: Should we vote in favour of a resolution providing for a referendum at the next national election, in order to know whether the Canadian people prefer a flag bearing a green leaf on a red and white background, or the red ensign?
Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) for bringing the matter before the house.
I agree with all he has said about our duty, as Canadians, to do all we can to obtain a distinctive flag; I fully agree with him on that, but where I do not agree, is on the way the referendum should be held.
You are going to ask Canadians, at the polls, whether they prefer the red ensign or a flag bearing a green leaf on a red and white background. To my mind, the weakness of the resolution lies precisely in that restriction imposed upon the Canadian citizen. Surely there are many Canadians who have the right or privilege to suggest a design for a flag, whatever it may be.

To restrict the debate to the consideration of two flags would amount to evading the question for the moment. In the first place, I do not believe that, from a strictly heraldic standpoint, Canadian citizens are prepared to select a particular flag in preference to another. In the second place, I believe the government is entitled first to sound out the opinion of the people on the most important point, i.e.: Are Canadian citizens prepared to accept a really distinctive flag, one which would include no emblem already belonging to another country. That is the major question, at the moment. The government will then shoulder its responsibilities.
We want to know whether the people of Canada wish to have a flag bearing an emblem of another country, such as the union jack or the fleur-de-lis, or any other emblem, or whether they prefer a strictly Canadian flag, bearing no sign whatever of any other nation.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the whole matter right now hinges on that point. That is why, I should like to submit respectfully to this house an amendment to my friend's resolution.
My amendment reads as follows:
(Text):
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger):
That all the words after the word "flag" in line 4 of the motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"by including the following question in the 1961 census: Are you in favour of a distinctive national flag which does not contain the emblem of any other country?"


Mr, Deputy Speaker:: Does any hon. member wish to discuss the validity of the amendment? Otherwise I shall put it.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the motion and, of necessity now, to the amendment. Once again we are engaged in a discussion of the question of a distinctive Canadian national flag. This matter keeps coming before the House of Commons on a perennial basis by way of motions, and once again we have it before us this afternoon. Undoubtedly it is of interest to a great many people.
In introducing my remarks this afternoon I should like to remind the house of something I said in opening my statement on a similar motion on February 20, 1959. I said this, as recorded on page 1265 of Hansard of that date:
Flags of Canada
There can be no question but what there is a great deal of interest in Canada in the question of a distinctive Canadian flag. I think I can say also that there are a great many ideas as to what that flag should be. I know that there is hardly a week goes by that I do not receive letters on this matter and a number of designs. In the main, each one is different. All these people are sincere, and everyone seems to have a good, basic reason for suggesting his own design.
I do not feel I can do better in introducing my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, on the motion that is now before us, than by repeating what I said on that occasion. This afternoon we do have a motion which is somewhat different from the many which this house has considered in the past. The hon. member is introducing a suggestion that the government should consider the advisability of holding a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag. The motion refers to only two designs. The question to be submitted in this referendum would be:
Are you in favour of a flag consisting of (a) a green maple leaf on a red and white field, or (b) the red ensign.
This, sir, is a somewhat different suggestion from that which we have considered in past years. I want to say, first of all, that so far as the C.C.F. are concerned, we have by convention decisions over the years stated that we were in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. May I give two illustrations. I have here, sir, the report of our thirteenth annual convention held in July, 1954, where this motion was carried:
Resolved that, in view of existing C.C.F. policy in support of a distinctive national flag for Canada, this convention urge the parliamentary group to exert continuous pressure in parliament for the adoption of a flag at an early date.
In order to illustrate that we felt the same in 1956, I may say that at our August convention that year there was a reference to the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag and a national anthem. The position of this group, Mr. Speaker, is therefore very clear, not only because I say so but because by national convention opinion there should be a distinctive Canadian flag.
However, there are aspects of this question and of this particular motion of the hon. member which I feel require some enlargement. I was most interested in the remarks of the sponsor of this motion when he referred to the maple leaf. It has been my privilege, sir, to be in many countries of the world during the past two years. I was most intrigued and proud to find that wherever I went with my colleagues from this house and the other place, be it the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Ceylon, Indonesia, Thailand, as soon as anyone saw the little maple leaf in the lapel of my coat they said "Canada". The

Flags of Canada
man on the street said "Canada". This indicates that already there is something symbolic to everyone in the world that means Canada, and that is the maple leaf. I hope, sir, that will not be forgotten in any consideration of a distinctive Canadian flag.
I must admit I was a little disturbed by a remark made by one of the previous speakers who, if my interpretation of his remarks was correct, indicated that the pride of Canada required that we have a distinctive national flag. I hope we are not going to consider this resolution on that basis. The pride of Canada, sir, is not in the colour or design of a flag that we may have or may have had up until now. The pride of Canada is in what the flag stands for, not the colour or design. It is what the flag stands for that is the cause of Canadian pride, not whether it is the fleur-de-lis, the maple leaf, the beaver or the red ensign.
This question, without a doubt, can be and most likely is an emotional one. I was born in England, but I have lived in Canada since 1910. There are others in Canada whose cultural and ethnic background is French, Scandinavian, Ukrainian, Indian or Chinese. In my estimation the important fact is that I am a Canadian, and this is Canada. Surely, sir, the importance of a flag is what it means, not the colour or design. I do not believe those who feel so emotional about the design feel they are any worse Canadians because their background is represented by the fleur-de-lis than I do because mine is represented by the union jack. Ever since there has been a Canada we have had a flag. We have had a flag in peace; we have had a flag in war.
This brings to my mind something about which I have thought quite a bit. I believe that one of the greatest organizations for peace and progress in the world is the British commonwealth. I have often wondered why we have not given consideration to not merely a distinctive flag for each of the individual countries that make up the commonwealth but something which would be a representation to the world of a population of 600 million people who believe in peace, freedom, prosperity, mutual understanding and international good will. It would mean a good deal more to me to have a flag for the commonwealth, recognized by all of us, flown over Canada, for that which I maintain is the purpose of a flag, than for any purpose of distinctive nationalism.
However, as I say, it is to a certain extent something of an emotional nature. If the majority of the people of Canada feel

that it means more to them in our commonwealth to have a distinctive Canadian national flag, then let us have it. But let us not in this House of Commons try to consider in a motion or even to debate what form the design of that flag shall take, and I will tell you why. A few years ago the House of Commons and the Senate tried to do just that, and I think my memory serves me correctly when I say that there are now in the files in these buildings something in the neighbourhood of 1,400 designs. I believe my memory is correct.


Mr. Hodgson:: Over 2,700.


Harold Edward Winch: The hon. member says there are over 2,700. When he spoke my hon. friend said there were 800. I remember at that time there were 1,400. Now there are over 2,700. You cannot have a referendum, I submit, on the question "which one do you want?" I know everyone was sincere in the reason behind his submission. I think I can agree that a referendum should be put to the Canadian people as to whether they feel that it is necessary or that it is going to help them to have a distinctive national flag. However, I cannot agree that a referendum should be put on the question "Do you want one of two?" That is the question contained in the motion before us.
I think this has reached the point now where the discussion is going to go on all day, as I think has occurred every year I have been here and for many years prior to that time, with no decision or conclusion being reached. I think it would be a wonderful thing if this house would now reach a decision on this matter. I believe it is a good idea to put this matter in a referendum to the Canadian people, to ask them whether they want a distinctive national flag and to let them answer that question.
However, I want to say this also. It should not be a referendum on one or two flags. No one can make a decision on this 2,700 designs that are now on file in the buildings here. I say this, and it is only my personal opinion, however, I want to put it forward as a personal opinion. There is only one way to handle the situation. If the Canadian people decide by referendum that they want a distinctive national flag, there is only one way to settle the design and that is for the government to have the intestinal fortitude- having received an affirmative vote of the Canadian people, if such is forthcoming-to reach a decision on the design and go through the necessary procedure, namely to bring a bill before this House of Commons, have it passed and sent to the Senate and passed there.

Otherwise we are going to be carrying on in the years to come as we have been doing in the past, I imagine, almost since the time of confederation. Let the people decide by referendum-and in this I agree with the sponsor of the bill-whether they want it. If they say yes, then let the government- this government or a succeeding one-have the fortitude, after all their studies and consideration, to bring in a design, have the guts to stand by it and let us pass it.
As I said, there will be backers of 2,700 designs who perhaps will not like the design chosen. There will be a few weeks or a few months of criticism and obstruction. But if I know the people of Canada at all and the way in which they react, my opinion is this. If that decision is made and passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, it will not be long before they will all be saluting the flag and will be proud of the fact that they have now obtained what they want, namely a distinctive flag.
I put that suggestion forward. In conclusion I say that this is an emotional matter. I am quite happy under the flag under which I now live. If the majority of the people, however, want something different, that is all right. It is then our responsibility to see that they get it. I hope the amendment will not be considered with a view to just putting forward a referendum on two ideas for a flag. That is why I rather like the principle of the amendment. I think this is a wonderful time to have a referendum by including it as one of the questions in the census. I want to commend the hon. member for that suggestion. I think it is a wonderful idea. But I suggest that his amendment be amended, or that he consider amending it, in order not to ask again "Are you in favour of a distinctive national flag which does not contain an emblem of any other country?"
How partisan can you get? There once again we are running into the old trouble with regard to the union jack or the fleur-de-lis. We are now getting a great influx of people from other parts of the world. On that score we are running right back into the trouble that has been bothering us all this time. I think this idea of a referendum in the original motion is good. I think the principle of the amendment with regard to having the referendum put in the census is a wonderful idea. Then if the government in the census gets the answer that Canada wants a distinctive national flag, let them have the gumption to bring in a bill embodying a design, and I think we shall then finally solve this problem of a flag for Canada.


Mr. Harris Rogers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate may I say that my remarks will naturally be brief, inasmuch as my
Flags of Canada
colleague the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) covered the matter rather fully and in detail. At the outset I want to say that in his remarks the hon. member for Vancouver East has made a suggestion that I think could be worked out in principle.
It is not considered good form to refer to one's background or activities in life. However, Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the record straight I think I should be permitted to do so today. I belong to that component of British origin that descended from the united empire loyalists. On tracing the lineage back one finds that it is quite a mixture. In it there are traces of Huguenot, English, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Dutch which, I submit, when all welded together have made me a Canadian and a proud one. Apart from this consideration I served in the armed forces for some nine or ten years. So altogether-let us have no misunderstanding about this-I have always been loyal to the crown and to the union jack and our membership in the commonwealth of nations. Be that as it may, in all sincerity I think the time has arrived when we should have a distinctive Canadian flag.
Geographically Canada is the third largest nation in the world. Our population is made up of peoples from all over the globe and the flow of immigrants must be kept up if we ever intend to build a nation in keeping with our heritage. The time has passed when we can sit back and be told that the British and French laid the foundations of present day Canada. During the second world war, following an accident in my first unit, I was given the honour of recruiting and organizing a second army service corps unit. I found it difficult to pronounce the names of most of the servicemen who formed that unit. Suffice it to say they were simply Canadians, and proud of it.
This is Canada, and in my humble opinion nothing could give us more confidence and national unity than a distinctive Canadian flag. We have Canadians in the services-in fact, they are ambassadors of the highest order- serving all over the world. From what I can gather, their hue and cry is for a distinctive Canadian flag, something they can cling to and something they can look to with pride.
I submit that the purpose of a national flag is to indicate the sovereignty of a nation, which I contend our present flag does not altogether do. It honours the union jack, which is an honourable symbol but not the symbol of Canada. This has been quite an issue over a number of years and dates back to 1925, as far as I can find out, when the government of the day set up a committee of civil servants to study the problem. This was short-lived, in as much as it did not

Flags of Canada
have the required representation. Subsequently to this, in the years 1931, 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1933 motions and resolutions were talked out, much as I suppose will happen today. Following this, in 1945 the government set up a committee of members of parliament and senators, the report of which was not presented to the House of Commons.
Almost concurrent with this the then prime minister, the Eight Hon. Mackenzie King, passed an order in council recognizing the red ensign as our national flag. This was gradually accepted over the years, but certainly there was not very much direction to it. That is the reason why certain sections of our country have not really accepted the red ensign. In other words, we have a Canada part of which recognizes the union jack and the rest the red ensign. The history of our past efforts to get a distinctive Canadian flag indicates, I think, lack of leadership and certainly heart. I think it is fair to say that Canadians are not a boastful people. As a matter of fact they have often been accused of being too reserved.
In regard to the flag itself, there is a minority of Canadians who could not care less. There are other sections who think it is the final break with the mother country. But there are a great many others-and in particular, young Canadians-who want a distinctive Canadian flag. I think this feeling has been growing over the years, particularly following the two world wars, and has had a great deal of influence on our thinking. There is the first group, which tends to assume that what was good enough for their fathers is good enough for them, and I submit that the second group is not assessing the matter correctly.
There will always be a Great Britain, and the fact that Canada decides to have a distinctive national flag will never break our ties with the mother country. In fact, I think it will enhance our relationship with her. We should be proud of our birthplace, but our first allegiance must be to Canada. Facing the situation fairly and squarely, no one in his right mind will quarrel with the concept of loyalty to his birthplace. This does not, however, alter the fact that our first allegiance should be to Canada. And we need a distinctive flag. Nothing could instil in us more pride and confidence as a nation than a distinctive flag.
These, of course are my own personal views. In conclusion, to date there has been no opportunity to definitely assess the feelings of Canadians as a whole on this vital question. I am therefore most happy to second this motion urging that provision be made for a referendum to consider the adoption of a Canadian flag. I submit that only in this

manner will each and every Canadian have the opportunity to express his views and wishes on this question, which is of such vital concern to every Canadian.
(Translation):


Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, although I do not share the views of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier), I still wish to offer him my congratulations for the splendid speech he delivered a few minutes ago concerning a distinctive national flag for Canada.
He developed his argument in a knowledgeable way, free of all partisanship. Once again, I wish to offer him my congratulations. I do not doubt his sincerity and it is in the same spirit that I want to express my own opinion.
The problem as put by the hon. member for St. Boniface has, in my opinion, two different aspects, a theoretical aspect and a practical aspect.
On the theoretical side, the effect of this resolution will be to bring nearer the adoption of a distinctive national flag by allowing this subject to be discussed in the house. On the practical side, the resolution is not the answer to the aspirations of the Canadian people, since it invites them to decide on a flag design which is not authentically Canadian.
That the Canadian people wish a flag of their own, a flag which would be free of all ties with any other country has been obvious for some time. Why then a referendum on the choice of a flag bearing the red ensign?
The question is not whether the Canadian people care to have the union jack or the maple leaf, but what design is going to appear on this emblem.
Objectively, let us say that the resolution of the hon. member would have carried more weight if it had been phrased in such a way as to call for an expression of opinion.
We know the feeling of the population, concerning the design which has been mentioned so often, the design advocated by the National Flag League, that is the white and red flag with a green maple leaf in the center.
If the hon. member's project were adopted it would contribute, contrary to the motives which inspired it, to create disunion among the different racial groups of the nation, since Canadians could not take to an emblem which would bear signs of dependence or submission to other countries.

I believe I speak for the majority of my fellow citizens when I say that we do not want a flag which would remind us of our ties with France or Great Britain, that is to say that Canadians would not accept an emblem with either a fleur-de-lis or the union jack.
This question has been under discussion here for a long time. I do not want to give the background of those discussions. The hon. member for St. Boniface has quoted many statistics which show that public opinion is ready for a distinctive national flag.
However, a real change has occurred in the last 25 years.
In 1946, 68 per cent of the people wanted a distinctive national flag. Canadian High Life News under date of January 25, 1955, reported on a questionnaire circulated among the students. Here are the results: 86.8 per cent of the boys were in favour of a distinctive national flag and 80.7 per cent of the girls were of the same mind.
I am pleased to support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), because I feel the question should not be asked at a general election but rather during the next census to be held in June. We were told that new forms are to be printed for the census. May I ask the house then why that question inquiring whether or not the Canadians are in favour of a distinctive national flag should not be included in the form?
Another reason that should prompt the hon. members to vote for the amendment put forward by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville is the fact already mentioned that 95 per cent of the candidates in the 1945 general election declared themselves in favour of a distinctive national flag, while 3.7 per cent were against it. The others did not answer the questionnaire distributed before the 1945 election.
The whole nation calls for an emblem showing that Canada is now an adult nation and a completely independent country.
There are, however, exceptions and this is understandable. There are a few citizens who do not wish a distinctive flag for Canada but they are a very small minority.
I am happy to be able to say in this house that those people are not to be found in the ranks of the Liberal party, as evidenced by the resolution adopted by the party at its recent rally, to the effect that it would give Canada a distinctive flag two years after coming into power. It will therefore happen in 1964 or 1965, just in time to celebrate the centenary of confederation.
90205-6-844
Flags of Canada
A noteworthy fact is the clear position taken on this issue by our leader. Indeed, both in newspapers and on television, he has put himself on record as being in favour of a distinctive national flag. He was not afraid to make that question part of his electoral program in 1958 and to talk about it from coast to coast. What position was taken by the leader of the government since he was chosen to lead his party? What are his views on the question? He would certainly like us to forget what he said in 1945 and which it is unnecessary for me to repeat in this house.


Mr. Pigeon:: What about Mr. Pickersgill?


Yvon Dupuis: I referred to Newfoundland earlier, but you were not in the house. You are never here. If you want to hear all that is said, stay in the house.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm has put the same question at least ten times. We heard it, but it is not worth answering.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are incapable of answering it.


Samuel Boulanger: During this debate, we may have an opportunity to hear the Prime Minister's opinion. It is the Prime Minister's opinion that we would like to hear, not that of the hon. members'. When will we hear it? He has today the opportunity to make known to the house what he thinks of the issue. Will he have the courage to do it?
I wish to recall a resolution which does great honour to the one who introduced it. That resolution was put forward during the 1956 Conservative convention where the present Prime Minister was chosen as leader of the party. It was introduced by the speaker of this house (Mr. Michener) who tried to have a resolution passed in favour of a distinctive national flag. Here is the resplu-tion:
We have proclaimed that Canada is an independent nation. We sit at the United Nations as an independent nation. We went to war as an independent nation.
I am sorry to see that the Conservatives do not have the courage and the wisdom to introduce such a resolution.
The time has come to say to our children: here is our Canadian flag; it was denied to you by the Liberals but the Conservatives gave it to you.
Such an attitude is a credit to him and I must congratulate him for his courage in moving this resolution at the Conservative convention in 1956.
Mr. Speaker, I have taken part in a discussion concerning the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag maybe five or six times. I have

Flags of Canada
never suggested any particular design and I agree with the hon. member from Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) that what we want is not a design but a symbol. A symbol which will represent the whole nation, its pride, its unity, its maturity and its hopes.
It is the government's responsibility to give it to us.
These are the reasons, Mr. Speaker, why I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, and I hope it will be passed.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Following an interruption in the course of the speech made by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger), the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) said that I never attended the sittings of this house, which is not true. If one were to take a count of all the votes recorded since I have been a member of this assembly, one would see that if a member attends faithfully the business of this house I am certainly the one, and I feel that the remarks he made about me should instead be directed to the member for St. J ean-Iberville-N apierville.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question of privilege, I should like to point out to the house that in the case of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, his body is here but his mind is away.
(Text):


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this resolution let me say at the outset that I have listened to discussions on this subject in this house for the past three years. On the basis of my study of the question I understand it has been raised since 1925, for about 35 years. I personally am satisfied with the flags we have in Canada but apparently the question of whether Canada should have a truly distinctive flag is a subject of continuing interest.
The resolution suggests that we should have a referendum. I do not think it is necessary to go to the trouble and expense of doing so when we will be taking a census this year. I agree with the hon. member who proposed an amendment to the resolution. In the census I believe the only question that should be asked is: Are you in favour of a truly distinctive Canadian flag? That is the first question that should be answered. If the answer is overwhelmingly in the affirmative then the government in power should have the courage to decide on a truly distinctive flag. It could establish a committee such as the one that met in 1945-46, if it
[Mr. Boulanger.)
wishes. I am convinced that those who expressed themselves in the census as wanting a flag would accept the design on which the government of the day decided.
I do not think the matter should be dropped there because we sometimes see the work dreamed up by artists which can only be described as weird. Surely an artist in designing a flag should adhere to simplicity and present a design that is well known and recognizably representative of Canada, one that would be recognized and accepted the world over. I think a flag must be emblematic of the country it represents so that it will not be mistaken for the flag of another country.
As I mentioned before, the flag should be of simple design. We would not want anything bizarre or complicated which would detract from the flag and create confusion as to what it represents. I think a truly distinctive flag would bring greater unity in Canada and that all Canadians would pay their allegiance to it if a design were brought in and presented by the government following exploration of the question through the census.
The idea of a distinctive flag for Canada has been suggested over the years and the question has had the continuing support of the armed forces. I believe the question will always interest them. The union jack has been suggested as our flag. A long time ago I learned in school how the union jack originated. It is a composite design embodying the cross of St. George, and the emblems of those countries making up the British Isles. They were all put together and the union jack came into being. Since Canada is no longer a colony of the British empire the union jack is not a Canadian flag in any true sense. I am told that the red ensign is a flag given to Canada for its merchant fleet. While this is all right I do not think it is representative of all of Canada nor should it be taken that way.
Previous speakers have mentioned that some countries of the world are in doubt as to what is the Canadian flag. I have met people from the United States who were visiting Canada and who, seeing the union jack flown here, have expressed the opinion that Canada still owes some allegiance to Great Britain and is tied to her apron strings, as it were.
Some people accuse Canadians, this government and politicians on both sides of the house of becoming too nationalistic. I think that is an exaggerated accusation. I believe that Canadians should be able to speak their

piece without being accused of being antiAmerican, anti-British, and so on. We are Canadians, we speak from a Canadian point of view and this fact should be accepted by other countries. I am certain there would be greater acceptance, particularly in the United States, if we had a truly distinctive flag.
I think that any attempt to include the union jack or red ensign in the flag would merely degrade two well known and honourable flags. Between now and 1967, when Canada will celebrate its centennial, we hope that Canada will continue to grow in stature and as a nation. Right now the provinces are meeting with the federal government in order to work out ways by which Canada can amend the British North America Act without having to go to the British government for final approval of amendments. When this day arrives I think we will have passed another milestone in becoming a truly independent nation, and surely when we pass that milestone and celebrate our centennial we should feel entitled to have a truly distinctive flag.
A great many people come to Canada from the United States, Great Britain and other parts of the world and they accept the Canadian standard of living and all we have to oiler to them, but when the question comes up of their becoming citizens of this country and avowing their allegiance to it it seems that they still think a great deal of their motherland. They still think that perhaps there is nothing wrong with the good old United States and they are somewhat dubious about whether they should take out Canadian citizenship although some go ahead and do so. If we were a truly distinctive country with a truly distinctive flag and saw to it that those who took out citizenship understood what our flag stood for, what our national anthem was and so on, I think they would value their citizenship more. I know that if you spend five years in some countries you are asked rather politely to consider becoming a citizen and if you say no they want to know why not.
Canada, as I have said, is becoming a nation more and more every day. At times the former government and the present government have found themselves in disagreement with Great Britain or the United States, and as far I am concerned that is all right. Certainly we should be able to declare ourselves one way or the other with no strings binding us to any country. Mind you, I am in complete agreement with the drawing up of treaties and agreements with other countries, but we should have a distinctive flag which would
Flags of Canada
symbolize Canada as a nation. As a mature and growing nation of over 18 million people, the period of the next five years is the time when we should consider this question and solve it.
Canadians should be proud of being Canadians, of belonging to a country with a truly distinctive flag, an independent country ready to voice its criticisms to the United States or to any other country in the world with no fear of being accused of being anti-American or anti-communist or anti-anything else. Certainly we should have the right to make up our own minds as to how we wish to amend the British North America Act and whether we want to have a flag that sets us apart as belonging to the commonwealth or to any other group of nations.
While I do not support the idea of a referendum as put forward in the resolution, I support the idea that we should have a distinctive flag and that a question should be perhaps included in the census such as: Are you in favour of or do you think that Canada should have a truly distinctive flag? If it were put in that manner I think it would be wide open for those who want to retain the present flag and those who want a new one to express their views. If the majority voted in favour of a new flag then the people generally should be willing to accept it and place their faith in the government to have someone design a properly distinctive flag which would be truly symbolic of Canada.


Mr. N. L. Spencer (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks with regard to the resolution and the amendment will be quite brief. First of all, I should like to congratulate my colleague, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier), for bringing this resolution before the house and also for the great deal of research and time he must have spent in gathering together the facts and other information which he imparted to the house. He told us of the efforts over the years to obtain a distinctive national flag for Canada. To that extent I support his resolution because I believe as he does, and as everyone else does who has spoken in the debate so far, that we should have a distinctive national flag.
However, I agree that there is some objection to the terms of the resolution, which was pointed out, of course, by the mover and seconder of the amendment. I understood the substance of their remarks to indicate that there was an objection to the limitation placed upon the referendum in that citizens when called upon to express their opinion only had a choice between two flags. I agree that there should be no such limitation.

Flags of Canada
Likewise, however, I cannot support the amendment because I believe it is objectionable for the very same reason in that it asks for an expression of opinion with respect to whether citizens are in favour of a distinctive national flag that does not include the emblem of any other country. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is a limitation that is wholly unnecessary and which in my opinion destroys the objective of the amendment, namely to secure an expression of opinion respecting whether the majority of the people of this nation desire a distinctive national flag.
I for my part am in favour of a distinctive national flag but I cannot say that I would be opposed to including in that flag some emblem that would be significant of our ancestry and of the two nations which have contributed so much to this nation. I therefore believe, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), that first and foremost we must put this simple question, are you in favour of a distinctive national flag?
Before I conclude, I should make some reference to the impression which has been left that the red ensign is not in any way distinctive or symbolic of this country. The red ensign certainly is a flag that is distinctive. In my opinion, it is also a flag which is national in this aspect, that it relates to and is symbolic of Canada. It may be slightly confusing when compared with the flags of some other nations of the commonwealth, but certainly no one would say that the red ensign is symbolic of any nation other than Canada. I believe that our armed forces over the years have fought and died under this flag. I do not believe it is mistaken in any way for the flag of any nation other than Canada. I agree also with the hon. member for Vancouver East in his references to the maple leaf. Certainly, over the years the maple leaf has been established as emblematic of Canada.
I suggest that if we get an expression of opinion as to whether Canada should have a distinctive national flag, that expression of opinion would be very strongly in the affirmative. If we were to stop at that point we would have settled nothing. Studies which have been made in regard to a national flag indicated there were some 2,700 different designs. I am quite sure we would never arrive at that degree of unanimity that would enable us to come up with a design that would be supported by the majority of the people to the exclusion of other designs. However, having regard to what I have said about the red ensign, and to what I believe to be a considerable body of opinion in favour of the red ensign, I believe the second question on the referendum should be whether or not you are in favour of the red ensign as a Canadian flag. I know there

is considerable opposition to it, but the suggested referendum in the motion now before us does include the red ensign and I certainly approve of that portion of the resolution.
After having asked for an expression of opinion as to whether there should be a distinctive national flag, the individual as I have said should be asked whether he is in favour of the red ensign. Unless there is a preponderance of opinion in favour of the red ensign, then consideration ought to be given to some design for a Canadian national flag which would attract greater support than may be manifest in so far as the red ensign is concerned.
So, Mr. Speaker, I conclude by saying that I certainly commend the mover and seconder of this resolution upon bringing this matter before the house. I like the idea of a referendum. I believe this is a matter which could better be dealt with by the rank and file of the people. We who sit in this house have our personal ideas in connection with this matter, but we may be a bit prejudiced or a bit biased in our point of view. We should not be unmindful of the fact that it cannot be said this country is composed primarily of people of French or English ancestry. This country is more and more becoming populated by peoples from all parts of the world. Since the last war, there have been over two million immigrants to this country, and we are more and more taking on the aspects of a truly Canadian nationality. I think it is desirable, therefore, that the people as a whole be consulted on this question and given the opportunity, as indicated by this resolution, of expressing their opinion on an important subject which has been bandied about in this house for so many years without any results being achieved. If for no other reason, the mover of this motion should be commended for bringing forth the idea of a referendum, because a referendum will at least represent some progress toward finding a solution to this problem which has been causing so much concern over so many years.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief contribution to this debate and express some views concerning this resolution.
Let me, first of all, congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) for moving this resolution. I should also like to extend the same congratulations to two other members of this house, namely the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. JANUARY 23. 1961
Boulanger) and the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) who have both brought in similar resolutions. One of these has been discussed in two previous sessions; the other, in the form of a bill, is now on the order paper of the house.
The resolution moved by the hon. member for St. Boniface reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag.
That the questions submitted in said referendum be as follows:-Are you in favour of a flag consisting of (a) a green maple leaf on a red and white field, or, (b) the red ensign.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it is a good thing to discuss this question in order to have a general idea of how hon. members feel about it. So far, I have heard no one oppose the idea of a national distinctive flag. However, it seems to me that the formula suggested by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier), in the second paragraph of his resolution, will not give the results he hopes for.
The reason for this is because, as was pointed out by several members, the choice is limited to two designs: on the one hand, the maple leaf on a red and white field and, on the other hand, the Canadian red flag, that is the red ensign.
In all likelihood, many symbols are as good as, if not better, than those mentioned by the hon. member.
Furthermore, under such a scheme, it might well happen that at the time of the referendum, 51 per cent of the people would vote for the design with a green maple leaf on a red and white background, and 49 per cent for the red ensign.
What would the government do in such a case? Would they consider the majority adequate to reach a conclusion?
That is why I prefer the formula put forward by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville in his amendment. The question should be included in the next census, next June. Then it would be put in different terms:
Are you in favour of a distinctive national flag bearing the symbol of no other country?
It seems to me that this amendment, first is more in keeping with the wishes of the Canadian people, in view of its phraseology, and second, that it would allow an expression of opinion by the people in a relatively short time, as the census is to be conducted in a few months.
Flags of Canada


Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Why did
you not do it in 1951?


Lionel Chevrier: I would point out to the hon. member for St. Boniface, who no doubt moved this motion in good faith, that at the time of the Progressive Conservative convention in 1956, the following motion had already been put forward:
That the Conservative party affirm its immediate support for the adoption of a national flag for Canada.
The word "distinctive" is not contained in the resolution, at least not according to the report I have before me, which is taken from the Ottawa Journal, a Conservative newspaper, for December 13, 1956.
Therefore, it seems that the motion of the hon. member for St. Boniface does not take into account the resolution submitted at the Progressive Conservative convention in 1956. That convention merely expressed vague support, whereas this resolution suggests a referendum.
That is why I repeat what I said earlier: in my opinion this amendment adequately provides for the present situation.
Mr. Speaker, there is also another matter that I would like to raise in the house, and it is this: by virtue of the law at this time, it is up to the parliament of Canada to select and design a distinctive Canadian flag. If such is the case then, our present government after more than three years in office has not yet decided or has not yet come to the conclusion that it must implement the resolution however vague adopted by their party.
I was asked a moment ago: Why did your party not take action when they were in office? Well, I think that 30 years ago, it would not have been possible to adopt a national distinctive flag, because the people of Canada were not prepared to accept it. It was the same thing in 1945 when the government of the day established a joint committee which, after considering the matter during several sittings, could not reach unanimity. As a matter of fact that was what prompted Mr. St. Laurent to state in this house regarding the Liberal party's stand that a flag was meant to be a symbol of unity, not a sign of disunity. National unity would be prejudiced if part of the people of this country imposed its choice upon another important element of Canada. That is why Mr. St. Laurent's government could not possibly have initiated such action at that time.
However, in recent years, as a result of the progress accomplished towards national unity, and also because of the petitions submitted by many organizations throughout the

Flags of Canada
country, and because at the United Nations and abroad, Canada has no distinctive emblem, as was pointed out by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), and as a result of many Gallup polls carried out throughout the country confirming the fact that a majority of Canadians are in favour of a distinctive national flag, I believe that Canadian public opinion has developed to the point where today a very large majority of Canadians do want a distinctive national flag.
Therefore, we feel that parliament should accede to this expressed wish with the shortest delay. We have repeatedly raised that point in the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Drummond-Artha-baska and others have raised the point in two or three sessions; in each instance, the debate dragged on endlessly until the end of the sitting, making it impossible for the house to reach a decision.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) a moment ago, had this matter come to a vote in the house, I am sure that a majority of the members would have come out in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. I would add that if the resolutions submitted by hon. members on our side had been accepted, the government could have taken action.
That is why, during the great rally held in Ottawa early in January, the Liberal party definitely committed itself to giving our country a distinctive national flag within two years of its coming into office.
I would not like at this time to enter the realm of contention but I could, if I wanted to, put on record a series of statements, starting with those of the Conservative members who used to sit on this side of the house, but who have now emigrated to treasury benches, statements in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag, although since their coming to office they do not seem to have made any progress in that direction.
Earlier, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) was asked what he thought of this resolution. The answer to that question is simple. Give the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate a chance to make his decision known. Cut down on your remarks and let him express his views on the amendment submitted by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, and on the resolution of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier). Those who put that question to him will then immediately see that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will support the amendment of my hon. friend the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville.

I said at the outset that I wanted to be brief. It is still my intention. I rose only to express those few opinions, and in closing I say that, under the existing law of parliament, by virtue of the powers of this government, if we are to have a distinctive national flag, it is up to the government, either by the establishment of a committee or by some other means, to give it to us. I believe that those who spent much of their time criticizing the former administration instead of giving us a distinctive national flag, had better address their claims and their representations to the government that sits to the right of Mr. Speaker. If they did that, we soon, might have a distinctive national flag which I think, the great majority of the Canadian people want.


Mr. V. F. Dubois (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution moved by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) is such as to command, in a very special way, the attention of all Canadians. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag.
The hon. member for St. Boniface would like to have the two following questions asked: 1. Are you in favour of a flag consisting of a green maple leaf on a red and white field; 2. Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?
The first question has to do with a distinctive national flag, while the second would ask for a vote in favour of a flag denoting Canada's attachment for England.
Why those two questions? I believe the hon. member for St. Boniface should have asked only one question, that is: Are you in favour of a distinctive national flag? Then, the government would have the responsibility of choosing the kind of flag suitable for our country, according to the result of the referendum.
Since July 1, 1867, Canada is a democratic country under the British North America Act. It has the right to make its own laws, to choose its representatives through consultations in order to form a government. Since then also, it rests with Canada to select a flag suited to its essentially Canadian character. Furthermore, under the Statute of Westminster of December 11, 1931, Canada has become an independent and sovereign country. Since that time, we have our own supreme court. The cases that used to be referred to the privy council in London are now heard in Canada.

The Canadian government appoints its own Governor General who is chosen from among the most distinguished citizens of Canada. I am proud to commend the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) for having given the Canadian people as a second Canadian Governor General, His Excellency Georges Yanier, a career soldier, who not only has done honour to our people on the battlefields but who also is a great French Canadian of the Catholic faith.
Canada has ambassadors and consuls in a great many countries. It is represented in the United Nations by an important delegation. Canadian observers are sent to international conferences of interest to our country.
Everywhere Canada is represented by men of great merit whose ability is beyond question, but there is no Canadian flag symbolizing our country and permitting our representatives to be identified.
On September 26, 1960, the Prime Minister of Canada delivered a magnificent speech against the communist bloc before the United Nations General Assembly. Knowing how successful he was in putting Mr. Khrushchev out of countenance, and having regard to the wide approval he gained in the free world, don't you think he would have been proud to see the flag of his beloved country for which he exerts himself so much waving over the U.N. building?
Canada has taken part in two world wars. Our soldiers have fought in Europe and in Asia. However our forces have never been able to fight under their own flag, but had to serve under some other country's colours. Nevertheless, our soldiers did not fail to distinguish themselves on many occasions by winning signal victories. We have in this house members who fought in both world wars. They had only a foreign flag in which to bury their comrades in arms who died on the battlefields.
Is it not the prime concern of some of the colonies achieving independence to give themselves a flag of their own?
Is the referendum suggested by the member for St. Boniface really justified? That is the point to which we must give our attention at the present time.
Different associations have already carried out surveys of public opinion. In 1958, the Canadian junior chamber of commerce held a referendum in all its branches and in all localities where a chamber of commerce is to be found. On July 3, 1959, it made public
Flags of Canada
the following results: 79 per cent of its English-speaking members voted in favour of a distinctive national flag, while 78 per cent of the citizens of those localities declared themselves in favour of a flag. The report of the French-speaking chambers showed a 100 per cent vote, among both members and citizens, in favour of a distinctive national flag. An ever increasing unanimity is to be noted in that regard. All our French-Canadian organizations, which so efficiently uphold the interests of their members and of their fellow citizens in every country are asking for a distinctive national flag for the whole of Canada. They are not asking either for the union jack or fleurs-de-lis on our future Canadian flag.
Even the senior chamber of commerce of Canada, at its October 1958 convention, adopted a motion asking for a distinctive national flag.
Canada is a great country, playing an increasingly important part in international affairs. We are approaching the centenary of the confederation, which will be celebrated in 1967. We must reach unity on the one design of a flag which will be ours, without any tie, without any narrow and petty partisanship, in accord with the sovereignty of Canada, a distinctive national flag.
We must give the hon. member for St. Boniface the credit he deserves for introducing a motion to ascertain the public views and also for presenting a comprehensive and well-ordered argument. I extend to him my most sincere congratulations for having discussed the question of a national flag and for having done it so broadmindedly in order to reach the ultimate goal of a distinctive national flag for our country, Canada.
I express in this house the wish of all my constituents: that Canada be provided, as soon as possible, with a distinctive national flag. It is a subject of glory and pride for every people, a distinctive sign which, through the symbols that appear on it, invites respect from other powers.
The hon. member for Drummond-Arthbaska (Mr. Boulanger) and the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) mentioned the Liberal party motion adopted during their convention in January to the effect that their party would give Canada a flag two years after assuming power. In the first place, the Liberals will not assume power after the next general election nor in the following ones because the people of Canada know only too well the value of promises that never materialize.
Besides, although the Liberals were in power for 22 years, they never gave Canada a flag which it could really call its own.

Flags of Canada
I remain convinced that the hon. member for St. Boniface, as a Canadian is a great patriot who proclaimed himself in favour of a distinctive national flag.
I feel, however, that a referendum is not necessary, but that it is the responsibility of the government to give the Canadian people the distinctive national flag they want so much.
I have confidence in this government, and I am convinced that if it does not manage to provide Canada with such a flag many other governments will come and go before we can have a national flag of our own.


Mr. Alfred Belzile (Malapedia-Matane):: It
is with great pleasure that I rise, Mr. Speaker, to make a small contribution to the debate on the resolution now before the house and which was put on the order paper by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier).
This resolution does in no way call for the opinion of experts, but rather for the opinion of true Canadians. It is therefore my duty to make known my personal views on this always timely subject, and I may say that these views undoubtedly reflect the ones held by almost all those I have the privilege of representing here.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I am in complete agreement with this resolution, for a number of reasons I shall now make known.
This matter of a flag has been repeatedly dealt with in this house. Different views on the subject have been expressed in all parts of the country by many representatives from various political parties. But it is encouraging to note a growing tendency to favour a distinctive national flag displaying no emblem recalling any country other than our own. This is a development which is welcomed by all Canadians who have patriotism and national pride, for it fosters the best of unity.
While retaining great respect and great admiration for our forefathers, for the traditions they have left us and also for the culture, the faith and the language that have come to us through generations, we should not forget that we are first and above all Canadians.
We all recognize Canada as our country. We love and revere Canada. Thanks to the efforts of the preceding generations, and to the constant work of the present generation, Canada has shown a remarkable economic and cultural development in a relatively short period of time. A former colony, we have rapidly

developed into a country whose importance is recognized the world over, a country which is proud of the independence it has conquered within the framework of the commonwealth. Our contribution to the fight for peace and freedom in two great world wars has won the admiration of all free nations. We are universally recognized as a mature and proud nation where two great cultures exist in complete harmony and which have both contributed to the greatness and development of Canada.
Being a mature and independent nation, we must act accordingly. Any nation that can play the part which has been ours for more than a quarter of a century among the free nations of this world must, if it really possesses the proud feelings so generally acknowledged, behave and act as a proud and free nation.
Can we really be the people we pretend to be when, unlike other nations of equal importance and even unlike nations that have not yet reached the degree of maturity of our country, we are still without a national flag, an emblem of our own, a symbol of our pride and independence?
Why this anomaly? Why are we so short on Canadianism? The answer is obvious. If every one of us had refrained over the years from making this matter of a flag a political football, and if we had made an effort, harmoniously and dispassionately, to find an answer to this important problem, there is no doubt that by now Canada would have a national and distinctive emblem. Sad to say, however, our political feelings have been stronger than our patriotic feelings. This is a cruel truth, I agree, but I for one will have the honesty to confess it publicly.
On this question which has seemed to us to be one of the thorniest, we must admit, to our shame, that we have too long questioned the patriotism and the intelligence of all our fellow citizens, of whatever origin.
Sometimes, we were afraid to hurt the feelings of a certain section, at other times we had to cater to the extreme nationalism of another section of our population. However, whatever the reasons which dictated our attitude, the main one at all times was the thought of possible effects on the outcome of the elections. In all cases, unfortunately, we seemed to have forgotten that, before the thought of gamering votes, and because we were either of French or of English origin,

it was our imperative duty, above everything else, to be Canadians worthy of the name.
Today, however more than ever before, we must realize that the prejudices we had yesterday have disappeared, that our conflicting opinions are not as far apart as they were in the past, and that due to our better understanding of that nature of true Cana-dianism, we are about to fully agree on the matter.
In 1945, Mr. MacKenzie King, then prime minister of Canada, surely with a view to please an increasingly wide-awake public opinion, promised, during the election campaign which was to bring him back to power, to have a national flag adopted by parliament. Moreover, the same promise was to be found in the speech from the throne of that year delivered at the opening of the first session of the new parliament.
That same year, a joint committee of the Senate and of the House of Commons was appointed to study and report on the choice of an appropriate and distinctive design for a national flag for Canada. Twelve members of the Senate and 25 members of the House of Commons were on that committee. They represented various political groups.
The setting up of that joint committee of both houses aroused a keen interest among the Canadian community; from all over the country, Canadians of all racial origins sent to that committee designs they thought should be accepted as our distinctive symbol.
By May 9, 1946, 2,409 different designs had been laid before the committee and the great majority of them positively indicated that our proposed national flag should bear no symbol of a country other than ours, in spite of the fact that the two most important racial groups in Canada still had ties, though remote ties, with Great Britain and France. In order to prove the truth of the statement I am making, which, moveover, the debates of that time will bear out, let me say that of the 2,409 designs proposed, 1,611 had the maple leaf as only symbol, 383 had the union jack, 231 had stars while 184 designs suggested the fleur-de-lis.
In 1946, Mr. Speaker, a movement of sound Canadianism could already be felt all across the country. The great majority of Canadians already recognized the importance of showing our maturity and independence in that respect. More than 15 years ago, Mr. Speaker, Canadians of all origins, increasingly proud of their country, wanted to show their pride
Flags of Canada
in being first and foremost Canadians. The heartening development I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks had made itself felt in an unequivocal way.
Unfortunately, after two years of discussions, the committee that had been formed to study and report on the question, had failed to reach unanimity on the choice of a distinctive flag for Canada. As we all know, the whole thing was to be forgotten, to the great dismay of the majority of well-thinking Canadians.
In 1948, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, not only assumed the leadership of the Liberal party, but also assumed the important functions of prime minister. This was sufficient to revive the question of a national flag. On all sides, constant pressures were made urging the new chief of state to re-establish the joint committee and to give our country as soon as possible a distinctive national flag, the symbol of our legitimate pride and of our absolute sovereignty.
Mr. Speaker, it is six o'clock.
(Text):
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
(Translation):
Alfred Belzile: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to resume the speech I had begun before recess.
In the face of an aroused and constantly alert public opinion, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, as leader of the government and of the Liberal party, on the opening of the election campaign in Winnipeg, in 1949, undertook to give our country a distinct national emblem which would be the glory of all Canadians. More than 3,000 persons were present at that meeting, including some members who are now sitting in this house. The newspapers of the time did not fail to report the prime minister's words. However, that formal promise, which all Canadians generally and the Liberals in particular had warmly applauded, was, once again, to fall by the wayside along with many unfulfilled Liberal promises. Since then and until 1957, while the people showed their disapproval, our friends opposite and their predecessors deliberately forgot that promise, and left in the limbo of oblivion the joint committee they themselves had set up and then buried.

Flags of Canada
It is obvious that a distinct national flag for Canada is more than ever in demand. Many associations and groups of all kinds are constantly sending resolutions to that effect to members of this house. Then too, many people who at one time were asking that our flag bear emblems of other countries, have now changed their minds.
Early in December of 1958, in Victoria, B.C., the junior chamber of commerce of Canada, then meeting in annual congress, took a vote on the matter of a distinctive national flag. The results of this vote, which deserves attention, was as follows.
Out of 2,400 members of that chamber who replied to the question, and among English-speaking members only, 79 per cent approved the project of a Canadian flag which would bear the emblem of no other country. On that same occasion, as a result of a vote taken among the public, also of English origin, 78 per cent of the 3,800 persons consulted gave the same answer.
More recently still, that is, at the Calgary Stampede last year, the young Liberals of that city also put the matter to a vote among the thousands of people who attended that always popular sporting event. And, Mr. Speaker, 77 per cent of those who voted were categorically in favour of the maple leaf on our flag, repudiating all other emblems belonging to other countries.
Let no one tell me that the majority of English-speaking fellow citizens are against the adoption of a distinctive national flag; the facts I have just referred to sufficiently contradict those who dare make such a statement.
All Canadians are asking themselves this question: How is it that a country such as Canada, which plays such an important role among the free nations of the world, does not yet have a strictly distinctive emblem which would show to the world its pride and sovereignty?	..
A flag, Mr. Speaker, is not only a sign of independence, it is first and foremost a symbol of pride and unity. It is our duty to show our pride to the face of all peoples of the globe. Since the Conservatives came to power we have achieved a degree of unity greater than it ever was before, and it surely exists among all racial groups forming our vast and beautiful country. It even symbolizes a magnificent example of co-existence and sincere co-operation between various cultures, which are none the less important to the greatness of our nation.
[Mr. Belzile.l
The patriotic and historical action we have taken today will, I am sure, bring us the eternal gratitude of our fellow citizens and more particularly of the future generations. More than ever, and while preserving unfailing ties of friendship with regard to the nation which was once their mother country, Canadians are now loudly and proudly claiming to be Canadian citizens. As to those who, each year, elect our land as their country of adoption and of choice, the very fact of their coming here to live eloquently shows that they want to have Canada as their true and only country, for themselves as well as their descendants.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not further delay the discussion on this important resolution so that all my hon. fellow members who want to do so may take part in it. In concluding my remarks I want to tender the hon. member for St. Boniface the most sincere and fully deserved congratulations for a deeply felt patriotism which does him credit. I sincerely hope that, on both sides of this house, and in spite of our differences, we may, on a question which transcends political disputes, show complete unanimity, for the greater edification of every Canadian.
It would certainly not be too bold a wish to hope that Canada will soon be endowed with a national flag.
This will give our government the opportunity to select an essentially distinctive emblem which would truly answer the justified hopes of most Canadians. That flag which is our aim, will, apart from being the symbol of our national unity, rally all men of good will in a collective effort which will further prove the ascending march of Canada towards its destiny.
(Text):


Mr, H. W. Herridge (Kooienay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise because I have a few words to say on this resolution. Let me say first I think it is a good thing, whether or not we come to a conclusion tonight, that we discuss this question. It shows we are interested in a subject which is of interest to many Canadians. I must say, first of all, that I find myself unable to support the resolution because it asks for a referendum. The question asked is:
Are you in favour of a flag consisting of (a) a green maple leaf on a red and white field, or, (b) the red ensign?

I do not believe the matter is as simple as that. In my opinion, you cannot decide on a satisfactory, distinctive Canadian flag by submitting to a referendum two designs of this type. However, Mr. Speaker, the resolution introduced by the hon. gentleman does provide an opportunity for the annual presentation of ideas on this question, and the discussion does bring forth some new and on occasion, as previously this session, distinctly novel ideas.
Recently I read in the newspapers about the great Liberal rally. The drums sounded, the horns were blown and the brass was there. They passed a resolution in favour of a distinctive national flag. Where are the brass this evening? Where is that great proponent of Canadian babies, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)? Where is the leader of the official opposition? Where is that very capable and likable member for Essex East (Mr. Martin), that gentleman who speaks so fluently in both languages and who has had an experience in life denied to many of us, having a good knowledge of French-Canadian culture and an intimate association with the other cultures of this country?
I cannot understand why, Mr. Speaker, after passing that resolution, after its publication in the press of Canada, these hon. gentlemen do not seize the opportunity presented to them tonight to advocate and support, whether or not they agree with the motion, the need for a distinctive national flag for Canada. Once again they have failed to take advantage of the opening of the door of opportunity, even when it was opened by a government member.
Having said that, I want to say a few words on this resolution to express my personal opinions and, I trust, make some contribution to the debate. I am delighted to see the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) listening so carefully to what I have to say. I happened to be a member of the flag committee in 1946 which went very thoroughly into this question and, strangely enough, at that time came to a conclusion. The one member who differed from that conclusion was Mr. Lacroix. At that time we accepted the red ensign with the union jack in its fly, less than one quarter size, and the maple leaf imposed on a white background. We were told by those skilled in heraldry that as long as the union jack was a little less than a quarter size in the fly, it did not indicate domination by another nation. I forget the details, but I think the maple leaf on the white background was symbolic of Canada, and the union jack indicated that Canada was a member of the British commonwealth of nations.
Flags of Canada
This committee reported, but the report never came before the House of Commons. There were some influences at work behind the scenes. Apparently the prime minister of the day got cold feet later in the proceedings, and nothing happened. We have had quite a number of discussions since that time. I cannot go into all the bills that have been presented, but I think one of the most interesting was known as the Hollingworth bill, presented by a Liberal member in 1955. This hon. gentleman suggested that the secretary of state should be authorized to prepare a design for a distinctive national flag for Canada, and submit the same for approval of the government of Canada. During the discussions the hon. member was supported by a number of his colleagues in the house. At least it was a constructive suggestion, but the government of the day failed to take action on the bill. Personally, and I think my colleagues at that time, expressed the opinion that this was not a satisfactory way of providing a distinctive Canadian flag. There was a good deal of discussion on the bill, but that was the last we heard of it. That was the Hollingworth bill.
Later on a bill came before the house known as the Lincoln bill. I have great respect and admiration for the hon. member for Lincoln. Every time I listen to his interesting and musical burr I can smell the heather; I see the swish of kilts and I can hear the drone of the bagpipes. I give him full marks for the best of intentions and for being an excellent Canadian citizen and member of this house.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I want to say right now that the hon. gentleman achieved a distinction by introducing this bill. Some persons achieve distinction by birth; others achieve distinction as a result of great achievements in the public service, something after the fashion of the hon. member for Essex East. Some people achieve distinction as a result of their accomplishments in science and other fields of activity. However, it was left to the hon. member for Lincoln to achieve distinction in a most unusual and unique way. He achieved distinction by introducing a bill into this house 300 years too late. He should have been a member of the executive council of 1760 instead of the House of Commons in 1960. However, I give him full marks for good purpose and good intentions. I am sure I can speak for the united opposition when I say that I have their permission to bestow upon him the accolade of the royal and ancient and honourable order of Rip Van Winkles.
I want to express a few opinions with respect to this question. I often find a great

Flags of Canada
conflict between my emotions and my intellectual conceptions. I notice the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) listening very carefully. He is as usual hoping I will make a slip and upset our political applecart. Let me say first I am a great believer in the value of a knowledge of history, the value of traditions and the value of the symbols that represent history, traditions and culture. I have a great affection for my French-Canadian colleagues. I love their Gallic vivacity, and their sometimes volatile approach to life, their liveliness. I am very fond, also of their charming ladies.
I may say, too, that I have a great respect for the union jack. I was brought up in a home where the union jack was very much respected. The union jack, to me, is symbolic of the struggle for freedom in Great Britain through the centuries, the development of parliamentary institutions and the laying of the foundation of the democracy we enjoy today. You cannot sweep that history away overnight, or by a motion. You cannot forget it that easily.
If I had my way on this question I should like to see a flag upon which were emblazoned the symbols representing the traditions and history and culture of our French-Canadian colleagues and their compatriots all over Canada. They have a great past and history. The fleur-de-lis represents the chivalry of France. What more inspiring national anthem is there in the world today than the Marseillaise. I ask that of anyone. When it is played it almost makes you wish you were a Frenchman. The Canadian people of French ancestry have made a great contribution to the evolution of democracy and the development of many facets of our national life. As I was saying before, I wish we could design a flag acceptable to all Canadians that would provide for the representation of the symbols that represent the traditions and culture of the French, the history behind the union jack, and in some way include symbols that would represent the other races that go to make up our nation. However, that is my personal opinion. I am a democrat and I am willing to accept the decision of the majority, on this and any other question.
I am sure that the time will come in the future when public opinion will be crystallized sufficiently to make a decision. As I said before, I should like to see a flag which blended the symbols of these races that make up our nation. However, there is a strong sentiment in favour of a distinctive national flag. Let me say this, though.
When you say "a distinctive national flag" I find that opinions as to what composes a distinctive national flag are as varied as are the flags of the world today. I speak to one

person in my constituency and he says, "Certainly I am in favour of a distinctive national flag with a union jack on it". I speak to someone else and he says, "Yes, I am in favour of a distinctive national flag but I do not wish to have a union jack on it; I want something distinctive on it". In my opinion we can have a satisfactory compromise; that is to say, when the time is ripe, when public opinion is crystallized, we can have a distinctive Canadian flag and at the same time fly legally in Canada the union jack as the symbol of our membership in the commonwealth of nations.
The matter of obtaining a design is not as simple as it appears to be on the surface. I was on the committee in 1946 and at that time I think that we had 2,600 designs.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: There were 2,695, to be exact.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the hon. gentleman for his assistance. The hon. gentleman is so inactive that the figures remained in his mind throughout the years. I thank him for the assistance. These designs were submitted then. Personally, I am of the opinion that that is not the correct way in which to choose a national flag. A flag is something to be designed by experts, those interested in heraldry who understand procedure, history, custom and practice and the meaning of symbols. I think that part of the matter is for experts. Let them submit for adoption not more than half a dozen designs. I would prefer to see two or three.
A properly designed flag conveys a signal. That is the point. As I mentioned with regard to the flag the committee suggested, we were told that the maple leaf in the centre on a white background to anyone on the sea or elsewhere or to anyone who understood the signals, meant Canada and that the union jack in the right hand corner, a little more than quarter the size of the flag, represented Canada as a member of the commonwealth. Design is extremely important. For instance, when you come to design a flag these matters must be taken into consideration.
I may say that I have done a little bit of reading on this subject; I did it some time ago, about as many years ago as when the figures mentioned by the hon. member were imprinted upon his mind. Vertical lines in flags represent strength. Horizontal lines represent repose. However, lines at an angle of 45 degrees in heraldry represent instability and represent, shall I say, something falling rather than support or strength. These things all must be considered and many people do not understand that designing flags is a science and an art. I therefore believe it is a question of the public having some understanding of

the necessity for experts to design a flag, having regard to the meaning of heraldry and the meaning of the signals that a flag is intended to convey.
I am sure that we can design a flag which will be acceptable to the great majority of the Canadian people and whose signals will represent first of all that we are Canadians. Then as I said before, I suggest we should fly in Canada on an equal basis the union jack as being representative of our membership in the commonwealth of nations.
It is my opinion these debates on the flag give an opportunity for expressions of opinion. They also create some discussion in the country. I think more education must be done on the part of all of us in the parts of Canada represented by our French-Canadian colleagues and in other parts of Canada with regard to what is implied in the design of a Canadian flag and the signals we want to be represented or conveyed by that flag. Then we shall have a crystallized informed public opinion. Then, in my opinion, the time will be ripe, as a result of a referendum or a plebiscite, for the Canadian people to determine their wishes in this matter according to our thoroughly democratic practices and procedures.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) for bringing this matter before us at this time. He is to be commended for his diligence in this matter. I think it can be said thal there is no matter that is of more interest and importance to Canadians than the matter of a distinctive Canadian flag. In a few more years we shall be celebrating our centennial here in Canada and at that time it would be well if all Canadians could share that measure of unity that may be enhanced by a distinctive Canadian flag.
The union jack, which to many is reminiscent of colonial days, has served us well during the past 94 years. To many it is the flag of Canada. I can understand the significance that it must assuredly have for all of those who have followed it in line of battle, whether on sea or land or in the air. To many of them there can never be any other flag that will so surely represent those things which they were prepared to defend, and which in their minds represented the Canadian nation. Then too, there are those who, through direct descent, look on the union jack as the flag of conquest in so far as Canada is concerned. It is among these persons that there exists a measure of difference of opinion with regard to the solution of the problem as to what shall be a truly Canadian flag. That division seems
Flags of Canada
to have been drawn between many of our English-speaking Canadians and many of our French-speaking Canadians.
As one who represents the third dimension in Canadian life, namely that of those Canadians of other origins, I wish to offer my contribution to this debate. In doing so I am conscious of the measure of the differences of opinion that divide a number of Canadians of English ancestry and a number of Canadians of French ancestry as well on this issue. The argument I wish to advance is in support of the premise that we are not yet ready as a nation to face a referendum on this issue in so far as a choice of a particular design for a flag is concerned. Indeed, a referendum might serve to emphasize division rather than unity in this nation at this particular time. I will also try to establish the premise that the section of the Canadian population that I feel is neutral in this matter may indeed be the one that will have to be a deciding factor when we Anally come to adopt a flag other than that which we now acknowledge as our own.
There are good arguments that can be advanced to support this premise. Most of those in this third section of our population are relatively free from any of the pressures that may be regarded as prejudice by either of Canada's founding families. Most of us want the flag of Canada to represent the true complexion of this nation. The argument is often used that it must therefore not include any symbol that might emphasize the dual personality of the foundations upon which this nation had its beginning.
I am inclined to believe that the flag of Canada should emphasize that dual personality and preserve it for future generations. This is a matter that is taking on more importance with the passage of the years. As the intermingling of the two great races, and those others included in our third dimension, are gradually and surely changing by a process of erosion and diffusion, the differences that in the beginning seemed so important are today still important because they are giving this nation a distinctive character and personality before the world.
Our parliamentary system, our judicial system and our membership in the British commonwealth of nations all stem in part from our connection with the British people and the union jack. It would seem to me that Canadians, particularly in that third dimensional group, certainly appreciate and value the opportunities and the justice that these instruments of government, law and mutual security have provided.
Many of them fled the old lands of Europe and other continents to escape conditions and circumstances that these institutions have

Flags of Canada
prevented from taking place here in Canada. To many of them the union jack will forever be a reminder of their homeland or birthplace, simply because it represented a haven here in Canada against the old established inequities which had held for them little or limited hope for the future in the land of their birth. To them a Canadian flag without some resemblance to the union jack just does not seem possible.
Before we leave this aspect it might be well to mention those who through the history of their homelands were at one time or another, because of their national background, in conflict with Great Britain. Their decision to come to Canada was not overcome by the fact that we had a Canadian flag in the form of the union jack. In most cases it was because of this flag and what it represented that they became interested in emigrating to Canada.
I have known some of these people who could never really cherish any great warmth of affection for Great Britain as such, but who nevertheless looked upon the fruits of her handiwork here in Canada as most desirable. That feeling has continued to grow during the two wars, and with the advent of atomic power, together with our geographical position, almost as the axis upon which contending forces in world power are revolving, a new appreciation has been growing in this country in so far as the contribution of the mother country-and I refer to Great Britain-in placing us on our own feet as a distinctive nation. The British connection which to many people, if not altogether repugnant was not too desirable, has now taken on a new complexion, particularly in so far as the gallant stand that the people of Britain made for all mankind during the last war.
These people coming to Canada from all around the globe to find security from the insecurities of their homelands have seen, sometimes almost unwillingly, the union jack emerge as the symbol of their fondest hopes and dreams built here in Canada. Those who in the years gone by have looked upon the wars in Europe as something detached from Canada, and who considered our intervention on the side of Great Britain, and sometimes France, as something compelled by colonial ties with either of these nations, are today faced with the other alternative because the shift in the power balance of the world has placed their chosen land in the position where it could conceivably become the battleground should world confliot again overcome the better judgment of men and nations.
The contribution of French culture to Canada's personality is a living reality. We see it everywhere we go in Canada, and

particularly so in the province of Quebec. The constitution of our nation embraces and compels a recognition of a continuing application of those influences that should not be forgotten in building the fabric of a distinctively Canadian flag.
Those who say that there must not or should not be any indication of that unique influence in the pattern of a distinctive Canadian flag do not have any more proper appreciation of Canadian history than those who would deny the identities that are called to our national mind by the union jack.
As the hon. member for St. Boniface stated today, we should have a flag that would represent the image of our nation. This debate should serve a useful purpose at this time; it will inspire all of us to give this matter increased attention. There is still time in which a decision can finally be reached without a referendum.
Whatever the design finally approved by parliament and the Canadian people, it should be a reminder to us of our beginnings as a nation. It should reflect the part that Great Britain played in the development of our institutions. It should also reflect the personality of Canada as it has developed under the enriching influence of French culture. But more than that, it must also reflect the personality of a nation having that third dimension, that of those who chose Canadian citizenship after the destiny of Canada was decided in the articles of confederation.
Because of our history this nation has a distinctive personality. It would be a poor Canadian who would be ashamed of any of that heritage. It is one of our greatest strengths upon which we can build in the future. It is also one of the best examples that any nation can show to her friends and neighbours in the world community.
We cannot rewrite the history of our country. Our task is to take that history and bring it into the fabric of our national life in such a way that unity may be multiplied until all our people can truthfully feel distinctively Canadian. That day is nearer now than ever before in our history.
I want to congratulate once more the hon. member for St. Boniface for giving all Canadians a reminder that there are still some objectives which remain to be achieved before the true distinction of Canadian citizenship becomes clearly established here in Canada. (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, even if we do not
share the views of some of our fellow members, be they Liberal, C.C.F. or Conservative, it is nevertheless permissible, under our democratic principles, to speak accord-

ing to our conscience on a subject of essential significance, like the adoption of a distinctive national flag.
This afternoon, I heard the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), deal as he has done but rarely since sitting in this house, with the matter of a distinctive national flag.
At this time, I refer to an order in council enacted on Wednesday, September 5, 1945, of which I will read a few excerpts:
The Canadian red ensign should be flown on federal government buildings and all doubt with regard to the relevancy of flying this ensign whenever a distinctive Canadian flag is to be flown, should be dispelled.
It is desirable to authorize the flying of the Canadian red ensign on federal government buildings within as well as without Canada, and to remove any doubt as to the propriety of flying the Canadian red ensign wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag;
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, is pleased to order and doth hereby order that the red ensign with the shield of the coat of arms of Canada in the fly may be flown from buildings owned or occupied by the federal government within and without Canada.
That departmental order was enacted in 1945, under the Mackenzie King government. And who was a member of the cabinet council at the time? None other than the hon. member for Laurier who then co-operated in the enactment of that order in council. How is it that the hon. member, the former member for Stormont, was in favour of a flag bearing the red ensign in the fly, while today, as the member for Laurier, he wants a distinctive national flag? I cannot understand his attitude. He is not sincere, he is not consistent. He changes his views as he moves from one province to another and he will probably be a candidate in some other province at the next election, and he probably will then have some other conception of a distinctive national flag.
Mr. Speaker, may I read here part of a statement Mr. Pearson made during the election, when campaigning in the province of Quebec. This item from Le Devoir of March 7, 1958 reads as follows:
Mr. Pearson's statement on the necessity of a national flag has been welcomed In the capital city. However, it has been noted that during his meeting with the students, at the Reform Club of Montreal, the Liberal leader saw fit to add, on the matter of the flag, that it may be necessary then to discuss whether such a flag should or should not contain the union jack. A Conservative with nationalist tendencies observed that in the province of Quebec Mr. Pearson gave some guarantee to a certain well known English-speaking group.
Flags of Canada
That is, he maintains-or at least, does not clearly repudiate-the avowed opinion of Jack Pickersgill and James Sinclair on that matter. This is not what had been expected by the people of Quebec who are irrevocably in favour of the adoption of a distinctive national flag, without any sign of subservience to any country. A Liberal told us this; "If Mr. Pearson said he is in favour of having the union jack in our national flag, he would have done better to hold his tongue. His statement will do more harm than good to the Quebec Liberals."
Ladies and gentlemen-
Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, I am so conscious at this time of addressing the people of Canada, since all the hon. members in this house represent the people of this country, that I have perhaps disregarded the rules of the house.
But I cannot understand the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition, who is very much of a diplomat. He reminds me somewhat of that non-committal type of diplomat who says no and yes at the same time. He is always sitting on the fence whenever he goes in the province of Quebec. During the last election campaign, he was in favour of a distinctive flag and, if he is asked to be specific, he favours a flag bearing a union jack. The Leader of the Opposition reminds me a little of the hon. member for Laurier whose views about the adoption of a Canadian flag change from year to year.
As for the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill)-a member of this house referred to him this afternoon- I put a question to him, Mr. Speaker, following which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made a correction, as reported in Hansard. This is what he said:
I stated many times and I state again that the Canadian flag is the one stipulated by order in council of December 5, 1945.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate's feelings about the Canadian flag are the same as those of the hon. member for Laurier at the time his government passed the order in council in 1945.
I understand the attitude of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate since his leader is not the Leader of the Opposition, but rather the premier of Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, a flag is not only the symbol of an adult nation, it is also the result of that nationality itself, its official confirmation by means of an order in council emanating from responsible authorities. Is there anything more depressing for Canadian delegates

Flags of Canada
at international gatherings than to note the absence of their own flag?
Those of us who have visited foreign countries, who have stayed in our embassies, legations or consulates abroad have felt ashamed because of the absence of a Canadian flag.
Why should we proclaim to the whole world the importance and strength of Canada when we do not even have a flag waving on our public buildings or on the hood of our ambassadors' cars?
A flag means much for a free citizen. In its folds, he rediscovers his whole history. Looking at it, he can feel the spirit of the nation, whose heart beats in unison with his own. For its flag, a nation lives, fights and dies. And we have not even got a distinctive national flag. For years, the Canadian government has refused to shoulder its responsibilities, because it did not seem to think it had the necessary authority to choose a flag representative of our nation here and abroad.
Many of us are aware that national unity is now materializing under the wise stewardship of the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker). It would be superfluous to give a recital of the numerous statements made here by the Prime Minister in an effort to cement national unity. I can assure hon. members that the government is giving consideration to all suggestions bearing on this subject. I am sure that a possibility exists and that in the near future we will have a distinctive national flag in keeping with the aspirations of the nation which will give a feeling of pride to every Canadian.
A great man has said that the last shot for the defence of the British Empire would be fired by a French Canadian. Those of us who have witnessed the warm and imposing reception granted Her Majesty the Queen and all the members of the royal family know that French Canadians do not harbour any hostility against royalty. The question need not even be asked about the English Canadians. The two groups realize the importance of the British monarchy within the commonwealth. Thousands of designs have been proposed. A joint committee of the Senate and the house has seriously studied the problem, but it left us without a symbol. Among all the designs already submitted, I remember one which thrilled me and made me very proud. It was proposed by the college of Joliette, in my riding. It was a very beautiful flag which honoured both our 
English and French ancestors by describing in a single design the development of both our groups.


Samuel Boulanger: Who wrote that speech?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: By the way, in reply to what the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) just said, we have no Mr. Lamontagne to write our speeches for us.
Mr. Speaker, are there still people saying that we do not yet deserve a national distinctive flag or an official national anthem? I see members on the other side laughing while such a serious problem as the choice of a distinctive national flag is being discussed. I know why, Mr. Speaker. They have always shirked their responsibilities in the matter. The hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is one of those who in 1945 showed their true face to the nation. Like the Leader of the Opposition he runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds; he is always running back and forth, afraid to take a stand, afraid to say what he thinks, since he cannot erase his past record as minister of the crown.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is high time the government of Canada examined the possibility of giving the country a distinctive national flag. I congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface who introduced the resolution. It should bring him congratulations from all his colleagues. I am very much disappointed, Mr. Speaker, to see members like the hon. members for Cochrane (Mr. Habel), for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) and Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) sitting there talking and laughing while such an important matter as the adoption of a distinctive national flag is being discussed. Seeing them, I cannot help thinking about the hon. member for Laurier who is Canada's number one joker.
(Text):


Mr. J. N. Ormision (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of taking part in this discussion of the proposed resolution introduced by my friend the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) and wish to take this opportunity, too, of congratulating the hon. member upon sponsoring this debate.
Certainly there should be extended discussion on the topic of the national flag before any action can be taken. Even the mention of a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag will initiate some serious

thinking on the matter and in this way prepare all individuals for making the best selection possible.
However, taking action in a situation of this nature which crosses the complex lines of heritage and culture requires serious study. We cannot deny that a national flag would be an indication of greater unity but judging from the opinions expressed from time to time on this question the adoption of a flag of a particular design at this particular time may well create a little dissension.
While a flag itself is only a symbol it should be truly emblematic of the spirit and character of its people and before a referendum is even considered we as a people must recognize the need to designate in our flag a design which is typical of a free and independent nation.
The suggestions contained in this resolution regarding the type of flag are quite restricted and certainly offer only a limited choice. Surely in asking for a referendum it would be unwise to offer only one other pattern besides that of the red ensign and expect a popular reaction to such a move. Those who have prepared and submitted other designs are equally entitled to consideration should steps be taken to promote the acceptance of a flag other than that in use at the present time.
I am prompted to say something further about the adoption of a Canadian flag because only as recently as Friday of last week I received several suggestions in this subject from a group of high school students from the town of Neudorf, Saskatchewan. The designs in question were both original and artistic and were forwarded with the approval of the local chamber of commerce. This action certainly shows an awakening in the minds of some of our younger students to the need for some action as suggested by the hon. member for St. Boniface, but even as we are discussing the possibility of a distinctive flag the fact remains that in the face of change, custom and tradition die hard and there are those-and I must include myself in this group-who are imminently satisfied with existing arrangements.
It will be recalled that during the war a referendum was called on the conscription issue and in spite of the wishes of the majority no action on the part of the federal government was forthcoming. More recently in Saskatchewan a plebiscite was held on the time zone question which proved little except that such a vote was an expensive proceeding in view of the result achieved.
In conclusion I should like to make this point. I believe that we, the representatives of the people, should be guided by the wishes
Flags of Canada
of those whom we represent and if any government action in this respect is taken in the future it should be done on the basis of a referendum.
(Translation):


Mr. J. A. Habel (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, the question now before us is one, as I said before, of great importance to me. I would say by the way that if we laughed a bit during the speech of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), it is because he seems to be carried away so easily that he makes us laugh even if he is speaking about rather serious questions.
There is nothing new in the question now before us. I talked about it in May 1939 in the Ontario legislature during the visit of their Majesties in Canada.
I remember very well that my first words went something like this:	The previous
speakers talked about their Majesties, the King and Queen of England; they also talked about the British empire. I added: I am sorry that no one saw fit to mention the fact that we were talking about receiving our king in Canada. In fact, His Majesty George VI had been crowned King of England and also King of Canada and of the other dominions of the empire and of the commonwealth.
Thus the king of England was at that time, as Her Majesty the Queen is now, Sovereign of Canada as well as of England.
I sincerely believe that the great majority of Canadians are happy to safeguard this symbol of monarchy. Our people are quite happy to live under a monarchy.
However, this does not prevent the question of a flag from making the headlines from time to time and to give rise to a discussion which in time will inevitably show the way towards the solution of that problem.
Mr. Speaker I have here a letter from a grand-niece of mine, daughter of my nephew whose father is French Canadian and whose mother is English. They live in Toronto. On December 14, I received from that grandniece of mine a letter which I shall not quote in its entirety because the little girl tells me at the same time about the whole family. But here is the main point of her letter:
(Text):
The question I wanted to ask was, why haven't we got a Canadian flag?
(Translation):
A little ten year old girl attending an English school in Toronto puts the following question to her uncle: How is it that we do not yet have a Canadian flag?

Flags of Canada
In other words, an effort must be made, not only by youngsters but by older people to have a better understanding of this question.
Last year, I said that that question had to be discussed with calm and consistency, somewhat like the hon. member for Mata-pedia-Matane (Mr. Belzile) did this afternoon. Evidently, he managed occasionally to blame the previous prime minister. But, in politics, one must expect to be criticized occasionally.
We must admit that this is a question that must be discussed with moderation in order that the feelings of one and all may be properly understood.
Some people still believe that there should be room in the Canadian flag for the British coat of arms; others believe that we should add the fleur-de-lis.
It is only through a thorough study of the arguments put forward that we shall no doubt find the design of a really distinctive flag, which will be the very proof of our mutual understanding.
Not so long ago, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith) introduced a bill in this house. Although it was never disposed of, and since I do not want to be out of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your permission to refer to it. The measure was rejected due, perhaps, to certain pressures although a resolution was passed by the city council of St. Catharines.
I have here, Mr. Speaker, a copy of the resolution adopted by the municipal council of that city. I do not find anything in that resolution that bears any resemblance to the wording of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Lincoln.
That resolution calls for a distinctive flag for Canada.
With unanimous consent of the house, I should like to put that resolution on record. (Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member who has the floor suggests that a copy of a resolution passed by the city council of St. Catharines be made an appendix to today's Hansard. Has the hon. member leave of the house to do so?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: This will interfere with the bill of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Smith).


Mr. Smiih (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, that resolution is already recorded in Hansard. I read it myself.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent to the hon. member's proposal.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Then, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to two municipal councils in my riding

which have supported the same resolution I will have to read the resolution. The council of the town of Cochrane has accepted this resolution without reservation and has written me a letter asking me to support the demand for a distinctive flag. The council of the town of Hearst has also endorsed the same resolution. Because of the fact that members on the government side refuse to allow the resolution to be embodied in Hansard I will read part of it. It is in these words:
That whereas this council is aware that on the fifth day of September, 1945, the federal government by its order in council number P.C. 5888 declared it appropriate to fly the Canadian red ensign within and without Canada, wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag .. .
Now therefore be it resolved that the federal government and the Right Hon. the Prime Minister of Canada be and they are hereby required to amend order in council P.C. 5888 or to pass a new order in council to provide forthwith for the establishment of a distinctive Canadian flag.
These two municipal councils in my riding support the resolution passed by the city council of St. Catharines and this goes to show that the resolution is absolutely in accordance with the amendment we have moved today.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, the matter of a flag arouses great interest among Canadians, more particularly among our young people. It seems that time ripens too slowly for some older people, or that we take too long to come to a final decision. Just the same we have to admit that the idea has made some headway, and that the moment will soon come when we shall have to take a decision.
To the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm who, a moment ago, indulged in cynical remarks regarding certain statements or newspapers' reports about the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson), and who said that the hon. member for Laurier seemed to change his mind as he changed provinces, I would remind him that it is strange that a native of the province of Quebec, as I am myself, should say such things, because I was elected to the Ontario legislature not only by French Canadians but also by English-speaking citizens and people of other origins. And this happened only six years after my arrival in that province, which is now my province of adoption. In my opinion, this means that the province of Ontario-which some people like to call the imperialistic province-accept natives of Quebec province to the point of making them their provincial members. I am therefore amazed that Conservative members from Quebec

should be shocked at seeing a native of Ontario being elected in Quebec. I quite fail to understand that. It is something that only proves the narrow-mindedness of certain members.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. I must say that I usually have regard for the statements made by the hon. member for Cochrane but today he puts into my mouth words I have never uttered.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Did the hon. member for Joli-ette-L'Assomption-Montcalm not say, a moment ago, that the hon. member for Laurier changed his attitude regarding the adoption of a distinctive national flag just in the same manner as he moves from one province to another?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: That is true, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Did he not also say that he would not be surprised to see him run in another province at the next election?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I would not be surprised if he did.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Instead, he should realize that some of his friends are trying to give him good advice, that he should follow more carefully. If he is sick, he should be in the hospital, not in the House'of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, "once a drunkard, always a drunkard". Those are precisely the words that the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) has learned. This hon. member, a university teacher, seems unable to do anything but to repeat himself over and over again like a trained parrot.


An hon. Member:: You resent the fact that he is a better speaker than you.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Then, Mr. Speaker, while the other countries-
(Text):


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: You are endeavouring to adopt the idea of the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, divide and rule.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: If I were you, I would talk about a flag rather than interrupt an hon. member who is speaking. Now, Mr. Speaker, the other countries of the commonwealth have their own flags.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: We have a flag which was put up in 1946 by the Liberal party.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The countries of the commonwealth such as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, all have their own flags. I do not see why at this stage, after this question has been discussed so often in this house, and after all the reports and surveys that have been made by newspapers which clearly demonstrate the Canadian people as a whole want a Canadian flag, the government does not decide to do something about it.
Flags of Canada
I have in my hand a clipping from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record. It is not new because it is dated February 27, 1954. It reads as follows:
Reports from Australia indicate that Queen Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh are receiving a tumultuous welcome wherever they go. The Australians are giving a wonderful demonstration of loyalty at this first visit of a reigning sovereign to their country.
The fact that Australians have a distinctive national flag of their own isn't cooling their loyalty to the crown in the least. Opponents of a distinctive flag for Canada, please note.
I do think, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us to try to find a solution to the problem. As Hon. Mr. Drew said in the house in 1953 -I have to quote in French because this clipping is from a French newspaper:
(Translation):
During the course of a debate on a similar motion, the Hon. Mr. Drew expressed the following views, as reported in the L'Action Catholique of December 10, 1953:
Therefore, Mr. Drew does not feel that any more information on this matter could be obtained through the establishment of another parliamentary committee. The government must assume full responsibility in this regard ...
The Leader of the Opposition clearly states that he is in favour of a distinctive flag. However, he does not specify whether or not the union jack should be embodied in its design.
Mr. Speaker, in closing my remarks, I will say that the young generation of today will be our population of tomorrow, that the country will draw administrators from their ranks and that our young people may again- and I express the wish that they will not- be called to the defence of their country. Therefore, it is time for the government to make a thorough examination of this matter free from political considerations, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Mata-pedia-Matane (Mr. Belzile) this afternoon, and to try to find a solution to this problem once and for all.
(Text):


John Smith: My remarks at this time will be rather brief, Mr. Speaker, because I am mindful of what you said at the time this motion was introduced. You said you did not want this to develop into a debate on another bill which had been presented some time ago. I shall not therefore, say too much at this time. I am mindful of the fact that the bill which I presented had a rather rough experience. I might say, though, that it did result in a great deal of discussion, both in this house and across Canada. It also proved that one who is a backbencher and does not take too much part in the debates has to say something quite smart or do something very controversial if he wishes to catch the headlines.

Flags of Canada
I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I caught the headlines and I received letters and newspaper clippings from all parts of Canada. Some of them were not too complimentary. Nevertheless, there was not one that was against the principle of a Canadian national flag.
I am sorry the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is not in his seat at the moment. I had a letter from the lord lyon in Edinburgh. He was not suggesting he would design a flag for us, but he suggested that if we did not have a college of heraldry in Canada we should get one because he does work at the moment for governments and private individuals in Canada by way of designing coats of arms, flags, badges and a number of other things. However, be that as it may, I was pleased that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) was allowed to present his resolution. I was afraid that perhaps my bill had deprived him of the opportunity of doing so, and that was far from my thoughts. I should like to say that I appreciate the hon. member's sincerity in bringing a measure of this kind to the floor of the house. While there are some things in his motion of which I do not approve, I do not feel it is necessary at this time to put the question to the people in the form of a referendum which suggests the design of the flag.
I feel there has been enough discussion and enough talk on the subject throughout the country. It is a matter for the government to decide. I feel a decision should be taken much in the same way as the bill of rights was decided upon when it went through this house last year. If the government is ready to present a motion in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag, the matter could be studied by a committee of this house and reported upon. I am sure if that were done a satisfactory solution would be brought forward. I have always been very much in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. I have taken every opportunity to express my views that the time is long past when Canada should have a distinctive flag.
I am not going to repeat the things I said when I presented my bill. However, since that time several things have been brought to my attention by means of letters which I received. It has been brought to my attention, for instance, that at Niagara Falls, which is a border city, there is no Canadian flag of any kind flying over the customs building. There is not even a picture of Her Majesty the Queen in that building. I am not referring to the Peace bridge, which is at Fort Erie, and which is in a little different situation. I am quoting now from a letter I received from an Anglican minister who 
visited the three bridges, the Rainbow bridge, the lower bridge and the Queenston bridge. He said that at the customs houses at those three bridges he found no sign of any Canadian flag or any pictures of the Queen. You can cross the river to the United States side and find the beautiful stars and stripes flying over the customs building. This flag is lowered each evening, with dignity and according to tradition. Inside the United States customs building, they also have the United States flag. I saw it there myself when I was in the building.
There is no doubt about it that in this country we are losing our appreciation for our flag and even for our national independence. In my opinion there is nothing that portrays the independence or the loyalty of a country as well as a national flag. It is extremely unfortunate at this time that we do not have a national flag. I urge the government to take whatever steps are necessary, by way of bringing in a government bill and setting up a special committee to consider it, in order to give us a national flag for Canada. If this is done, I am sure that everybody will be satisfied.
I think that is all I have to say at this time. Again I express my appreciation to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Reg-nier) for bringing this matter to the attention of the house, although I do not entirely approve his motion.
(Translation):


Mr. J. J. Martel (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, after a long enough debate on this matter, I would not like to take too much of the time of the house. Therefore, I will express my views as briefly as possible and at the same time make some comment which I feel will be of general interest to hon. members.
First of all, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) for offering this resolution to our discussion and for affording public enlightenment on this matter which has been debated for so many years.
It proposes, of course, a referendum. I am entirely favourable to the principle of that proposal, but I wonder whether it would not be advisable to be more precise and to deal with the heart of the matter with the following question: "Are you in favour of a flag with a green maple leaf on a red and white background?" This being said, Mr. Speaker, I take the liberty of briefly relating with comments the history of this matter of a national flag. This is not the first time such a

matter comes up in Canadian politics. In the past, governments, organizations, members of parliament and many Canadians raised that significant issue, without obtaining definite results. I hope that, thanks to this discussion, we shall make some progress in this field.
In 1925, the Canadian government entrusted to a committee composed of government officials the study of designs for a national flag. That short-lived committee had to be dissolved because of its non-representative nature.
Later on, some hon. members engaged in discussions in the House of Commons but did not succeed in obtaining a vote of approval. We may recall, among other things, the motions that were submitted in 1931, 1933 and 1938. Other resolutions were introduced in 1934 and 1935.
More recently, that is in 1945, after the second world war, upon the return from overseas of our men who had been many times humiliated by other allied soldiers because Canada, though claiming to be independent, did not yet have a flag, the matter was taken up again. Public opinion had evolved by then, that is after the last world war and the matter gradually progressed.
For instance, in 1945, the government set up a joint committee of both houses, composed of 12 senators and 25 members of this house. That committee sat until July 11, 1946, but no report was ever tabled. Several hon. members who preceded me mentioned that fact during this debate.
I should now like to quote a few excerpts in order to prove that unanimity has gradually been reached in the matter of a distinctive Canadian flag. However, before doing so, I want to mention an editorial published on the subject in Le Soleil quite a while ago, on November 19, 1958. In view of the length of this text I propose to read, I suggest that it be printed in Hansard as read.


Yvon Dupuis: Oh. No.


Jean-Jacques Martel: Well, if I am not allowed to do so, I shall not read it in full, but just the more interesting parts. The editorial dated November 19, 1958 is entitled:
New reasons for choosing a Canadian flag.
And, it must be said, we often are the laughingstock of our neighbour, the United States-as I shall show in a few moments, quoting from Time magazine-and of other
Flags of Canada
nations throughout the world. That situation is reflected in the editorial, which says:
The press agencies who report news items from abroad often give their articles a savour which they don't suspect. Sometimes however, they do get somewhat suspicious.
Such is the case concerning a report of the United Press International from Karachi following the arrival of Prime Minister Diefenbaker in the capital city of Pakistan. We know that this is one of the main stopovers in Mr. Diefenbaker's visits to the capital cities of the commonwealth countries. It is reported that upon his arrival at the Karachi airport the Prime Minister was standing between the "Canadian" and Pakistanese flags. It is not without reason that the news agency puts the word Canadian in quotation marks.
As Canada assumes increasing international responsibilities, which is normal for a country in full development like ours, the absence of a really Canadian flag is tragically felt. One might say that a flag is only a symbol. It must be recognized that it is a particularly important symbol since all great countries are jealously safeguarding their respective flags. Is it not a fact that even the smallest nation upon reaching independence hastens to adopt its own national flag?
And the editorial goes on as follows:
Should we conclude that we are not yet completely independent? Such an objection would certainly not come to the minds of Canadians. But what about foreigners? Besides, the facts are there to show that we do not miss an opportunity on that score.
We are living in an era where international exchanges are numerous; no doubt the Prime Minister had a strong feeling about it when he was in Karachi. While Canada considers increasing its material assistance to Pakistan, that country could perhaps adopt for our benefit some kind of a Colombo plan to bolster our national pride and bring all its contribution to an underdeveloped country in that respect.
And the editorial goes on:
Nations of Asia ... might unite their efforts to advise us concerning the question of a flag. In order to spare our national feelings, so that such an aid does not bear any sign of heraldic domination, the best procedure would be no doubt to pass their suggestions through an international organization such as the United Nations, for instance. This organization in turn could dispel the fears of Canadians and explain to them that the suppression of a foreign emblem on their own flag does not necessarily constitute a provocative action which might cause an armed conflict, since there are after all a few nations which are not afflicted now with such a flag.
Lastly, since we are talking about international organizations, it might be useful if UNESCO were to organize in our country a comprehensive program of public education (through moving pictures as it is done in India, since a nation without a flag is certainly illiterate) to teach Canadians, slowly and painlessly, all that a national flag represents for a nation. With all the international organizations on our side, with the support of countries like Ghana and Pakistan, we would certainly obtain concrete results-which our Liberal and Conservative governments did not manage to

Flags of Canada
obtain. If we make haste, the news agencies will be able to write Canadian flag without quotation marks during the next trip abroad of the Canadian prime minister.
That shows clearly, Mr. Speaker, that concerning that question of a national flag, which we have not even adopted, not only among our neighbours in the United States, as I mentioned at the beginning, but also throughout the world, in all the other countries, when we proclaim our independence, we are the laughingstock of all those countries because they, at least, have adopted a national flag. And that is to what that article I have just read refers.
I have here another article from the same magazine, Time, for January 12, 1959. Since my hon. friends are opposed to my putting it on the record unless I read it, I shall not read it in full; I shall spare them that long ordeal but shall read only a few extracts in English, in order not to abuse the time of the house. That article is entitled:
(Text):
Much of old-line English-speaking Canada is well content to chant God Save the Queen and to hail the union jack. But French-speaking Canada resents these as symbols of subservience to Britain, prefers to sing O Canada and to salute the Canadian red ensign, though it, too, bears the union jack in the corner. Now another element has entered the flag fight.
(Translation):
I have read this to show that, at times, we are being laughed at, not only in remote countries, but south of the border, in those communities where people are not fully informed on the matter.
And further on, reference is made to a matter brought up by the native sons of Canada. I shall not quote the text in full, but only a few extracts. However, I would not like to be accused of selecting only opinions bearing on a particular context. The article goes on as follows:
(Text):
The flag is serious business for the native sons, mostly blue-collar workers and low-income clerks, who bar foreign-bom citizens from regular membership and who, until a few years ago, admitted only Canadians of "white or Canadian Indian descent". They are yammering for parliamentary action. When one son recently urged that Liberal Leader Lester Pearson take a stand on the flag, Pearson replied that "the matter will be raised in the House of Commons when parliament reconvenes".
(Translation):
Well, Mr. Speaker, I see that the Leader of the Opposition is not at his place at the moment.


Yvon Dupuis: Neither is the Prime Minister.


Mr.   Mariel@: Surely he would have derived benefit from that discussion, because he stated to the native sons of Canada that the matter would be discussed in the house when parliament would reconvene.
TMr. Martel.]
There are other matters related to that problem which, necessarily, are bound, some day, to unite rather than divide us. That matter of a distinct flag is very important, and I am in favour of the adoption of a Canadian flag, precisely in order to ensure the greatness of Canada, to achieve recognition for Canada all over the world as a fully independent nation, and in order to definitely establish that Canada is a fully independent country, which is guaranteed by the constitution. Therefore, I sincerely wish that the matter be definitely settled, so that the flag may become a rallying sign and not a symbol of division.
I have here another editorial taken from the review Jeune Commerce, and which is signed by Jules G. Tessier. I shall only read its conclusion, unless my hon. friends allow me to put it on the record. Since they do not seem inclined to allow me to do so, I shall therefore read only its conclusion.
Our so-called differences of opinions and our distinct cultures do not prevent us from being Canadians above all. Besides, when we take time to know ourselves well, we readily realize that there is more affinity between French and English Canadians than there may exist between us and France or England.
If only we could remember and forget at the same time.
To remember the heroic actions of our ancestors and forget who were the enemies. When we can face history with pride but without fanaticism, when we can understand that the respect due to France and England does not make us share their identity, we will then have our distinctive national flag and anthem which will only be the external signs of adult Canadianism.
Those are the conclusions of that article.
And before concluding my remarks, may I refer to the few facts mentioned earlier by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Habel). He said that he has received a letter from his niece. For my part, I have received a letter from a young student girl of my constituency. In fact, she sent me in June 1959 a flag design and at the same time expressed her views. It was a young student from Amos-I may give her name, since she is not my niece, she is Miss Anne Bigue-and she told me that this question should be definitely settled before the centennial of confederation, in 1967.
To our youth, the Canadian flag is a matter of burning interest.
Before concluding, I should like to call your attention to a report published in Maclean's magazine of February 1958, which is a true picture of the views of all young Canadians across the country.

(Text):
This is from "Backstage with Youth" in Maclean's magazine:
Has it rejected old ties for Canada-first?
Young Canadians have tended to rebel against historic ties with Britain and France in favour of greater nationalism throughout this century. The current generation is heading more swiftly than any other down the path of Canada-first, it is suggested by a recent opinion survey among 1,200 high school students.
(Translation):
I will omit the part that deals with the national anthem since it has nothing to do with this debate. I come directly to the conclusion about a distinctive flag.
(Text):
On the flag question the sexes were split more widely.
(Translation):
The question had been put to the boys and the girls in this way:
(Text):
That is between boys and girls:
Here's where the 83.7 per cent who favoured a distinct Canadian flag stand on the question-
(Translation):
Please note, Mr. Speaker that 83.7 per cent are in favour of a distinctive national flag.
(Text):
"Should it include the fleur-de-lis or the union jack, or parts of both, or be completely different?"
(Translation):
So, to that question, an average of 35.7 per cent of the boys and girls answered that the flag should be different, namely 40.7 per cent of the boys and 30.7 per cent of the girls. It should be noted that a great number did not give any answer. However, the majority declared themselves in favour of a distinctive national flag.
In addition, the table shows that 2.4 per cent of the boys, as well as 1.4 per cent of the girls, or an average of 1.9 per cent, were in favour of the fleur-de-lis. In favour of the union jack, were 11.7 per cent of the boys, against 13.9 per cent of the girls, or an average of 12.8 per cent. Also, 26.4 per cent of the boys and 29.9 of the girls, or an average of 28.2 per cent, would prefer to have both in part. But the general average, that is the majority, is in favour of a distinctive flag and do not want to see any sign of allegiance on the flag.
The article goes on:
(Text):
The kid's apparent lack of interest in the fleur-de-lis is probably explained by under-representation of French Canada in the sample. But the survey is well balanced otherwise. The 1,200 youngsters whose opinions make up the percentages were chosen at random from a list of 200,000 of 90205-6-85
Flags of Canada
the country's 380,000 high school students. Their answers are weighted according to the populations of the cities they live in.
(Translation):
I would like to correct an opinion which may still exist among Canadians of other provinces, because it was mentioned in the house by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) when he said that the French Canadians or the Canadians from the province of Quebec were in favour of a flag including the fleur-de-lis. I, for one, have never suggested including the fleur-de-lis. We want a flag without any symbol of an outside allegiance, and it is on that note that I wish to conclude my remarks.
I want to underline here something said by the member for Kootenay-West (Mr. Herridge):
(Text):
When the time is crystallized, we can have a distinctive national flag.
(Translation):
Well, I hope the time will soon come when we will have a distinctive national flag. I also hope we will be able to submit this question to the Canadian people for a final decision on the matter.
With regard to the fleur-de-lis, we in the province of Quebec have a provincial flag of which we are proud.
Last year, the province of Ontario decided to fly on its parliament buildings in Toronto the red ensign with the maple leaf. Here perhaps, is a means of implementing the suggestion that each of the ten provinces should have as an emblem a flag of its own, which need not be the national flag but one in keeping with the group of Canadians represented and recalling the particular history of such groups. Then we could hope to have a really distinctive national flag, and we would have unity in diversity.
But, I repeat, Canada as a whole must have a distinctive national flag. Let us enable Canadians from coast to coast to decide once and for all on a truly distinctive flag which would give added strength to its motto "A mari usque ad mare" and strengthen national unity at all times and especially in trying periods.
(Text):


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the different members expressing their views concerning the resolution proposed by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier). I heartily agree that we should have a distinctive flag. Visitors coming to our country are puzzled as they see the union jack and the red ensign flying in the different cities, towns and hamlets of our country.

Flags of Canada
During the last ten years our country has grown rapidly and our new Canadians have made a great contribution to the welfare and progress of our country. I have been associated with people of many nationalities, especially in my own riding of Waterloo North, where we have one of the greatest cosmopolitan centres in Canada. The great majority of these people have been constantly enquiring about a distinctive flag. Evidently they have become real Canadians and are interested in many matters, including that of a distinctive flag for Canada. By royal proclamation of November 21, 1921, the King declared:
The King, at the request of Canada, assigns to Canada the national colours white and red and declares that the national emblem of Canada shall be three red maple leaves on one stem, on a white field. These shall be used to represent Canada on all appropriate occasions.
I believe that a Canadian flag when chosen should be easily recognizable and unlike any other. It should be visible at a distance, characteristic in structure, and appropriate. It should be symbolic of our country and of our position as a sovereign state in the family of nations, lending itself, also, to variation for different purposes.
It may be of some value at this time to note that the history of the Canadian flag from the treaty of Paris in 1763 to the present date is as follows:
1763-1801-the flag of Great Britain (England and Scotland) was used officially and for all purposes.
1801-1911-the union jack was assumed to be and, with certain minor and generally unofficial exceptions, was used as the official flag of Canada.
1870-the blue ensign, defaced by the Canadian coat of arms, was designated for use on Canadian government vessels.
1892-the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly was authorized for use by merchant vessels registered in Canada. This was confirmed in the Canada Shipping Act, 1934.
1911-the union jack was officially declared to be flown at the stern and the blue ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly to be flown at the jack staff of all vessels of the Royal Canadian Navy.
1924-the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly was authorized to be flown "over all premises owned or occupied by the Canadian government abroad."
1924-the present coat of arms was substituted for the old Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick quarterings for use on the fly of all Canadian flags.

The dominion command of the Canadian Legion passed the following resolution in 1958:
Be it resolved that this convention requests the federal government to place the selection of a Canadian national flag before the people in the form of a referendum using
(a)	the flag recommended in the majority report of the parliamentary committee of July, 1946, or
(b)	the flag recommended by the minority report of the same committee.
I am in favour of a referendum concerning the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: It seems to me the Canadian people are going to be surprised at the activities which have taken place in the Canadian parliament today. All hon. members who have spoken have said we should have a Canadian flag, knowing full well that the longer we talk today the less chance there is of it coming to pass this year. It seems to me the people are going to wonder at our inability to solve our problems in the normal way. It seems to me that if the government of the day had any gumption they would take action, either through a committee or by coming right out and saying that tomorrow, for instance, the Canadian ensign is going to be the national flag, and that is final. Three weeks later there would be no more noise heard about it, and we would have a flag whether we were all in favour of it or not.
For years and years we have been dithering about this question. We have been a nation for more than a hundred years and we are no closer to getting this flag than we were decades ago, except that we now have thousands of suggestions to choose from when originally we had only one or two. I was talking to a girl from Australia who was at the United Nations representing that country. We were talking about flags and national anthems and she pointed out that Australia had got a national anthem by the back-door method. Americans had come to Australia and decided that the Australian national anthem was "Waltzing Matilda". They always played that tune in honour of Australians at every type of function and very soon it became the national anthem. It seems to me that if we fool around for many more years in an attempt to satisfy each of 18 million inhabitants of this country we shall be getting a flag in the same way as Australia got a national anthem, that is to say, through the United States, and it will be only the addition of another star or another bar.
If we believe in majority decisions why cannot we accept the majority decision of the last committee which we had, and adopt its recommendation as our national flag. It seems

to me that it is the responsibility of the government to take action. They could do this by passing an order in council with a great deal more immunity from controversy than arose in respect of a lot of other things they did by this method. I do not think this is something we ought to raise such a fuss about.
Certainly we all have preferences in this field, but it does appear we are all united in wishing to have a Canadian flag, and I think this business of talking about it in five or six ways every year is not bringing us any closer but, rather, dividing us. It is up to the government of the day, or to the government which will replace it, to take responsibility. When they have gumption enough to take action we will end up with a flag. It will not be one which will satisfy everyone in Canada, but that is undoubtedly too much to hope. I hope this government will see fit to instigate proceedings which will result in a Canadian flag rather than in a lot of talk about what we would like to have in such a flag.


Mr. Grant Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Speaker, in any real sense Canada is a monstrosity. But Canada was not created by small, Gritish, rational men; it was created by men of courage whose imagination stretched from sea to sea and from the coastal rivers to the ends of the earth. This country of Canada was created in defiance of geography. All the economic and geographic lines run north and south. The lobster fishermen from Peggy's Cove and Cape Cod suffer the same storms; the prairie farmers in Montana and Saskatchewan each suffer the effects of the hail that crushes their wheat; the people from beyond the mountains in British Columbia and in Oregon both suffer the same sense of claustrophobia. Only our history has held us together as a country, and it is to our history that we must look in order to remain a country.
I believe that next to the fundamental issue of war and peace and the survival of the species the issue of the greatest importance to this country in the next half century will be whether we can maintain a separate, independent and prosperous country in the northern half of this hemisphere. I think we should be ever conscious of and should cherish those things which give us an individual character. These things include our connection with the commonwealth, our common loyalty to the crown and our bilingual culture. These are the things on which we must concentrate as a bulwark against absorption by the great mass represented by the United States.
One of our greatest writers, Mr. Hugh Mac-Lennan, has made what I think is a most cogent commentary on Canada. He looked around at our divergencies and conflicting 90205-6-85i
Business of the House
interests on the Canadian scene and asked this question: What do we have in common? Have we anything in common? He drew this one conclusion which has great relevance to our immediate situation. He indicated that the one common bond among all the significant groups that comprise our great country is the fact that at one time or other they have shared in suffering the experience of defeat.
The highland Scots in 1745, our French Canadians in 1759, our United Empire Loyalists in 1776, all went through the traumatic experience of defeat. These are the original and perhaps most significant groups that make up the mosaic of Canada. The others who came to Canada in later years were refugees in one sense or another from famine, war or persecution. The Irish came and later the Jewish people and then came others from many countries in Europe especially in the years following the last two wars. They came to our shores in search of peace, freedom and security.
This is the one thing we have in common, the one thing all Canadians share. Born of this is something else we all share, the determination that we will not expire, disappear, be absorbed but will somehow or other in our struggling, muddling way maintain a separate, independent and proud existence on this continent.
Like many of my neighbours in Stormont I am proud of the fact that members of my family have defended the independence of Canada under the union jack on three different occasions. I am proud that we have had this opportunity. However, I believe we are in the position referred to by Kipling in these words:
Daughter am I In my mother's house;
But mistress in my own.
I think we are very privileged to have enjoyed this honoured and respected position but I believe we have grown to maturity. We are no longer entitled to share in this honour or to enjoy the dignity and prerogatives with which it is associated. We must now build something of our own and we must stand or fall on the basis of what we have built.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
(Translation):
Lionel Chevrier: I am happy to notice that tonight, we have a new interim leader in the person of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Comtois). I congratulate him and would ask him to indicate what is the business for tomorrow and for Wednesday.
1342	HOUSE OF
Business of the House Mr. Comlois:	Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker,
the house will conclude the budget debate. On Wednesday, we will begin consideration of item 9 on today's order paper, a resolution sponsored by the Minister of Agriculture.
If that business is completed on Wednesday, we will go on with the resolutions on the setting up of the committees, according to the order to be set tomorrow night


Lionel Chevrier: What will be the business for Thursday?


Mr. Comlois:: I think that is enough to cope with the earnestness of the opposition leader.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 24, 1961