1964-09-03

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all members of the house in welcoming the Prime Minister back following the celebration of the 100th anniversary of that historic gathering at Charlottetown. In saying that I wish to ask him something about the repatriation of the constitution. Has the formula advanced in December, 1961 by the minister of justice in the government of which I had the honour to be the head been accepted, and what modifications in that formula are indicated? I ask him particularly whether there is any foundation for the press articles which suggest that the federal government is prepared to surrender or diminish its right to amend certain sections of the British North America Act relating to matters purely within the federal jurisdiction. I think a statement from the Prime Minister is necessary in order to have the assurance that such is not being contemplated.
I ask the latter portion of the question on the basis of an article in Le Soleil in which the premier of Quebec is quoted as saying that the agreement of the province is subordinated to the abrogation or satisfactory revision of article 91, section 1 of the constitution which, of course, is the one concerning the distribution of legislative powers.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for his welcome back to the house after an interesting and agreeable conference at Charlottetown, where the hospitality was almost as openhearted as it was 100 years ago.
So far as this particular question is concerned, I am happy to inform him that as the statement issued yesterday morning indicates, and I am quoting from a paragraph of it now:
The Prime Minister and premiers affirmed their unanimous decision to conclude the repatriation of the British North America Act without delay.
To this end they decided to complete a procedure for amending the constitution of Canada, based on the draft legislation proposed at the constitutional conference of 1961, which they accept in principle.
This acceptance, of course, includes the formula to which my hon. friend referred. Then the next paragraph states:
An early meeting of the attorneys general of Canada and the provinces will be held to complete the amending formula devised by the 1961 conference-
In so far as the specific question he asked is concerned, based on a newspaper report, there is no foundation to the report that the federal government at Charlottetown indicated its willingness to give up its own rights under the proposed legislation in respect of those matters under its jurisdiction which are covered in section 91, subsection 1 of the British North America Act. It was agreed, Mr. Speaker, that at the meeting of the attorneys general to which I have just referred and which is mentioned in the statement, section 91(1) could be examined in order to ascertain if there are any specific matters in that section in which the provinces have a legitimate and direct concern, and if so to decide whether the formula should be applied to the amendment of those particular matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the Prime Minister allow me to ask which particular matters he has in mind?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no particular matters in mind. We are quite content to receive from the provinces any information they may wish to send us concerning that which they may think they have a legitimate interest in amending. We will look at it from that point of view, and this will be the purpose of the meeting of attorneys general to be held shortly to see how the particular sections could be adapted to the amending formula which we have agreed upon in principle.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the Prime Minister whether there has been any change in the attitude of the governments of Saskatchewan and Quebec since Mr. Fulton, as minister of justice, advanced the views of the dominion government in December of 1961?

Inquiries of the Ministry
Then I also want to ask him this regarding these questions of legislation in respect of which representation will be made by the provinces. Was there any suggestion that any of the provinces should have the authority to legislate in certain recognized federal fields, such as immigration and the like, or should have any veto power over monetary or tariff policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The answer to the last part of the question is no. In so far as the first part of the question is concerned, the premier of Saskatchewan indicated that the amending formula put forward in 1961, and which at that time was not acceptable to the government of Saskatchewan, is now acceptable to that government. The prime minister of Quebec indicated that the position of his government in respect of section 91(1) was the same as the position taken in 1961, in other words that the application of the formula to that particular section of the British North America Act should be examined before the formula comes into effect.


John George Diefenbaker: So that the position today is that the change since December 1961 is that with a change in government in Saskatchewan the present government has agreed with the formula of 1961, and that so far as the premier of Quebec is concerned he wishes to examine the formula to which objection was taken in 1961?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is correct, Mr. Speaker, with this addition; that the head of the government of Quebec, along with the heads of the governments of all the other provinces, now accept in principle the draft formula of 1961, which they had not accepted at that earlier conference.


Hon. Paul Mariineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Has he any comment to make about the statements allegedly made by Messrs. Roblin and Thatcher that an agreement on a formula to repatriate the constitution was still far away.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Roblin, as I understand from the reports, indicated some impatience that we were not able to reach final agreement on all details yesterday in Charlottetown, and I have no comment to make on that. I am not quite

certain what Mr. Thatcher said, but I think he also indicated the same kind of impatience and hope that there could have been final agreement yesterday. We all shared that hope, but the position taken at the conference by all heads of government was a very helpful one, and we hope that in a very few weeks the remaining difficulties will be cleared up.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great pity the Prime Minister did not make a statement on motions so we could have had a full statement on the conference in Charlottetown. However, we all welcome him back, and he has our full support in any steps that may be taken to repatriate the constitution.
I want to ask him whether the government is placing its wholehearted support behind the so-called Fulton formula of 1961. Does this mean the government is now committing itself as well as the provinces to entrenching subsection 92(13), the property and civil rights subsection, which would mean that legislative matters having to do with pensions, a labour code and a great many other matters of that sort, under recent decisions by the courts could not be amended without the unanimous consent of the parliament of Canada and all ten provinces? Is this the position the federal government is taking?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not necessarily, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if my hon. friend thought a statement should have been made on motions, but the communique was very short and I thought it would probably be more appropriate if I were asked questions so that other hon. members in addition to the party leaders might ask questions also. I would be glad to make a statement next week, if that is desirable, but so far as the federal details in this matter are concerned I cannot go beyond what I have already said. I do not accept the hon. gentleman's interpretation of our position with regard to entrenchment generally.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the Prime Minister if in view of the wide powers which the courts have injected into the property and civil rights clause he does not consider that entrenching this clause would put Canada in a constitutional strait-jacket for many years to come?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only say that in recent years, in respect to the amendment of the constitution, Canada has been in a kind of

strait-jacket, a strait-jacket imposed from outside.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Is it not true that at present the Canadian constitution can be amended at any time by an address of both houses of parliament?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
In the course of his discussions with the provincial premiers about the eventual and desirable repatriation of our constitution, was there any mention made of the title our Canadian constitution should bear in the future, if it is repatriated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. While I am on my feet perhaps I could explain that when I said we had been subject to a strait-jacket imposed on us from outside, I should have added that the imposition was of our own doing.


Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: I realize this meeting was very short, but I should like to ask a question dealing with an aspect of this matter apart from the repatriation of the constitution itself. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether any suggestion was made to hold a federal-provincial conference to modernize and bring up to date the constitution to suit the needs of modern times?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. We restricted our discussion to methods of amending the constitution. But I should add that in the discussions just completed we agreed to have another meeting to consider, if possible, a report from the attorneys general on the amendment of the constitution and any other questions which the premiers might wish to bring up. This meeting will be held immediately following the visit of the Queen to Ottawa on October 11. There will be a two day meeting after that between the premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Will that be during the presence of Her Majesty the Queen in Ottawa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, it will be the day after she leaves.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Prime Minister this. In view of the major importance of the step to be taken, would he consider setting a day aside very shortly,
Inquiries of the Ministry and before we adjourn this portion of the session, for the purpose of securing the views of the house on this matter? In 1961 there had been discussions from time to time in the house on this question which divides itself into two parts; first, the repatriation of the constitution, which latter I cannot agree is anything in the nature of a strait-jacket; and second, reconsideration of the whole question of the entranchment of powers. Is it the right hon. gentleman's intention to allow the house an opportunity to discuss these matters before anything is finally determined and, in particular, before legislation is brought before parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Parliament will undoubtedly be required to consider any action before that action can be taken if it deals with a new procedure for amending our constitution, and there would be an opportunity for parliament to do so at the time a decision has finally been reached between the governments of the provinces and the federal government. However, it seems to me it would be quite proper that there should be a general and earlier discussion of this very important matter. Perhaps the estimates of the Department of Justice would be a suitable occasion and, if so, we shall try to expedite them. We could bring them forward next week, perhaps. I am informed-I do not want to mislead the house-that the estimates of the Department of Justice are not in supply yet. Perhaps we could make some special arrangement.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: I should like to ask a supplementary question relating to that asked by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi a few minutes ago. Does the Prime Minister intend to call another conference later this year between himself and the ten premiers for the purpose of modernizing the constitution after it has been repatriated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think we had better restrict our consideration at the moment to the subject of amending our constitution here in Canada. In addition to the meeting in October, there will be a further meeting with the provincial premiers, the annual meeting held late in November or in December. It is a little early to say what will be on the agenda.


Mr. Georges Valade (SI. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider setting up a special committee of the house to study this whole question, so that when the measure is before the house hon. members will have something of a preliminary study on this question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to give consideration to that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Was there any discussion at Charlottetown, as the Prime Minister said earlier this session, in response to questions, there would be, with respect to how the repatriating of the constitution will be brought about? Will it be by an act of another parliament, or will it be by an act that we take in this our own sovereign parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That matter was mentioned, but it was not discussed in any detail. It will certainly be considered by the attorneys general and the Minister of Justice. On this particular point, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a question put by my hon. friend, I think it was last week, in the house.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleion):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to inform the house in regard to the proposal made by the premier of New Brunswick relative to the union of the Atlantic provinces? Would he care to tell the house about this?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think I would care to express any opinion on that matter at this time. Surely that is a matter for the four Atlantic provinces. At the meeting at which the proposal was put forward they had some comments to make on it, but I believe they have not given it very serious consideration.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is something I very, very rarely do; therefore Your Honour will understand that it is a matter which I feel is of importance concerning myself. I refer Your Honour and hon. members to yesterday's Hansard, page 7581, the first column, starting at line 26, wherein the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had this to say in reference to myself:
[Mr. ValaUe.l
-I recall him saying that all he would have to do to be re-elected in the next election would be to march up and down carrying the red ensign in his hand.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I have at no time been interviewed by the press on my position. I have not as yet spoken in the House of Commons on this flag issue. When I do, that will be my business and my opportunity. However, Mr. Speaker, never having made any such statement in my life, I think I have the right to rise at this time, in view of that statement made yesterday by the hon. member, and say that it is only because of my respect for the House of Commons, its decency and decorum that I say his statement yesterday was a most vicious, despicable inexactitude of terminology.

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege based on the rather sharp attack made on me by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I want to state that I had no intention of offending the hon. member yesterday, and I was rather surprised that he did not raise some objection when I used the words which he now considers to be offensive, as he was in the house at the time.
May I draw to your attention, sir, that when I rose to speak yesterday he interrupted and left the imputation that I was speaking without authority, that I had participated earlier in the debate and should not be allowed to speak again. This occasioned what I thought was a friendly exchange; but if the hon. member has been offended by any words I used I am quite prepared willingly and publicly to apologize to him, and I wish him all the best in the next election.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the acting minister of external affairs and relates to the safety and well being of a number of Canadian citizens who are at the present time in the fighting areas of the Congo. Does the minister have any information for the house with respect to the safety of these individuals?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I think all members know, a register is maintained by

our embassy in the Congo of all Canadians resident there. These people have been advised by the embassy from time to time to evacuate danger, or possible danger, areas. Some departures have taken place. In other cases Canadian missionaries have preferred to stay en place. In respect of those who have remained, arrangements have been made, with the generous co-operation of the United States embassy, and with the help of the UN authorities for the rapid evacuation to places of safety of those who may so wish to be evacuated.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. On Tuesday and again yesterday the government of India sent an urgent appeal to both the United States and Australia to divert shipments of wheat to India because of the severe flood damage that has been occasioned during the past few days. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether Canada has received an appeal from the government of India for wheat and other foodstuffs and, if so, what is the response to the request.


An hon. Member:: That question was asked yesterday.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this question was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I can only say that no special request has been received from the government of India for special help in this emergency. As the house is no doubt aware, we are supplying to India at the present time about $7 million worth of Canadian wheat, which is an increase of $5,500,000 over the amount supplied in each of the last two fiscal years, and credits for the purchase of additional supplies if required. Part of the $7 million worth of wheat to which I referred was shipped from Canadian ports in August, and the balance is going forward in September. I do not think therefore, Mr. Speaker, that there would be any possibility of diverting wheat at this time in a way which would assist India. We are examining the matter and making inquiries as to whether there is anything in addition to what I have mentioned that we can do to help India in this emergency.
Inquiries of the Ministry



INDONESIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact, as reported in the Globe and Mail this morning, that the government of Indonesia has dropped armed paratroopers in Malaysia and that the government of Malaysia is sending a complaint to the security council of the United Nations, would the government now give consideration to cutting off aid to Dr. Sukarno?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, this matter is now under consideration; but, as it has also been pointed out, the only aid going to Indonesia this year is I believe a few hundred thousand dollars worth of wheat and flour.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister not agree that even though the aid is only in the form of wheat to the value of several hundred thousand dollars, this enables the Indonesian government to save foreign exchange and thus buy arms abroad?



CYPRUS-FURTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO COST OF PEACE KEEPING OPERATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the government of the United Kingdom agreed to underwrite $400,000 of the $2 million requested by the secretary general of the United Nations to keep the peace force operating in Cyprus. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether any other nations have agreed to underwrite some of this $2 million and, in the event that these other pledges do not come through, will the force have to be withdrawn by the end of September?
Righl Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I shall try to answer my hon. friend's question tomorrow morning. I have not got the information at the moment.

Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



CAPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS TO A AND B CLASS FAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I understand that annual grants to class A and class B fairs in respect of capital construction were suspended some time ago, and may remain suspended for some time. I wonder if the minister could say that such capital grants for construction would be extended until perhaps the 1967 centennial, giving these fairs a greater opportunity for adjustment?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is correct in that capital grants for construction were suspended, I believe in July of 1962. We are running a pilot project this year, and we are keeping those grants in suspension until such time as we know whether there is merit to that project, at which time we will re-examine the situation.


William Heward Grafftey: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In the Brome-Missisquoi area this week end we are having a fair. Would the minister come to that fair and tell the dairy farmers what he told us in the house in respect of the dairy industry?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, if I have the time and I receive an invitation I should be very glad to go with the hon. member.



PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY ON GRAIN TRANSPORTED BY FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: On September 1, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ri-card) asked me whether a farmer doing his own transporting by truck would benefit from the transportation subsidies.
The answer is yes. According to the regulations coming into force next September 14, a farmer will be able, from now on, to use his own truck to get his supply of feed grain, and that assistance will be granted to him at any mill in the area where his farm is located.
Under the present policy, he could not obtain any additional help when using his own truck for that kind of transportation.

Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-
Bagot): Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the house whether the miller who provides his own means of transportation is also entitled to those subsidies?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire about this, but I believe the answer will be yes.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. Must the farmer apply to the federal government in order to get this subsidy? Will the federal government pay this subsidy to the transportation company, which will then remit it to the farmer?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any difference in the cases just mentioned by the hon. member. The subsidy is always paid to the mill. Therefore, the miller will have to see to it that the farmer gets the amount to which he is entitled.


Mr. Vincenl:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the event the miller would not give the farmer the money owing to him, will the federal government be able to step in so that the miller will hand over to the farmer the money to which he is entitled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question asked by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska a moment ago concerning the remedy which would be available to the federal government should a miller refuse to pay back an amount of money to a farmer, I wish to draw the attention of the house to the fact that, for nearly a year now, I have been raising questions which are somewhat related to that matter. In my opinion, too many privileges are granted agents selling feed grain and I think the minister should tell us what would happen if the federal government had no remedy at law to force them to reimburse such amounts to farmers.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, as this is a legal question, I would like to inquire about it before giving an answer.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Does the minister intend to issue a pamphlet on the procedure to be followed by a farmer to obtain a subsidy for the feed grain he moves himself?


Maurice Sauvé: Yes, we intend to do that, Mr. Speaker. We will send a pamphlet to all farmers who benefit or might benefit from that new policy.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Will such action be taken immediately or within a few months?


Maurice Sauvé: The new regulation comes into force on September 14. The publicity we intend to carry out in this connection will start immediately and the pamphlet to make farmers aware of the benefits of the new policy will be distributed as soon as possible.



ROYAL VISIT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the question I am about to put I ask with great diffidence, but it is one that I think has to be asked and requires an answer from the Prime Minister. My question is related to the visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Canada. In view of the threats of violence that have been made, the advertisements appearing in newspapers with particulars regarding opposition to the forthcoming visit in respect of which demonstrations are planned, and so on, is the Prime Minister in a position to advise, not particularly what means are being taken to provide necessary precautions, but whether he agrees with the suggestion by the special committee for the royal visit that special precautions are not necessary; or is that not representative of the viewpoint of the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can only say in respect of that visit that adequate security precautions are being taken, and every effort will be made to provide necessary precautions for the security and comfort of Her Majesty.
Perhaps I might also be permitted to express my own feeling that it does not help
Inquiries of the Ministry very much in this respect when exaggeration and extreme publicity are given to the violent statements made by those who are speaking only for themselves and, in one case at least, by a person who has spent the previous 12 months in jail. I cannot think, Mr. Speaker, that it adds anything to the effectiveness of security to have that kind of statement given such exaggerated publicity.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has expressed himself in a way that I think will receive general support, though always subject to the one qualification that we must be very careful not to restrict freedom within appropriate limits. However, I do point out to him the fact that, according to the Gazette of Wednesday, petitions are being secured by an organization known as rassemblement pour l'independance nationale, and advertisements are appearing in one Montreal daily newspaper in respect of plans for meetings to protest against the visit, and for demonstrations, which were freely admitted in detail on the telephone yesterday by a feminine voice answering the number which appeared in the newspaper advertisement. Would the Prime Minister have this situation looked into?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will do that.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, but perhaps his gracious substitute for the last two days is in a better position to answer. I should like to ask whether there have been negotiations, official or unofficial, completely aside from the house leaders' meetings, between members of the government and any members of the official opposition in order to find a way out of the flag dilemma.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the leader of the official opposition as an officer of the house, supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Part Arthur. Has the Leader of the Opposition any knowledge that members of his party have met unofficially with members of the Liberal

Inquiries of the Ministry party in an effort to resolve and conclude the flag debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that under our rules such a question cannot be asked the Leader of the Opposition.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the flag debate has now gone on for five weeks and there seems no immediate prospect of the house being allowed to reach a decision, I want to ask the Prime Minister would he consider again the proposal that was made, that we set aside the flag debate for a period of time and deal with legislation; or the proposal made by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the government allow one day a week for legislation and one day for estimates, and the balance of the week for debate on the flag? It seems to me there is a great deal of merit in trying to proceed with government legislation at an early date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, the reaction of the government to the proposal to which my hon. friend refers was given immediately in the house that evening by the house leader on this side, and I have nothing to add to what was said then. That remains our position in regard to that proposal.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a follow-up question to that to which I received an answer yesterday from the Minister of National Revenue. My purpose in asking this question is not to embarrass or chide him, but he did give an answer, which is recorded in Hansard, to the effect that the average use of this port involved only four cars during the extra hours in the summer season. The information I have been given is that this is not the case. I would ask the minister whether he has any correction to make.
Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National
Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated in a note to the hon. member that I intended to correct Hansard. As found on page 7577, the 15th line from the bottom, I am reported as having said:
[Mr. Herridge.l
I might point out that the average has only been four cars for that shift during this summer, 1964.
What I said was:
I might point out that the average has been only four cars per hour for that shift during this summer.



PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX ON ALLEGED PROFIT BY MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Has he investigated the report of the Quebec royal commission under Chief Justice Smith, which states quite clearly that a personal profit amounting to $62,000 was made by a member of parliament in a certain transaction? Is he investigating this matter now or has he done so already? If not, will he do so in the future?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion this question is illegal. I refer the hon. member to Beauchesne, fourth edition, citation 108, subsection 3, which perhaps I had better read at this time:
Libels on members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a breach of privilege they must concern the character or conduct of members in that capacity, and the libel must be based on matters arising in the actual transaction of the business of the house.
I think it is a matter of common knowledge that this matter took place outside the house and within the personal capacity of the person concerned, and does not affect any of the business of the house. Unless it affects the honour of the house or of any member therein, and unless a member is prepared to bring a charge in virtue of-I give the reference in Beauchesne-citation 127, subsection 2, which necessitates a member laying a charge and attempting to substantiate it, in my opinion the question is completely out of order. This is particularly so inasmuch as the attorney general of Quebec has said that the matter is a civil matter.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I may speak to the point, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned no particular member of the house. My question was to the Minister of National Revenue, whose duty it is to see that people pay income tax. I asked him a simple question; has he investigated or wiU he investigate this report by Mr. Justice Smith which was recently made public to the effect that personal profits of $62,000 were earned by a certain person, and will he ascertain whether proper income taxes were paid?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is trying to do indirectly what he is prevented by the rules from doing directly.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister prompted by news reports carried on the front pages of yesterday's papers. Is the reported leading candidate for the Liberal leadership in Ontario the same Charles Templeton who a few years ago wished a depression on the people of Canada in the interests of a Liberal victory?



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Transport, of which I have sent notice. Can the minister confirm reports that federal funds will be made available for the development of Mount Hope airport at Hamilton and, if so, how much money will be spent?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, treasury board has authorized certain work to be done at the Mount Hope airport near Hamilton if the Hamilton city council is prepared to take over and operate the airport. We are hoping to have discussions on this matter next week. I think it would be difficult to say how much would be spent at least until tenders are called and we see what can be done for how much money.



PROTECTION AGAINST DAMAGE FROM MIGRATORY BIRDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. It relates to a news release by his department last Friday in relation to the migratory bird regulations. One of the orders states that special permits may now be obtained by managers of civilian airports or the commanding officers of military airports to take migratory birds which are endangering the safe operation of aircraft. Can the minister assure the house there is evidence that such action is necessary?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there is evidence available in the fact that damage of over a million dollars was done to planes by birds last year in Canada. We are taking a variety of preventive measures, and this is one of them.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I may be allowed to say so, I am not too concerned about a few birds that may have to be done away with in the interests of safety in areas where there is relatively little nesting. I am interested to know what precautions, if any, are being taken to assure that this order will not result in unwarranted hunting privileges in some of the northern nesting areas in the vicinity of military airports.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, we are concerned over this aspect, and we will make every effort possible to avoid abuse.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can he report to the house on the negotiations between Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Air Lines in relation to international and domestic operations, which report he expected to be able to make on the first of September?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is perhaps rather in a hurry. I said "during September". I can report that very active discussions have been going on between the two air lines since discussions commenced some months ago. I get progress reports from time to time, but I doubt that a statement at this stage would add very much to the prospects of success in these negotiations.


Eugène (Gene) Rhéaume: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the house he has not been pressuring Canadian Pacific Air Lines to change its name to Air Pacific Canada?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not even heard of that suggestion before, but if the hon. gentleman wants them to do that no doubt he can carry on his own propaganda.

Inquiries of the Ministry TELEVISION



PROVISION OF SETS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING 86 CHANNELS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A D. Hales (Wellington South): I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Now that it has become practicable to transmit television programs from one continent to another, is the minister or his officials giving consideration to following the steps taken in the United States so that all television sets that may be produced in Canada will have a minimum of 86 channels?
John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not quite sure whether under our jurisdiction-I am not expressing an opinion one way or the other-we would have the power to compel manufacturers to do that or whether it would be advisable. I am going to direct the hon. gentleman's question, and the information he gave me on which he based his question, to the Minister of Industry, who I think may very properly discuss this matter with the manufacturers in Canada, although they are rather alert and are likely to have noticed it themselves.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLIDAYS FOR STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. What arrangements are being made so that the House of Commons permanent staff, including members' secretaries, may have holidays?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: I am afraid this problem, although one in which I am very much interested, does not come directly under my responsibility.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I should like to ask the Minister of Transport if it is correct that tenders have been called for major harbour developments at North Sydney to convenience the ferries operating between North Sydney and Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: This would not come within my re-


sponsibility as minister, because these harbour developments would be undertaken by the Minister of Public Works. I am not actually sure if the tenders have been called as yet. I rather doubt it, but I hope they will be called soon.


Robert Muir: May I ask a supplementary question. I noticed that, according to the press, the Minister of Labour announced that tenders had been called. I am very glad to see the government has finally decided to go ahead with this project which was initiated by the previous government. May I ask also if the minister is aware that I have question No. 1,811 relating to this subject on the order paper, and it has been there for a few days now. Is he aware also that the minister made this announcement in yesterday's press?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This just indicates that the Minister of Labour is much more alert than I am. However, I am well aware of the hon. gentleman's question, and I am doing my utmost to compose an answer that will satisfy him, the people of North Sydney and also the people of Port aux Basques.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I am glad to learn about the alertness of the Minister of Labour. I want to find out the degree to which that alertness has resulted in securing some word regarding the itinerant and elusive Banks. Is the minister alert enough at the moment to advise whether there has been any communication by the Department of Labour with the United States secretary of labor for the purpose of ascertaining if Mr. Banks is at the moment on the payroll of the international S.I.U.? Has he made any investigation in that regard? Is he able to tell us whether the government of Canada, after three weeks, has been able to ascertain from the immigration authorities of the United States whether Mr. Banks shook the dust of Canada off his feet and went to the United States? After all, as one newspaper, the Whig-Standard said:
Of course we're suspicious. The whole affair smells to high heaven.
Let us hear about that alertness now.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the seeking out of individuals like Mr. Banks is not the proper function of

the Department of Labour. We have attended effectively to all those aspects of Mr. Banks' career that relate to this department.


John George Diefenbaker: I realize that the alertness of the hon. gentleman does not extend to other departments, but I ask him, did he ever think of getting in touch with the secretary of labor of the United States, with whom he had such frequent communications only a few months ago, to ascertain whether that gentleman may make inquiry of the international S.I.U. to find out where Mr. Banks is?


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I want to address a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. I should like to ask the minister whether in view of the apparent mobility of Mr. Banks he has given consideration to the idea of asking his colleague the Minister of Transport to take over looking into this situation?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the request of the united senior citizens of Ontario, made at their meeting in London two days ago, that the federal government provide comprehensive medical care for citizens over 65 and raise the old age pension to $100 per month? What is the government's response to these requests?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I have just noticed the clipping, and I am grateful to my hon. friend for sending me a copy of the Canadian Press story. As all hon. members know, there was an increase in the old age pension less than a year ago, and there has been no increase contemplated for this year. Perhaps of all things in the press release the most disturbing to all hon. members was the quotation allegedly laid to Mr. Rose in which it was indicated most members of parliament were just not interested in any such increase. I should like to say that all representatives in the House of Commons notwithstanding party affiliations, and particularly the hon. member are most interested in this problem.
20220-481J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister not realize that it would be a good way to show that interest and to celebrate our being a nation of 100 years existence by raising the pension to $100 a month?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, it may be that my hon. friend will have the responsibility of this particular portfolio by that time, and I would like to leave such a matter to the government of that day.


William Heward Grafftey: As a supplementary question, and in a more serious vein, is it not the opinion of the minister that rather than a non-serious ad hoc suggestion, such as was made by the hon. member a few moments ago, in future old age pensions should simply be raised in order to keep abreast of the rising cost of living?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: This was substantially
done up until 1957, but for a few years there it jumped very much ahead of the rise in cost of living.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning her answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, when she indicated that possibly he would have the responsibility for that portfolio in 1967. Is this a forecast of an amalgamation between the N.D.P. and the Liberal party, or is it a forecast of a coming Liberal defeat?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that the hon. member to whom I was then replying was at least responsible and interested in this portfolio and might indeed aspire to hold it, something I cannot hold out as a hope to the hon. member who asked me this question.



ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS RESPECTING MEDICAL SCHOOLS AND SCHOLARSHIPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement made by the president of the Canadian Medical Association that only immediate expansion of medical training facilities will prevent a serious shortage of doctors in Canada, has the government considered the early implementa-

Inquiries of the Ministry tion of the Hall commission recommendations for new medical schools and medical scholarships?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As is well known, Mr. Speaker, the government is considering all the implications and recommendations of the Hall report.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Has the minister received representations promoting the issue in 1966 of a stamp to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the discovery of salt in Canada? Would the minister investigate the desirability of issuing such a stamp, as outlined by the stamp editor on page 21 of the London Free Press for August 8?


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put that question on the order paper.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Labour a question related to an answer he gave the day before yesterday about the I.T.U. strike in Toronto. Has the minister completed his investigation in order to ascertain whether a sufficient resumption of work is taking place so that the strikers would now be eligible for unemployment insurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had information yesterday from the commission to the effect that the situation is being closely followed by the insurance officer, and that the jurisprudence in these cases is usually to the effect that 85 per cent activity must be resumed before normal work is considered to have taken place in the operation.


Reid Scott: Can the minister tell us how they ascertain the 85 per cent? What action is taken by his department to arrive at a conclusion, one way or another, on the figure of 85 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this matter is one for the unemployment insurance com-
[Mr. Howe (Hamilton South) .1

mission. As I understand it, the insurance officer has authority under the act to make a decision with respect to this matter.


Reid Scott: Would the minister take into consideration the Telegram of yesterday, which produced a 72 page paper and is well within the 85 per cent margin?



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, September 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Churchill.
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, when the house adjourned last night I was speaking about the great contributions that had been made by various countries, particularly the Scandinavian countries, to both England and France. The Normans brought with them to England their culture, which was a Latin culture, and the Roman influence. William the Conqueror in some cases pursued a scorched earth policy but he brought order and set up a country that was never again invaded successfully by any other nation.
I also went on to point out that the Norman language enriched the language of the English. It became the language of the court, it became the language of the gentry, it became the language of the politicians, and Latin became the language of the church; while the poorer classes, the agricultural classes and serfs, used English. It was the melding of these two languages that made the English language as we know it today; a language whose origins are part French and part English, a language which is world wide, a language which is used by our neighbour to the south, the most powerful nation in the world. The melding of these strains gave rise to the tongue in which the plays of Shakespeare were written, in which Milton's "Paradise Lost" was written and in which Bunyan's "Pilgrim's Progress" was penned. It produced not only a great language, but unity; unity in a nation which controlled

the seven seas, which held sway over all the oceans of the world and which for years was the greatest peacemaker of all, as well as the greatest colonial organizer in the world.
It is also interesting to note, as I mentioned earlier, that the language of this nation became the language of the great country to the south. There was doubt whether it would be German rather than English, at one point, but George Washington gave the deciding vote in favour of English.
Thus it was that this great British nation came into conflict with the French in New France. Let me remind hon. members that the population in New France at the time of the battle of Quebec was just around 50,000 people. They were people who were heavily taxed and badly looked after, grumbled at by King Louis of France whenever they asked for help. Historians say he would like to have written off the colony and forgotten it. The officials were rapacious. They taxed the colonists whenever they could, stayed long enough to make fortunes, then returned to France to live on their illgotten gains. Certainly there were good officials, but the bad ones overshadowed them.
Is it any wonder, then, that these colonists, given the benefit of free trade under the British constitution and freedom from taxation on their goods as well as freedom of religion and the opportunity to retain the French language and the French code of civil law, were glad to accept these things? To an oppressed, heavily taxed people, robbed by some of their intendents, this represented a freedom they had never enjoyed.
What was the attitude of the English themselves? They were on most cordial terms with the French. We are told they laboured in the fields side by side with these sons of France and worked together with them on other jobs as well. We read that during their second winter in Quebec the English collected five hundred pounds sterling to help the French. This is a sum which would be worth well over $30,000 in terms of today's money. The garrison of Quebec gave one day's ration per month.
This was a friendship the colonists had not known from France. This was a freedom they had not known before. As a matter of fact, we learn that 3,000 Scottish soldiers who settled in New France liked the French girls so much that they married them. Here we see the introduction of some 3,000 young Scotsmen into the mainstream of the life of this colony. It meant, too, that 3,000 girls of
Canadian Flag
French origin were taken out of the marriage market. Talk about unity, what unity is there to beat that? Today, some people talk about disunity. What is wrong with history teaching in Canada if there is disunity? What is wrong with the politicians if there is disunity?
I want to say that the French appreciated the Quebec Act. They appreciated the treatment I have described here so well that when the American revolution came they stood side by side with their English compatriots and with the Indians and, with the help of the British navy and British soldiers, they defended this country successfully during the American revolution and during the war of 1812. This is unity. Who today tries to cause disunity?
The French and the English together made progress over the years. First there was Upper and Lower Canada. Then there was the province of Canada. Then we had confederation. Not 50 years after that the French and the English were found joining together to go to war when over 600,000 boys-yes and for the first time some women, too,-went abroad to defend freedom in the great struggle of 1914-1918. Some of them, both English and French, went to the help of their mother countries, and over 100,000 suffered casualties. But out of the ashes of that war came the treaty of Westminster. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this was a move made by Sir Robert Borden when he insisted on signing the treaty of Versailles, confirmed in 1932 by a Conservative government under R. B. Bennett.
I come now to the second world war of 1939-45. Here again the English and French fought side by side to defend their mother countries, England and to an even greater extent France, against the invasion of Hitler. A great many of these boys and girls of Canada, principally the young men, lie buried in the fields of France, and on one of these graves- I have not seen it-is an inscription of particular significance. A gentleman from Vancouver wrote to me that there is a monument to an unknown soldier on the Normandy beachhead with the following inscription on the stone: "The sons of William the Conquerer come back to claim his land".
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what greater unity could we have? Who is dividing this country today?
We have before us one of the most divisive issues which could be presented to parliament. Here in Canada we have a people whose stock is 44 per cent British, 30 per cent French and 23 per cent of other European

Canadian Flag
origin. The Prime Minister has made use of two issues which, in my opinion, are most divisive. The commission on biculturalism and bilingualism was appointed to go across this country and, as far as I can see, it has only stirred up trouble. Now the right hon. gentleman has brought in a flag of his own choice.
I do not want to be critical of the Prime Minister, because we all make mistakes. Where is the man who has not make a mistake? I sympathize with him, Mr. Speaker, but I say this was simply a tragedy; this was the thing to disunite the people, not to unite them. Nothing the Prime Minister could have done could have caused more trouble; no way he could have gone about it could have caused more trouble. Then we ask ourselves, why did he do it? It has been said that it was an election promise. If it was an election promise three Toronto daily newspapers did not know anything about it, because they did not carry a single line about it in their advertisements. Not one newspaper mentioned it.
On Friday, May 15 the Prime Minister said "Well, we have 37 important measures to come before the house". But the flag was not included in them. On June 3, though, he announced that he had cut this to 18 items, and the flag made its appearance. Why? Did he have a mandate from the people? This is a Prime Minister with a minority government. I ask hon. members on the other side of the chamber, did he have a mandate? How could he have a mandate, when he had a minority government and only 42 per cent of the vote? It has now been shown, according to the newspaper reports, that nine provinces are against the Prime Minister's personal flag and only one province is for it. But, Mr. Speaker, I have had letters from the province of Quebec as well as designs.
Here is where I think the Prime Minister is making a fatal mistake in coming to the conclusion that the people of the province Of Quebec want the flag he is personally proposing. I do not believe this is so, because not one of the designs I received nor one of the letters-and I received a goodly number-called for this flag. After speaking in this house previously I received several letters, most of them congratulatory. Even though they differed, and these people said they wanted a new flag, in my opinion the great majority of people in Canada are not in favour of the design proposed by the Prime Minister. This is my personal opinion, Mr. Speaker.

I say let us have a proper flag; let us have a flag that will be respected and accepted from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The dominion-provincial conference has been held in Charlottetown during the past few days. The other evening in the quietness of my office I thought what a wonderful thing it would have been if the Prime Minister of this country had presented the flag question to that meeting and had said, "You are going to change things. You are going to change the constitution. Let us get together now and work out the flag over the next two or three years", before 1967. Mr. Speaker, let us have a flag that every premier and the people in the provinces from the Atlantic to the Pacific will accept. Would it not have been a great thing if this had been done?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I do not think any members on the government side can disagree with that in their hearts and souls. I do not believe there is one hon. member opposite who would say this was not the proper course.
Now we are faced with this problem. The Prime Minister has introduced his personal flag. I say again that I have nothing against the Prime Minister in any way. I know it is a heavy load that any prime minister carries. However, contrary to all the rules of diplomacy he introduced his own flag. Did he consult the Leader of the Opposition or any of the other groups before he brought in this design? Not at all; he brought in his own flag.
In doing so, Mr. Speaker, there was no reference to the people at all, and no plebiscite. At the beginning the Prime Minister said there would not be a free vote; in other words, "If you do not vote for it you can go to the people". I say to you, Mr. Speaker, how in the world could the Prime Minister have gone about it in a more arrogant fashion than this?
Things have changed now, because nine out of ten provinces do not want a change or they want some other design. Le Devoir was very sympathetic last spring to the Prime Minister's flag; they were prepared to go along with him. Now the conclusion they have reached, as I gather from reading the articles that have appeared in this newspaper, is that they are fed up with the bumbling in connection with this issue; they do not want to go along with it any more. That is a very influential newspaper in the province of Quebec. They say "In May your ideas might not have been too bad, but in August your bumbling is too much".

I have stated that the correspondence and designs I have received in connection with the flag have led me to believe that the people of the province of Quebec have far better flags, far more acceptable flags which have been designed by the people of that province. Their designs are far more acceptable than that introduced by the Prime Minister. I feel rather sorry for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, because his charted course has floundered. Now he offers summit meetings and a free vote, but this is all too late. Perhaps this is his only way out. I want to place on the record an article which appeared in the Cape Breton Post. This is very apropos:
Conservative M.P.'s are taking the right course on the flag issue, in stepping up their campaign in the House of Commons to persuade the government to refer the issue to a special parliamentary committee.
The issue should have gone to a parliamentary committee in the first place, but it's not too late for this to be done as a means of breaking the deadlock on the flag debate.
The Conservative tactics became evident Tuesday as the house plodded through the 14th sitting day of debate on the maple leaf flag resolution. Conservative after Conservative rose to press the point that a small all-party committee would cool off the steaming debate.
The Conservative proposition is that a committee should be empowered to recommend a flag and have it approved by the house. If the committee failed to agree unanimously on a flag, the issue should be taken to the people in a national plebiscite.
The prospect of a committee representing all groups in the Commons, arriving at an unanimous agreement on the flag does seem dim, but obviously such a committee should be the next step toward settling the issue.
The next step thereafter quite conceivably would be or should be a national plebiscite, which previously was recommended by this newspaper as the sure way of the country reaching a firm decision on the design of Canada's new flag.
All parties, including the Conservative party, appear to be agreed that a new flag is essential. It would be misleading to suppose that the Conservatives oppose the adoption of a new flag. The controversy on the issue revolves around a question of design.
I have said previously that the Prime Minister has my sympathy, because he is in about the worst mess possible. He said we cannot have a plebiscite on this issue. Why in the world can we not have a plebiscite? He has only to consider the action taken by previous Liberal leaders, who held plebiscites on issues that were just as emotional as this one; that were just as heart searching. I say to the Prime Minister that it is not too late for him to change his course. I suggest, in the interests of very important legislation that is waiting to be dealt with,
Canadian Flag
that he get on with the job and get this work done. I had a newspaper clipping from the Daily Packet and Times which said "The reason he is not getting on with it is that he has not the legislation prepared".
Mr. Speaker, if that is true we should adjourn this house and allow the members to go home, and the ministers should get together and prepare legislation. Why should the Prime Minister keep everyone here when he has nothing for us to do? I suggest the problem is one for the government to solve, not for the opposition to solve. I say with all seriousness as a Canadian that it is my desire to have the flag issue settled in such a way that our national unity will continue in the spirit which existed following the capture of Quebec, as evidenced by the intermarriage and the intermingling of the two races on a firm footing. These two peoples lived in complete unity of purpose and have defended this country over the years. They were faced with a war within a short period of our historic union, and won.
Mr. Speaker, in the interests of preserving that great unity I suggest to the Prime Minister that he allow a committee to commence its deliberations in respect of the flag issue. Let us adjourn this house until that committee has found a solution, or until the government has prepared other legislation. Over and over again it has been proved that the government does not now have legislation ready. Mr. Speaker, I think we can resolve the present difficulties with which we are faced. Whenever people get into trouble I always remember that poem which states:
One ship drives east and another drives west By the self-same winds that blow,
'Tis the set of the sails and not the gales Which determines the way we go.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I am one of those members who have been somewhat reluctant to participate in this debate. I consider this to be one of the greatest debates this house has had for many years, and perhaps we will not have another as great for some years. I am not apologetic in any way for rising to contribute in my small way those words I feel are essential at this time. Despite the fact that government members, and perhaps some members of the opposition, have not contributed to it, I think in years to come students will regard this debate as part of the history of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have been reluctant to speak because I felt, as perhaps the Prime Minister

Canadian Flag
did, that a new flag might be essential to the unity of this country. I still feel that there is a possible solution to our problem, and I am not prepared to accept the idea advanced by those individuals who are ready to separate from the rest of Canada. I am not ready to accept the idea that a part of Canada, which I believe is part of my nation, should become a separate entity. I think those individuals who feel that part of Quebec, or Quebec itself, should separate from the rest of Canada are wrong, and I will do everything in my power to protect and defend my country, of which I believe Quebec is a part.
Mr. Speaker, I am not happy about what is happening in the province of Quebec, but I do not believe that those people in Quebec, who are deeply disturbed by the present situation, wish to be embroiled in this question. I have hesitated to take part in this debate because I am neither of Anglo-Saxon nor French Canadian origin. My father came from Poland and, although my mother was born in Canada, her parents were of Ukrainian origin. I often refer to myself in a jocular way as a half-breed, but at the same time I feel very strongly that I am a Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I heard someone on the opposite side say "Hear, hear." I am very puzzled, and have been puzzled over the years, because of a question asked during the taking of the census. Most people in this country wish to be labelled and considered as Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, again I hear a member say "Hear, hear". We all want to be remembered as Canadians. I should like to remind those members on the opposite side that there is another problem inherent in that problem we are now discussing. We must decide whether we wish to be Canadians, or to be Polish Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians, Yugoslav Canadians, or Canadians of many other ethnic origins.


An hon. Member:: Or French Canadians.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, behind the main problem there is another problem which is difficult to isolate. I want to co-operate with all Canadians, but I expect in turn that they will co-operate with me. I should like to know why, during a census taking, some Canadians were labelled as French Canadians, for example. If an individual wishes to be identified as something other than just a

Canadian I would agree to that designation, but I should like to know why those of us who wish to be Canadians must disclose our racial background.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure my leader is aware of my position. I felt perhaps the establishment of a distinctive Canadian flag would lend itself to national unity.


Mr. Benidickson:: Would not this distinctive flag help?


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not know what distinctive flag would help create national unity, but I am sure that the flag your government has proposed is not accomplishing that which you intended.
Mr. Speaker, I have been very reluctant until this stage of the debate to say anything, because I honestly felt that perhaps at some time during this great debate something would be suggested that would be accepted by all parties. Unfortunately no suggestion has been put forward which is acceptable to all parties. There have been many suggestions put forward by the official opposition, and only by the official opposition, but none has been mutually acceptable. If this proposed flag is not mutually acceptable in this House of Commons, how could it possibly be mutually acceptable throughout Canada? I suggest to those members who have been pressing this flag issue that they should take stock of the situation at this stage.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that we in the opposition are not debating this flag issue because we love to stay here all summer. Do not think for one moment that we are not jeopardizing our own position if we are taking the wrong course, but think what you are going to do to Canada. As I said, I have been very reluctant to participate in this debate because I was perhaps not convinced as readily as some. I too felt that there might have been some in between measure we could take. I still believe that today. But there is only one group that can do something about the matter, and that is the government. We are not the ones who are responsible for taking action in the House of Commons; it is the government.
The leaders of all parties are meeting. The debate going on in the House of Commons is the frontispiece, if you like. Behind it are the discussions that are being held between the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the past leader of the Social Credit party, the leader of the New Democratic party and the leader of the Creditistes. I have referred to the past leader of the Social Credit party for

the simple reason that he is stumbling over himself in his hurry to get over to the other side of the house and have them accept him. Let us not fool around about that.
We have been told that this debate is a filibuster, but so many strange statements have been made by the past leader of that party that it is disgusting. In fact he has reached the point that he does not even know whether he wants the Social Credit nomination in his own riding. He wants the Liberal nomination. We might as well accept that fact, and the people of Canada might as well know it.
I am one of those who believe that a two party system is the most effective parliamentary system that can be devised. I do not believe for one moment that a third party is necessary, nor do I believe that you add to the effectiveness of the system by adopting another name. You simply have a special label and that is all. However, I am sure the Liberal party of today can accept many of the ideas and ideologies expressed by the Creditiste group, the Social Credit group or the New Democratic group, and I am sure that many of us in the Conservative group are also quite prepared to accept many of their ideas. We have done this in the past. This has nothing to do with the issue today.


Mr. Deschalelels:: Is your leader ready to do so?


An hon. Member:: Your leader is not ready.


Stanley James Korchinski: The two members who sit behind me will substantiate that he was ready to accept them because some of their ideas represent ideas in which he believes.


Robert Norman Thompson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there is a subamendment before the house. Should we not be speaking to the subamendment?


Stanley James Korchinski: I am sure what I am suggesting is unity. I am suggesting that the past Social Credit leader should unite with the Liberal party. That is exactly where he is headed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the hon. member could direct himself to the subamendment.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that what we want in this country is unity, and there cannot be unity if we are going to divide ourselves in the House of Commons in such a way that the people of the country do not know where they are being led. How can the country be led by minority groups, large or small; and if 20220-482
Canadian Flag
the leader of one of those groups is going to deviate where is the country headed?
I want to turn again to the subamendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley James Korchinski: Again I say that if at this moment the leader of the Social Credit group were to suggest that he was going to walk across to the government side, they would accept him and members on that side would not even interrupt me. The point is that we in Canada are going through a quiet struggle, a struggle that it is difficult for people to understand. It is difficult for me as a private member to understand. I should like to see the man who can show us the answer to this dilemma. I should like to see that man, because I do not believe the past leader of the Social Credit party is the man who will show us how it is to be done. There are those who want to call themselves French Canadians. We have no problem with them, but they have a problem within themselves.


An hon. Member:: You have a problem over there.


Stanley James Korchinski: That is true. We have a problem.


Mr. Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Like the Ukrainians in Europe.


Stanley James Korchinski: I say that I do not want to be labelled as a Ukrainian, nor do I want to be labelled as a Pole. I want to be labelled as a Canadian. I do not know the constituency of the hon. member who interjected, but if somebody will remind me of it I will put It on record.


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: It is a good French name.


Stanley James Korchinski: The point is that I want to be a Canadian, and the sooner all of us want to be Canadians the sooner we will get to the root of the problem. Why do you want to be called French Canadians when it comes to the census but want to be labelled as Canadians when it comes to a flag? I ask that question. On the one hand you want to be labelled as a separate French Canadian group, and on the other hand you want to be labelled as Canadians.
May I say I have some very good friends among the French speaking members. I am looking at the Minister without Portfolio. I am sure he will agree that I have discussed with him the question of how we could get at the root of the problem.


William Moore Benidickson: By a Canadian flag.

Canadian Flag


Stanley James Korchinski: Why do they want special consideration on the one hand, and on the other hand do not want to be recognized as a separate group? Why do we want two flags? What are we supposed to ask for in this debate? I am asking today, what do we want? What does the government want? After we finish this debate what will we be in the midst of then? We will be in the midst of another debate which will be a contradiction of what the government are trying to do today. They are going to say to us that the union jack is all right in certain cases. What hypocrisy. You do not believe it. Why do you try to shove it down the throats of Canadians? I do not know what is behind the whole thing, and personally I do not think the Liberal party is behind this flag proposal. I do not think the cabinet is behind it. The only one who is behind it is the Prime Minister. This is the problem. I have a quotation here from Shakespeare.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Stanley James Korchinski: Sure I will read it. It might be a lot easier to take than my words: I refer to Julius Caesar, act one, scene two:
Caesar. Let me have men about me that are fat; Sleek-headed men and such as sleep o'nights. Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much; such men are dangerous.
Antony. Fear him not, Caesar, he's not dangerous: He is a noble Roman, and well given,
Caesar. Would he were fatter! But I fear him not; Yet if my name were liable to fear,
I do not know the man I should avoid So soon as that spare Cassius. He reads much; He is a great observer, and he looks Quite through the deeds of men; he loves no plays,
As thou dost, Antony; he hears no music; Seldom he smiles, and smiles in such a sort As if he mock'd himself, and scorn'd his spirit That could be moved to smile at any thing.
Such men as he be never at heart's ease Whiles they behold a greater than themselves-
I am suggesting at the moment, Mr. Speaker, that this is what the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister alone has done. He has thought to himself, for what am I going to be remembered. He said to himself well, the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister and he is going to be remembered for the bill of rights. For what am I to be remembered? He said, I am going to be remembered for the flag. He talked to a few of his colleagues in the cabinet. I stand to be corrected on this, but I understand it was suggested at one time that there were only a few, select members of his cabinet who were going to choose a design for the flag.


An hon. Member:: Well, be corrected, then. [Mr. Benldlckson.l


Stanley James Korchinski: I suggested that I wanted to be fair about this.


An hon. Member:: Who told you that?


Stanley James Korchinski: I read it In the Liberal press. I am suggesting that this country is being divided, and it is being divided not by the Liberal party, not by the Liberal cabinet, not by anybody except one man. This one man wants to immortalize the name of Pearson. He wants-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I recall to the hon. member that we are discussing how to conduct a plebiscite and what we should do with the results, whether they should be published in one way or the other. This is really the subamendment.


Stanley James Korchinski: I should like to bow to your wishes, Mr. Speaker. I certainly do not want to divide-


Mr. Speaker:: I think all the members in the house must realize that a great deal of leniency has been given to the hon. member. I do not see where it is in order for an hon. member to indulge in a personal vendetta against any particular member, no matter what his official position may be. We are discussing the subamendment and under the heading "national unity" there is wide scope.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am suggesting that a division is being created in this country, and it is being created by only one individual. I do not know how to skirt around this problem without referring to the particular individual. If I may refer to him as an hon. member, then I will do that. I do believe I am discussing unity at this particular moment. I do not want to deviate from your ruling, Mr. Speaker, or anything of the sort. However, I do want to be able to discuss unity. I have already suggested it is not the Liberal party that is dividing this country. I have suggested it is not the cabinet that is dividing this country. I am suggesting that-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am suggesting that we can find unity only by avoiding one man's ambitions. This man is ambitious. I am suggesting to the members of the government and to government supporters that this man is dangerous to you. You are going to lose your seats because of this man's attitude.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley James Korchinski: Well, if it is all right for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to suggest it is dangerous for the Conservative party

to have a certain leader, I am sure it must be all right for me to make the same suggestion to the Liberals.
Where are we heading? I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, where we are heading. I have a letter here, and I do not mind telling hon. members that I did not receive very many letters concerning this problem. This is one of the reasons I have not participated in this debate heretofore. I have a letter here from which I am going to quote very briefly. This letter is from one of my constituents, a French Canadian if you want to use that hyphenated name. She is Mrs. Roland Bosse from Perigord, Saskatchewan, which is a French community. I receive a great reception when I go there. Let me tell the members of the government what they are doing.


Mr. Rouleau:: Is the letter in French or English?


Stanley James Korchinski: Let me tell the hon. member what she says about the flag:
I'm sending you three letters that I cut out from "The Western Producers, The Young Co-Ops' Page", and they express my feelings better than I can express them myself.
I am just going to quote this letter. I am sure she did not want to hurt my feelings, and I do not want to offend her in any way: Canada, O Canada
"United we stand; divided we fall." This is an old saying that historians often use in reference to the fall of a country. Does this hold true today? We are faced with the division of our country today, and most of us realize this. All over this large country of ours a team to study bilingualism and biculturalism has been set up, headed by Andre Laurendeau and Davidson Dunton. Exchange students are being sent to Quebec and vice-versa.
The new flag has raised the question of further split. I am sure all of us would be content with the old flag if the new one had to be brought in at the expense of a division in our country. If we all work for the interest of the country I am sure a division can be prevented.
Now, this expresses her sentiments, and I underline the fact that it expresses my sentiments. I do not want a division in this country. I believe that Quebec is part of Saskatchewan, if you want to look at it that way. I believe I have an interest in that province. I have tried my utmost to understand the situation. I believe that today the Prime Minister is going headlong into something, and he does not know where it is going to end. If he wants to immortalize his name he will do so in one way, and that will be as the man who divided this country.
This is not going to be a laughing matter when it happens. I do not regard this as something funny. My parents came to this 20220-482J
Canadian Flag
country because it had a future, and they would not want to see a division in this country. If you think it is a silly matter, then you do not respect the historical background of our flag. Let us not forget that right today Britain does not want to allow Southern Rhodesia its independence until such time as freedom and free speech for all its people are guaranteed within its confines. This is what that country stands for. This is what my people came to; this is what we want, and this is what I want. Do you not want it?
I heard overtures from the Social Credit party suggesting we should propose closure, and the hon. member who sits behind a former leader of the Social Credit group suggested he would be willing to impose closure. Is this what this new flag is going to represent-lack of freedom of speech? This is not what my people want; this is not what I want. I am sure this is not what government members want.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Speak for yourself.


Stanley James Korchinski: I am speaking for myself and I hope I speak for a lot more people when I speak for freedom of speech. Is the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Deschatelets) suggesting for one moment that freedom of speech is not important?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I said speak for yourself.


Stanley James Korchinski: In uttering those words at this moment he is expressing a freedom of speech that is unknown in many countries. In fact if he spoke them in some countries he would be taken behind the curtain, and it would be an iron curtain.
I am suggesting that there is nothing to prevent the government from taking action which will provide a solution for this problem. Obviously the opposition is not being foolhardy. We are doing this because of the type of letters we get, and because of the type of reaction across the country. Obviously we are speaking for a minority, if it is such; but it could be a majority, and I am suggesting the longer this debate is prolonged it will become a majority. I am sure most of the government supporters will agree with that- that it will be a majority, if it is not one already.
I know what the reaction was in the press gallery when this debate started. Members of the press gallery said public opinion would solidify itself behind the flag issue and that the Prime Minister would be all right. This is what they thought; but let me point out to the government members and the members of the press gallery, if it is not obvious to

Canadian Flag
them already, that public support has not solidified behind the government, has not backed up the Prime Minister in his bold, foolhardy venture. The man who is Prime Minister today had a bold and imaginative idea. It is all right to be bold and imaginative, but he is going to learn it is over his head and that it is about time he quit.
Why must he pursue this course? It is for the simple reason, as I said before, that he wants to immortalize himself through the flag. Why must the rest of his party be subjected to that type of treatment? I suggest to his party that the mixed caucus it holds stinks. This idea stinks and the Prime Minister should not go through with it. I suggest that his party should not pursue this course because it is foolhardy, because they are going over a cliff. Like lemmings they are heading for the sea. There are a lot of good members on the government side; perhaps some of the finest members are found on the other side, and I would like to see their faces again, but not in shame. If they divide this country it will not be for a day or a year or two; it will be for a long time.
I do not like to see my fellowmen fighting me. I do not like to fight my fellowmen. I see no reason. Because of what-a flag? I am sure a country can exist without a flag.


An hon. Member:: We are the only one.


Stanley James Korchinski: If we want to preserve our unity, if we have any respect for each other we can exist without a flag. If this is what you say, then we have done it for over 100 years.
Speaking of history, at one stage when Lord Durham was preparing his report he had a sheaf of notes and he jotted down what came to his mind. The thought that entered his mind on one particular occasion was that this was a country without a history. This he jotted down, and later that day the maid entered his study to clean up and she saw these notes. I understand she was a French maid, and when she saw what he had written she thought it was wrong, and she wrote that on his notes.


Mr. Dupuis:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Stanley James Korchinski: Just hold on a minute. When Lord Durham saw his notes in the morning he realized he had been wrong and that this woman knew what she was talking about. He asked her to explain why she had written on his notes, and she told him that Canada was rich in its history, even at that date.

We are not an emerging nation. We are not a nation that all of a sudden has got its independence. We are going to celebrate our 100th anniversary. We have a history. Are you to deny what has happened in the past? Am I to deny it? Stalin told his people, "Things happen this way." After him Khrushchev came along and said what happened under Stalin did not exist. Are those in Germany today, much as they dislike what happened in Germany, and much as a lot of us dislike it, to deny it happened? They cannot deny that they had a history. They had a history, much as we may dislike it.
Somebody said Wolfe fought Montcalm. Wolfe defeated Montcalm, somebody said; but the other point of view is that Montcalm surrendered to him. It does not matter how you look at it. The point is that this happened, and much as we may like or dislike certain events, they did happen; and much as the government supporters may dislike what is happening here today the fact is that there are those who want to preserve history as we know it, and I want to be associated with those people who want to be proud of our history.
I am amazed that the Prime Minister, a past history professor, should discard our history. What reason is there in this?


An hon. Member:: You know something about the Poles and the Ukrainians, don't you?


Stanley James Korchinski: I know something about Canada, and that is what I am interested in. The point I am making is this-that the Prime Minister, a former history professor, says that history is to be forgotten and that we are going to start from scratch. And scratch it is. Somebody has suggested to me that if you draw three twigs on one base- a chicken's foot-that is the flag in winter. The Prime Minister is dividing this country today in such a way that I am ashamed. I have a letter here, but before I read it I should like to put on record a comment by Lubor J. Zink which I think sets out the situation very clearly.
All this sowing of nationalistic mistrust, which cannot but produce a harvest of hatred and strife is done by allegedly rational men motivated by visions of a strong united Canada.
I am sure that at one point the Prime Minister must have thought he was unifying Canada. I am equally sure that at this stage he is bound to realize he has not done so. He has divided us. I do not mind telling the supporters of the government that if there had been a free vote at an early stage

of this debate I might have felt as they do. But I have since changed my mind, as I think a great many Canadians have also changed their minds. I do not know whether I speak here for an ethnic group. I know I can speak as one member of an ethnic group. And I say the Prime Minister is wrong and that he had better consider the situation again.
We have offered alternatives. We have suggested a plebiscite. It is true that in a sense this was a negative proposition-


An hon. Member:: Your own member voted against it.


Stanley James Korchinski: I do not care how he voted. That is the freedom he enjoys. There was no effort in this party to prevent a free vote. But there was no free vote on the government side.
We offered another alternative. It must be remembered that it was the Conservative opposition, and the Conservative opposition alone, which offered this other suggestion and I am proud to stand with it. No one on the government side put forward the suggestion we now offer that this question should now be placed before a committee. If hon. members opposite want to save the face of the Prime Minister they should plead with him to accept this proposal. I do not know how they will go about it. I have tried in a quiet way to suggest to private members that they should make such an approach but, apparently, they were unable to get through to him. For anyone to suggest, as did the leader of the Social Credit party, that this party is not consulted by its leader-I think the blame should be laid on the government side of the house-is absolutely disgusting.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Robert Norman Thompson: Up to this point I have not taken part formally in this flag debate, but at the present time I feel we have reached a stage where there must be some alternative course to the one we are following now. Therefore, I wish to speak briefly in order to put forward a few suggestions which I think are vitally urgent as far as an alternative line of approach is concerned.
Many charges have been made by various members who have taken part in this debate, including the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) who has just spoken. In my opinion, this is not an occasion for further remarks which might arouse emotions or feel-
Canadian Flag
ings. It is a time when we must realize it is imperative for us to reach some kind of agreement which can bring this spectacle, of which we are all a part, to an end.
I do not care for the way in which the flag issue was introduced into this house. I think the timing was poor. I think the method which was used to bring these resolutions before us can hardly be considered the best. Neither does the three maple leaf design appeal to me as far as its beauty is concerned, or in terms of the type of flag I should like to see this nation have. I must admit however that since the debate began I have learned much more about the history of the three maple leaf emblem and the extent to which it has been tied in with Canada's story from the beginning. But somehow it seems to lack the aesthetic appeal which a flag should have.
On the other hand, I have taken the stand for a number of years that Canada should have a distinctive Canadian flag. I have spent most of my adult years overseas living in foreign countries and it has been my privilege to share part of the general regard which, for the most part, nationals of foreign countries have for Canadians. I do not think this regard arises so much out of what has been done by our successive governments. Rather I think it has risen because of what Canadians have done. It seems that whether they are of English stock, or French stock, or whether they have another ethnic origin, Canadians are able to make friends with and influence effectively the people with whom they come into contact. This is one of the reasons I have for thinking that Canada has a definite role to play in a world whose affairs come closer to us each year.
One of the questions which has been asked of me over and over again in the course of years is: Why don't we have a flag which is distinctively Canadian? People in other countries often ask whether we still belong, as a colony, to Great Britain. They wonder whether or not we are an autonomous nation. They find our position difficult to understand. In June I was part of a delegation which visited Europe, and while there I talked to many of our people, who are doing a wonderful job-in fact, it seems to me they are better liked than they were ten years ago when they first went to Europe. But I did not find a single officer serving in Europe with our Canadian forces who did not voice the wish that we might have some distinctive flag expressive of the distinctive and unique role which Canada is playing at the present time. As to my own convictions with

Canadian Flag
regard to this, I have tried to respect the opinions of others. I do not think this is a matter we should use in order to develop animosity among ourselves. Goodness knows, we have little enough of a national purpose today without trying to break down further what there might be.
So, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that we ought to try to come together in some non-partisan way in order to work out together a design that would be acceptable to all of us, in a way that the majority of Canadian people would agree with, and which would make them proud of the flag decided upon. I do not think it has been helpful to any of us in this house or to the nation to have this debate carry on as it has now for 20 days. I believe it is the responsibility of every one of us in this house to endeavour to make it possible to come to some mutually acceptable agreement, an agreement that is not forced upon one or the other and is not legislated upon one or the other.
I am confident that such an agreement is possible. I am sure that if we were to lay out the vehicle by which this coming together could be made possible, we would even surprise ourselves how quickly we could come to some agreement. I do not think there is anything to be gained by charging the Liberals at this time that they did not do this the right way, or because they did not consult on a non-partisan basis or did not adhere to their original position that there would be a free vote, as was said at the beginning. These things belong to the past. I do not agree with the tactics and the policy the Conservative opposition have used. I do not think this is the time to try to arouse feelings or to condemn them for that. I believe the time has come when we should try to come together in order to reach some agreement.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


Robert Norman Thompson: If the hon. member does not mind, Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to answer his questions afterwards. I find that this flag debate has become odorous in the nostrils of our own countrymen, and a spectacle to other countries which must cause them to smile in a tolerant way, as though they were watching children quarrelling at play. We have become akin to high school cheering sections, tearing each other to pieces on the sidelines while the people who paid the price want us to get on with the game for which they paid.

It is time we got down to the serious business of running our country's affairs, which we have been sent here by the people to accomplish. We are in danger of not holding the country together at all so that any flag of any description can have anything to fly over. If we do not behave like responsible, mature people, we will not be doing anything more than reserving a picture of the map of Canada in a page of world history of something that once was-a faded camelot. You can colour it "shattered".
Unless there are ulterior motives on the part of some individuals-and I do not believe this is so in this house-reasonable men should be able to arrive at a reasonable and fair solution to our unnecessary dilemma. At the heart of our democratic process is the basic philosophy of majority rule with flexibility of action to make required concessions to a minority opinion. It has been said that politics is the art of the possible. There is nothing wrong with that. But I believe it is impossible for us to continue as we are going on at the present time. The only result that can come to pass by having the government resort to closure directed at those who are opposing the three maple leaf design, and to have them fail in their objective, would be to have it replaced by a more acceptable design.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is possible for us to come together. That is why I am speaking in this manner at this time. We can come together on this issue so that the House of Commons may proceed with the legislation that is vital to our country. I would suggest, first of all, that the Prime Minister call, immediately after Labour day, another meeting of the leaders. I would urge the Prime Minister to consider this request. Second, I suggest that a committee be set up to which both flag resolutions could be referred. It has been proposed that this committee comprise 15 members; I have no objection to that. But I do not think we should demand of this committee a degree of unanimity that it is impossible to expect if it is there as a requirement. I believe we should accept such a committee being set up; we should accept those who are suggested to represent the different parties on that committee in good faith, in that they will consider the resolutions and be able to come to some mutually acceptable agreement.
I am sure that if this committee were to be set up on that basis there could be achieved just as great a degree of unanimity as there was in the former committee in 1946.

Third, this committee should be given one month to deliberate to seek a mutually acceptable alternative. This would bring us past the date of the Queen's visit. If the committee could come to an agreement in less than 30 days, all to the good; then their report should come back to the house. The fourth point is that when the report comes back to the house, if it received mutual acceptance in the committee the following debate should be limited to the party leaders in connection with the recommendations of the committee. In the event that it was impossible to come to a mutually acceptable agreement in a month, then the matter should be referred again to a meeting of the leaders.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: How long did the previous committee sit? I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member would consider that, in the light of his suggestion that the committee sit for one month.


Robert Norman Thompson: The hon. member has asked how long the previous committee sat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the hon. member's suggestion of one month.


Robert Norman Thompson: In answer to that question I would say that I do not think that length of time would be required at this point. We have had 20 days of debate up to this time. If we would be honest with each other and would admit our own feelings in regard to this debate, I believe it would be practically unanimous that most of us are fed up with the way this debate has been going on, and would like to see some alternative. As I talk to different members I seem to sense that there is a determination or desire to come together, rather than to let this matter continue as it has been.
If agreement could not be had in a matter of a month's deliberations, then the question could be referred back to the leaders again and if necessary some alternative action could be taken. As a further alternative, this question could again come back to the house. I believe these suggestions are reasonable, Mr. Speaker. I believe these suggestions are necessary because it troubles me to think how we can expect to continue this debate through the next weeks of September and be in any frame of mind ourselves or to have developed within our own country an attitude favourable to the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. Certainly what we are doing now is encouraging those elements within our society that resent her coining and would do violence to her. This is something that is in-
Canadian Flag
tolerable, and certainly not in keeping with the reputation, dignity and loyalty that Canadians and Canada have portrayed as far as the crown is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, if this suggestion in respect of setting a time for a leaders meeting can be acted upon by the Prime Minister before we go home for the Labour day week end, it would give us all time to reflect seriously on the situation that now exists and to probably sense in a more realistic way the attitude of the people in this country. Then perhaps we can go along with the spirit that should have developed as a result of the first centennial celebrations which have just concluded in Prince Edward Island. If we find it is not possible to do that, then we are left open to the kind of criticism that is mounting from every side, criticism from those Canadians who are loyal to what Canada is and who have ambitions and desires for the continuation and projection of what Canada should be in the future.
Typical of this criticism is that editorial which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of yesterday entitled "If the Fathers Came Back". At this recent celebration in Prince Edward Island certain men portrayed the fathers of confederation and acted out the events that took place 100 years ago. If those men, who re-enacted those scenes, had actually been the Fathers of Confederation back in our midst, what would they have thought about what they found here in Canada?
The part of this editorial that impressed me very much reads as follows:
But saddest of all for the fathers would be their look at what takes place today In the capital city on the shore of the Ottawa river. Here was to be the parliament of the nation-a parliament with wisdom and skill and eloquence, capable of seeing and shaping a broadening destiny. Instead they would find a faded hope, a tawdry spirit, a pitiful wrangle, an exhibition of how little littleness can become.
The vision they had has departed. The parliament that heard the voice of Thomas D'Arcy McGee, and the good humoured good sense of Macdonald, and the blunt integrity of George Brown, and the fiery statesmanship of Cartier has become a gathering that has lost all faith in itself, that knows not what to do, that lets the sun come down on day after day of drab uselessness.
I do not believe that anyone who is trying to follow the thoughts I am projecting has any purpose or useful intent in interjecting things that would be contrary to how the general public is coming to regard us and this institution. Summarizing my remarks as briefly as possible, I would urge the Prime Minister to reconvene the leaders meetings again on Tuesday after Labour day, and

Canadian Flag
suggest that the leaders, including the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), should seriously consider and display a willingness to let a committee have one month to attempt to work out a solution to this problem. Again I say I am convinced that if 15 men, even if some were those who have expressed themselves very strongly on both sides of this matter, could come together on this basis, before 30 days had passed-and perhaps even before one week-they could come to a decision which would be mutually agreeable to at least the vast majority of the party representatives, if not a unanimous decision. Who knows but what this thing could be resolved even before the Queen came here, by our own free will and by our serious intent to resolve a problem today that has degenerated into a hopeless situation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would repeat this suggestion with the thought and, yes, may I say with the prayer, that we will all seriously consider this or some similar avenue of approach that would end this damaging and futile debate in which we are engaged at this present time. I think it is the responsibility of every one of us, who claim to be loyal Canadian citizens, to use our every effort and influence, on the basis of loyalty to the nation and with a sense of national purpose, to see that this thing does come to some such conclusion, which I am confident can come to pass.
Thank you.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to draw attention to the fact that nothing the hon. member has said during the last 25 minutes has had any relevancy whatsoever to the subamendment or amendment. I hope the same freedom will be allowed other members who speak during this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the
hon. member a question? He suggested that it was now open to the Prime Minister to again ask for a conference of the leaders of the different parties. Is he asking the Prime Minister to do this? The Prime Minister has left the door open, as a result of which it has been stated that he has backed up. However he has left the door open in respect of suggestions from members of the opposition. It was suggested by the leader of the official opposition-


Mr. Smallwood:: Order. Are you making a speech?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I should like to ask a question.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You have not got the guts to make a speech about the red ensign.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: I just want to ask a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the hon. member put his question.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Get up and make a speech on the red ensign if you are going to make a speech at all.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Is the hon. member inviting the Prime Minister to call a meeting?


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I would say in answer to the hon. member's question that I am inviting the Prime Minister to again convene the meetings of the leaders of the different parties. We cannot demand that he do so but I would urge that he take such action.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? If when such a meeting is held there is difficulty in agreeing to establish a formal committee, which might require a vote in the house, and might even result in a debate, would the hon. member also consider suggesting to the meeting of leaders that consideration be given to establishing an informal committee, perhaps with the same number of members, which might after several meetings be able to come to a conclusion that would be helpful to us all?


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am very willing to agree to such a suggestion and would propose it if necessary. In fact, I think that every member in this house should bring to his individual leader, and discuss it with others, the suggestion that we make this a non-partisan discussion so that we as members of this House of Commons can come to some agreement. I think it is the duty of every member of this house to put forward suggestions, perhaps better than the ones which have been proposed. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has suggested there is nothing new in this proposal. I do not make any claim that it is a new proposal, but actually if the hon. member looks back far enough he will find there is nothing new under the sun in this old world of ours. It does seem to me

that what I have suggested is a logical approach. I think we should get together in respect of every possible or plausible suggestion, to accomplish this purpose.
I say this as a Canadian, not as a westerner. I have lived away from Canada too long to take a provincial view. I believe that Quebec is my Canada, as much as Alberta is, and I should like to think that members from Quebec feel that way about other parts of Canada. In that spirit let us see if we can get together on this matter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. With regard to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, perhaps I should have tried to give a ruling earlier. However, as the hon. member knows, the Chair has tried to interpret the rules of relevancy as leniently as possible in this debate. While the hon. member for Red Deer was speaking it was my opinion that his remarks related to the aspect of unity stressed in the subamendment before the house, and that is why I did not think he should be called to order.


Robert Norman Thompson: May I make one remark, Mr. Speaker. I forgot even to mention the subamendment. I did not consider that the previous speaker was referring to it at all. What I had in mind saying was this. I have been in favour of a plebiscite but I am not sure whether or not it could serve a useful purpose now. I do not think it should be connected with an election. I am even in favour of the subamendment because I think that is the way a plebiscite could be most effective. On the other hand, at this point I think we should be talking about the situation in which we find ourselves, because I believe that because of that situation we are going to have to find some other solution, even though earlier we would have liked to see a plebiscite held.


Mr. Moreau:: Will the hon. member permit another question? I was interested in his remarks that we should not expect unanimous agreement in this committee. In view of the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that there should be a virtually unanimous view, would he not agree that such a committee would likely be very fruitless, having in mind the veto power granted in that way?


Robert Norman Thompson: I was very careful to state and I reiterate now that I do not think you can legislate unanimity. It is like trying to bring a boy and girl together and telling them they must love each other. It does not work
Canadian Flag
out that way. But if we could come together with a sense of co-operation and good will, forget about the demand for unanimity, and set up an ordinary committee I believe we could achieve unanimity far more easily than if we attempted to legislate it. Let us forget the veto. Let us forget all of that. Let us not use such words. If we could not reach general agreement the matter could come back to the leaders, but I am confident that we could come to an agreement and even surprise ourselves.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) speaks, may I ask the hon. member for Red Deer another question?


Robert Norman Thompson: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If I heard him correctly, he said he was in favour of a plebiscite. Yet the other day he voted against it. How does he explain that?


Robert Norman Thompson: I did not vote against a plebiscite at all. I voted against a subamendment with a set of questions with which I did not agree. That is why I voted the way I did. I have advocated a plebiscite right from the beginning. In fact, I believe it was an hon. member of this party who suggested for the first time that the counting of the vote should not be done on a regional or provincial basis, but on a national basis. I think this would have been an excellent way of arriving at a solution to the problem, but I think that at the present time we have gone beyond that point. I believe the Liberal government would have been far better advised if they had adopted some such proposal at the beginning.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Then I can take it from the hon. member's remarks that he is in favour of the subamendment and the amendment before the house?


Robert Norman Thompson: I said I was in favour of the subamendment proposed yesterday as it relates to a plebiscite.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And you are prepared to vote for it?


Robert Norman Thompson: Don't put words in my mouth.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is why we want you to explain yourself fully.


Robert Norman Thompson: From the very beginning, long before the flag issue was brought before the house in the form of a resolution, I have talked plebiscite. However, I qualify my statement at the present time because I think that

Canadian Flag
as a result of the way in which the government introduced the matter and the way in which the debate has developed a plebiscite is not the answer to the problem now, although it is an approach that should have been taken before.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Retreat.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You will never vote against the Liberals.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonion-Slralhcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure most members of the house were much impressed by the sincerity of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) in what I considered a great speech that he made this afternoon. I am glad there has been a little comedy relief since then, prior to my rising, because I thought his was a pretty tough act to follow.
With regard to the suggestions of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), the leader of the Social Credit party, I can agree with him on one point, that the matter should go to a committee. However, it did seem to me most significant and very peculiar that he should propose a time limit of one month for the committee and a limiting of the debate to the leaders afterward, if the committee should not be unanimous in its recommendation. Neither the hon. member for Red Deer nor anyone on the government side has ever bothered to explain the necessity for the rush. Why does this matter have to be concluded within a specified time or in such a hurry or at a non-stop pace? Surely those members who are so exercised about a new flag regard the matter as serious enough that the problem should be dealt with by the house in its own good time, so that everybody can be heard and every voice from across the country can be heard and considered.
If the hon. member for Red Deer was serious in the platitudinous speech he just made he should have at least explained the necessity for the rush. If he wants the matter to go to a committee, why does there have to be a time limit? Why is there any hurry at all to finish the flag debate? I cannot understand why the committee should be limited to 15 members. I am certain the house is aware that a previous parliamentary committee was able to deal with this matter and bring about a good deal of agreement. On that occasion there was no time limit and the committee finished its work within a reasonable length of time, and made a very reasonable suggestion which I think had general support in the house.

There is only one reason why we are having any trouble with the flag debate. It is the manner in which the government is handling the matter. I would think that anyone who had the temerity to make the suggestion that the hon. member made should deal with the aspect of time and tell us why there is a rush. What is wrong with the government's putting aside a very contentious issue and bringing forward more urgent legislation? What is wrong with putting this matter aside for a while and letting tempers cool and negotiations be conducted? What is the reason we have to have a change in our national flag right now?
I was very concerned this afternoon, when the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) a question, to see the reaction of some of the government supporters. They wanted no compromise line followed with regard to this affair. Surely the government should be aware by now that a majority of the people of Canada are not in favour of the three maple leaf design. I am willing to concede it may be possible that a majority of the people want a change in our present national flag, but since the government is insisting that only one flag be considered and since the opposition is aware that a majority of the people of Canada do not want that flag, we have one simple duty to perform, to make sure that the flag resolution does not pass.
There has been only one difficulty throughout the debate, one factor leading to dissension within the country. I refer to the method of handling the flag issue. After all the speeches that have been made and the numbers of letters and newspaper articles that have been quoted, surely the Prime Minister must be aware it is his method of handling the matter that is dividing the country. Once the error has been pointed out and has become so apparent, what is wrong with a man who will not change what is obviously a very bad plan? This, I think, must puzzle the minds of even the most loyal Liberal backbenchers. I would feel a little better about it if the Prime Minister had explained, or even any of the government supporters had explained, the urgency connected with the matter of the flag.
We have asked the question again and again, why the rush? No one has explained why the government is handling the matter in such a hurry. I am willing to listen to any member, and I hope some member over there will get up and explain why it has to be run through non-stop. There is only one explanation that comes to my mind. It is the Prime Minister's

reputation for retreat and somersault, and he is afraid to do anything now. Surely, with the kind of insistence there has been, with the kind of trouble there is in this country today, with the heavy demands that are being made on such a logical basis, this is the one time when the Prime Minister should reverse his stand and receive general credit across the country.
The last time I spoke in this debate, Mr. Speaker, I quoted only small portions from two letters because it distressed me to find this feeling of division in our country. It was distressing to find feelings of resentment against Quebec and therefore I quoted only briefly from these letters. After listening to the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchin-ski) I think perhaps I would have been wiser to have gone into that aspect in more detail. We certainly do not achieve unity in the country by closing our eyes to the feelings that people express. It may well be that a certain amount of the correspondence members receive comes from crackpots, intemperate or violent people, and this would have little or no effect upon a responsible member.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case here. The volume of mail is too large and the tone of many of the letters indicates such a high degree of intelligence and responsibility that we must take very seriously these symptoms of the illness that affects this country today, since the Prime Minister started this method of trying to change our national flag. The Edmonton Journal is the only daily newspaper in northern Alberta and it covers the entire northern half of the province. I think it is a fairly responsible newspaper. The only time I do not feel it is responsible is when it is against me during election campaigns. Other than that, I am sure the publishers and editors try to do their job. On August 25, page 4, the entire top half of that page of the Edmonton Journal was taken up by an article and included a three-column cut of the Prime Minister. The heading is "The Brink of Disaster?".
Perhaps I will have to put the whole of this article on the record, not because I agree with it but because that feeling is so current that the only daily newspaper in northern Alberta gives it prominence. I feel, therefore, it is my duty to bring it to the attention of this house. This feeling of resentment, of puzzlement, was not evident in my area before this flag debate started. I will say that over the last year there has been an expression of puzzlement as to what exactly the members from Quebec want. What is this
Motions for Papers
new feeling of nationalism in that French Canadian province? This article is headed "Partition for Canada; it may be the only way says Edmonton's H. B. Turner." I do not know who Mr. Turner is. I may have met him some time, but I cannot place him at the moment. I quote:
I suggest that the blackmail Liberal government of Mr. L. B. Pearson has done more to dissolve confederation than any group could have done had it deliberately set out to accomplish this fact.
Now, that is just the first paragraph. There is the word "blackmail" there. I suggest that if there is this feeling, then part of the reason for it is that there has been no explanation in this house by this government for rushing this flag through. There has been no explanation of the method they are using and why they are using it. There has been silence from the government supporters. There has been a stubborn, steadfast refusal to handle this matter of the flag in the manner in which it was handled before, and there has been apparently a complete blindness and deafness to the situation in Canada today. The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) had the effrontery to suggest we are always responsible for this house becoming disreputable; that this flag debate is bringing down the standard of the house. I suggest that when the government starts determinedly on a course to try to foist a flag on the country in this manner, when we know the majority of the people do not want that flag, when there is no alternative action, when they refuse to handle it in any manner other than by force, then we have no alternative but to do what we can to make sure that that course is not successful.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions, private bills and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and letters exchanged between the Postmaster General, his executive assistant, his parliamentary secretary, or the deputy minister of his department and the postmaster at Thetford Mines, from January 1, 1960 to June 30, 1964.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills
Raymond Langlois: With regard to this notice of motion, may I say that I have had a talk with the Postmaster General and ascertained that the information I was seeking was available from the Department of Public Works. I have received this information from the Department of Public Works, so there is no necessity for proceeding with this motion. I should like, with the consent of this house, to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to withdraw the motion?


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



SECURITY PROCEDURES AND INVESTIGATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Resuming debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Orlikow-That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the house give consent to letting this resumed debate stand?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Do we have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order stands.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-39, respecting Meota Pipe Lines Ltd.-Mr. Nugent.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, August 20, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Konantz for the second reading of Bill No. S-6, to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada, and the motion proposed thereto by Mr. Perron.
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the amendment moved the other day by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Perron) to the effect that Bill No. S-6 should not be read a second time but deferred for six months. This would give the mover and all those who support the bill an opportunity to consider carefully the remarks made by the hon. member for Beauce. It would also permit them to study the merits of his statement, as well as the suggestions he made to the house in this connection.

I wish to point out at the outset that if I participate in the killing of this bill, it is not that I want to prevent anyone from earning a living but there is a principle involved.
No matter who had presented this bill in the house, I would still be opposed to its passing, because my constituents elected me to the house precisely to help change the monetary system which we have to put up with since the Bank of Canada relinquished its powers to chartered banks.
I would therefore feel remiss if I let this bill pass today without giving my views on the present banks and monetary system.
I must tell you that I am very surprised to note that those who urge the nationalization of almost everything that belongs to private industry hardly think of nationalizing the most important business, that on which all the others depend as well as the public: the chartered banks.
Nobody talks about nationalizing credit institutions, though individual economic activities in this nation depend on them in a proportion of over 90 per cent.
Everything should be nationalized, according to some, except the gear-wheels, or machinery, so to say, of all the trusts which are to be nationalized. The existing trusts are to be destroyed, except the parent organization.
This reasoning is quite as ridiculous as if, wanting to get rid of all bees, we wasted our time killing them, while continuing to feed the queen bee which is responsible for what we want to eradicate.
And worse still, Mr. Speaker, instead of destroying this plague at its very source, permission is sought to add others and quite as pernicious ones.
This comparison, which some may think silly, is the exact replica of what is happening in our economy.
At this time we have eight chartered banks which distribute and control the economic blood stream of this nation, that is the money. Is there any reason for pride in the achievements of those institutions so far? When looking at the results, can we really say that those banks have played their part?
The country is constantly getting into debt day after day, year after year; every organization or individual must face this problem.
Is the country in need of money? It loses no time in borrowing from chartered banks. When the provinces need money, they hurry to borrow money from chartered banks. The same applies to our municipalities and our school boards.

Is it normal, Mr. Speaker, for a government that could order the Bank of Canada to create the money required, that could borrow directly for that bank, to have to go to chartered banks owned by private individuals? It just does not make sense and yet, it is exactly what the government is doing at the present time.
At this point, I should like to ask the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) what he would think of the suggestion I am about to make. I address myself to him because he is the last one who is willing to understand what we want to rectify, for the simple reason that he does not understand the present system.
What would he think if, at the end of the month, he gets close to $3,000, I were to ask him to hand me that money and then to come and borrow it from me. That is what the Bank of Canada is doing now. It gives its money to the chartered banks and the government borrows it from them with interest.
With all the power those chartered banks now have, is it any wonder that the Canadian government, no matter which party is in office, should be at the mercy of a few hundred people who do as they please with it because they are empowered to restrict or extend credit.
How is it that, in a time of peace, we should be forced to tighten our belts due to a lack of money, when, to produce weapons of destruction, we can immediately find the funds required? Are those people for whom we provide jobs in wartime not there in peacetime? Are the materials we use to build destruction machines not there in peacetime? Are all those natural resources we develop in wartime not there in peacetime also? How is it that we are unable to use all those energies and resources in peacetime to build, improve, enlarge? How is it that we are unable to employ those people to build, etc. in peacetime?
It is because in peacetime the actual credit based on production and consumption capacity is not related to bank credit. That is why it is abnormal that the credit of the country should be controlled by private institutions instead of by a social credit agency which would seek to facilitate credit in the areas where the need for it is the greatest.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that there are now enough parasites living at the expense of the Canadian people.
When one considers that the Canadian government or parliament is ready to allow a new agency to do like the other chartered banks, namely to live at the expense of the
Private Bills
people who pay to support them, one realizes that this government merely works for those parasites, as we call the finance people; one is glad to help killing this bill, because there are enough chartered banks now; we do not need more.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Dorchester (Mr. Boutin) said, the question is not whether the bill should be talked out or whether it should be delayed or passed. In my opinion, there is no need at present for another bank which would be known under the "French Canadian" name western bank of Canada. I see on page 5 of the bill that the bank would also be allowed to use the name Ban-que de I'Ouest canadien. It still remains, however, that it is designated as the bank of western Canada on the first page of the bill. But that is only a minor detail.
Mr. Speaker, the sponsor of the bill claimed that the setting up of another chartered bank would provide more credit in Canada. That is untrue.
Over the past 60 years, there has been a centralization of more than 30 banks; their number has even been reduced to eight under the Bank of Canada Act. That being so, would the addition of two more banks be justified now?
Mr. Speaker, the number of banks is unimportant; it is what banks can do which counts. At present, I think the chartered banks are being called upon to restrict credit. If the government itself controlled its own credit and credit issues, we would not have to put up with the effects such restrictions have on the financial system which is itself inadequate.
I note among the shareholders or those asking that the company be incorporated, the names of the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mrs. Konantz) and that of the former governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Coyne, who, as we all know, experienced certain difficulties in 1954 about his ideas on the Canadian economy and especially on credit restrictions, because he had been pointing out for a few years that Canadians were living beyond their means and that they should tighten their belts.
It is not a question of increasing or not the number of banks. We, Social Crediters, fear that these banks and not the government control the issuance of credit to the nation. We want a change in that regard.
Therefore, if we are restricted to a particular amount when the government claims to control credit, how can we believe that more banks will create more credit. If you

Private Bills
have eight pounds to divide between eight persons, everyone will get one pound, but it there are ten persons, each one will not get one pound. According to the government, nine or ten chartered banks will make more credit available, but this is precisely the proof that its monetary policy is unsound. "The more banks, the more credit". That is false. Normally, credit should be proportionate to the total production, to the potential output of the country, of its manpower, of its natural resources.
Private enterprise is not short of credit nowadays.
Mr. Speaker, the chartered banks are private financial institutions which should finance only the private sector in the Canadian economy. As a matter of fact, if I get credit from a bank, it is normal that it should charge interest. By lending me money, the bank does me a service and I must pay it interest, just as the worker is entitled to his salary. That applies in the private sector of the Canadian economy. However, there is no reason to increase the number of chartered banks which already exist because they can do the same thing, that is be of service to the population.
Besides, when you borrow money from a chartered bank, you must pay interest; that interest is included in the final price of the article sold. In that case, the bank's interest is covered. But here is where the present system fails. We lack the public financial institutions which could supply public credit, which is something entirely different. That is another sector of the economy which seems to be forgotten. It seems that no difference is made between private and public credit.
When I talk about a manufacturer, I talk about private credit. The same thing goes when I talk about credit granted to a farmer who harvests potatoes; that is private credit. As a matter of fact, the money he invests in his farm or machinery to grow potatoes is private credit.
But when I talk about bridges, highways, waterworks, viaducts, in short any public utility which serves everyone in general and no one in particular, everything should be financed in the same way the private sector is financed by private credit. Consequently, public utilities should be financed by public credit.
It does not make any more sense to finance public business from private funds than it would to finance private business from public funds. Today, we are taking advantage of the revenue of the private sector to fi-
[Mr. Langlols.l
nance sidewalks, waterworks, schools, streets, roads and bridges. The money needed for such public works comes from the private sector, nowhere else. In this connection, I think we could obtain the necessary credit, without interest and without having to go through chartered banks.
Instead of suggesting the establishment of a new chartered bank, which would be adding another one to the eight already existing, why not use the Bank of Canada in the various provinces of the country, with branches to finance public utilities? Then, chartered banks would only have to finance the private sector, which they would do very well.
My opinion as a mathematics professor is that the suggestion of establishing a new bank does not make any sense and is antimathematical. We will never swallow that kind of theory.
If it is nonsensical to use public credit to make investments in the private sector, it is even more nonsensical to inject private credit into the public sector to finance public business.
Bridges do not belong to me, roads do not belong to me as a member of parliament or as a private individual; they do not belong to me, even if they belong to everybody. If the Bank of Canada were to finance public business through its branches, we would pay much less interest for the construction of highways or bridges. Construction costs could be refunded at the depreciation rate of the public utility built or the natural resource developed.
If it is a bridge of $3 million, you would have a certain depreciation each year-engineers know what this depreciation would be. The amount is recovered each year. If the construction cost of the bridge were $3 million and the depreciation rate established at 5 per cent per annum, you would only have to recover the construction cost at a rate of 5 per cent per annum. That bridge would then be financed through public credit, without any interest. Thus we would not have to pay the cost of that bridge three times.
We know that as soon as the construction of a bridge is completed, it starts to depreciate. The bridge does not produce anything nor does it increase in value. Why should it be paid for three times? By using public credit, credit would be created and after completion the bridge would be paid for.
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) to pay attention to what I am saying. I ask him to listen care-

fully. He will soon see the ridiculous situation we are in now. He just has to establish the total value of our production to realize that we owe more than we actually have in value. I am referring here to the total debt of the country and to its total assets. We have more debts than accounts receivable. The same thing should be done for the United States, the richest country in the world. The United States, after having collected everything which was due to them, plus everything they owe, are still in debt.
In making these computations we unavoidably find that every country has a debt. How is it that every country has a debt when it has collected all its receivable accounts? To whom is it indebted? I would like the Minister without Portfolio to take the time to figure out where the shortcoming lies. He will then undoubtedly understand that there is something which is wrong in our financial system.
That is the reason why I believe we should make the changes. There is unavoidably hardship when our human laws come in conflict with the logical and natural needs of our citizens. Well then, it is illogical to create another chartered bank when there are already eight which are operating quite well and which can create all the private credit that the private sector needs. What is wrong is that the public sector must be financed by money from the private sector, and that results in a lack of credit in the private sector.
Why must the public sector repay sometimes four times the cost of construction? It is a little like the wheels of an automobile; the wheels of the private sector and those of the public sector are not turning at the same speed.
In fact, with a small wheel and a big wheel, we are apt to turn round in a circle. That is exactly what is being done today. One wheel is turning faster than the other. What we want is to balance the two wheels. At that time we shall go where we want and not where the wheels take us.
Mr. Speaker, as long as I am a member of this house, I shall oppose the setting up of another chartered bank. Perhaps I shall not object to a provincial bank. But, there again, we should know whether this bank would finance the private and the public sectors, because if its only object was to finance the private sector, I would oppose its creation.
Today, it is public financing which is lacking. It should be possible to finance public projects without having to pay the cost four or five times over; in other words, we shall
Private Bills
always have credit restrictions, and be unable to balance things, an inacceptable condition in a country like Canada, which should be the richest in the world, but where some people are still literally dying of malnutrition; all that can be attributed to our financial system as it is today.
Mr. Speaker, I object to this bill and I shall continue to do so.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, while reading the bill to incorporate the bank of western Canada and realizing that it comes from the Senate, I cannot but think that the Senate members refused to pass another bill that was requested by all the citizens from a certain province. They bluntly refused, without giving any explanation.
And they expect to bring before the House of Commons an entirely private bill, a bill coming from individuals who request that a bank be added to the eight chartered banks that we already have in Canada.
I do not know whether it is due to the age of the senators, whom I respect, but things have turned topsy-turvy when you begin by refusing what close to two million people ask for and then grant a special favour-because a chartered bank is a special favour-to people like Mr. Coyne and all those whose names are listed here.
Perhaps we will be accused of being against chartered banks. But we are in favour of doing justice to the majority of the people. Now, if the House of Commons were to grant a charter to another bank, I say and I maintain that it should first favour the majority of the population, by complying with a request made by a whole province, before complying with the request of two or three individuals.
We will no doubt be told that several names appear on the list, but we know too well now what a chartered bank is to be fooled by this list of names.
Mr. Speaker, I am not against chartered banks, inasmuch as they remain in their sector. But when they start encroaching on the public sector and especially when this government gives them, by a legal act, the right to accomplish what only a national bank should accomplish, we object.
We are not opposed to the banks themselves, but to the special powers and privileges given to them by former governments. I do not wish to pass judgment on those governments, but they were supposed to administer the business of the country in the interest of the people. Now, I can assure you that

Private Bills
serious questions come to our mind concerning chartered banks.
Mr. Speaker, if we were to increase the present number of chartered banks, what would that change, as long as we maintain that monetary principle, that funny credit? Social Crediters are being accused of wanting to print funny money, but nobody realizes that as it is, we have the funniest monetary credit that ever existed.
Whether we have one, two, three, ten, 20 or 50 agencies issuing credit-I say issuing credit because everybody knows exactly now that the real specialty of chartered banks is to issue new credit-if we always maintain the same monetary system we have today, nothing much will be changed. We might get more competition between those who gamble on the taxpayer because I look at what banks are doing today and I consider them much more as economy gambling houses than as serious accounting institutions whose purpose would be to work in the interests of every citizen.
Besides we cannot blame them for it, because they are private institutions acting for private interests.
But the error of the government is to try to have them play a public part. Precisely, that part should be played by the Bank of Canada. Principles were distorted at that stage by not teaching people what is a real monetary system, because after all a real monetary system, sensibly established, is simply a bookkeeping system.
Today, we of the Social Credit say that this bookkeeping system must be kept by the Bank of Canada and must be nationalized.
If there is one thing that should be national, it is the economic life blood of a nation: its monetary system.
Today they talk about nationalizing everything in the province of Quebec as in other provinces; they nationalize power, they want to nationalize paper mills. It is ridiculous. It is like trying to catch a bear by the tail.
Ministers know it; they cannot speak because undoubtedly their hands are tied, but if they were really sincere and if they worked really for the people and the taxpayer, they would come here to parliament, Mr. Speaker, and they would take steps to free our national economy from all those private financiers who have been fully empowered to empty the taxpayer's pockets.
And if there is one thing that ought to be nationalized by the government, it is surely the monetary system. What do they do today? They say: we have monetary control-be-

cause they read in bulky papers from famous economists that when a country loses 65 per cent of its monetary control, it is bankrupt.
Well, do you know that we, in Canada, only control 10 per cent of our monetary system?
I am wondering if we are not bankrupt three times over because we have lost control of our monetary system at the hands of financiers to whom full powers have been given to control our chartered banks.
We have lost control of over 90 per cent of our credit. In fact, what do we control today? Only the issue of paper money. We control only legal tender, and this control is relatively new, since it dates back to 1934 or thereabouts. Before that-the young people might not remember, but the older people will-each one of the 12 chartered banks in Canada printed its own money. That is why on each bank note appeared the name of the issuing bank-for instance, the provincial bank, the Bank of Montreal, or the names of one of the different banks existing at the time.
On what was the issue of such money based at the time? Each bank had to have in its vaults a gold value equal to the value of the paper money it printed.
You may ask me: What happened that the whole system had to be changed? Well, it happened that they realized that paper money poured from one bank to the other in such quantity that there were monetary surpluses. They realized that there was no more gold in some banks to guarantee the paper money they were issuing.
So the King government, I believe, withdrew from the chartered banks the authorization to print paper money, and ordered that in future only the Bank of Canada would be entitled to issue paper money. And chartered banks were told: if you want paper money, you only have to buy some from the Bank of Canada. And it is still the way it is being done today.
The Bank of Canada has a 100 per cent control over paper money. Should a chartered bank need additional paper money, all it has to do is go to the Bank of Canada and buy the paper money it needs. I am saying this because as far as legal tender is concerned, the chartered bank is playing what is really its part.
The chartered bank is an institution dealing with money; it does not create money. Chartered banks are essential to the over-all economy of this country, but only as far as they play their part, which consists in money dealings. When they use their customers'

Private Bills
deposits to make loans, everything is right. If they do not have enough, they buy some from the central bank in order to lend it at low interest rates. Such is the part chartered banks must play.
As long as chartered banks will not resume playing their proper part, Canada will get more and more into debt, because as long as Canada will only control part of its money supply, which is the legal currency, and will allow the monetary credit, that is, the balance of the money supply, to be controlled, as long as chartered banks will be allowed to issue or create this new monetary credit out of nothing, as long as this government will allow private enterprise to create the assets of the country and to lend it again to the country, I say that a tremendous theft is being committed and parliament is responsible for it before the country. In my opinion, this is a wrong that must be righted.
If in order to correct the legal monetary system the government of that time had to resort to drastic measures to gain a 100 per cent control over its legal currency, if it had to temporarily prohibit all banks and impose new conditions on them, I say that the remedy which was good at that time for the legal currency is good today for monetary credit.
Before 1934 we had lost control of legal currency; today we have lost control of monetary credit. Control of our credit must be regained. Such is the remedy; the means used to regain control of legal currency should be used again.
Then any new credit created in Canada will really be for Canada. For instance, if next year Canada has a capital gain, a net revenue, a surplus, or is richer by more than $10 billion, the amount should be credited to the Bank of Canada, which is the people's bank, the bank of each and every citizen. If instead of giving those $10 billion back to chartered banks so that they may circulate it, they were credited to the Bank of Canada to be used for the welfare of Canadian citizens, I can tell you that in four or five years from now, we would no longer hear about the debt system that we have today.
Suppose that next year we have a capital gain of $10 billion. With that amount, I think we could start by "paying our way", cover our budget expenditures and still have a balance of $3 billion.
But what is being done today to help the average citizen who had the heart to work day and night for the further development
of the country, even with the help of machines and science?
What do we do in point of fact? We say to international financial organizations: Get hold of this production, get hold of the country's net assets and lend it back to the citizens, school boards, municipalities, provinces and even the federal government, while the next day we are being taxed to fully cover budget expenditures, deductions being made from our cheques, while all the revenues of the country are going directly into the hands of international financiers.
Such is our economic situation; such are the results of those special privileges granted to the chartered banks. Those banks are private establishments which have been given the extensive powers of public enterprise. They have been given all the powers the government has for extending new credit. And today there is but one solution: to get into debt.
As my friend was saying a while ago, there was once a fellow who had won $3,000. Overjoyed, he ran to this neighbour and told him: "Here, take this money. I can't look after it, it's too complicated. Tomorrow, I'll come and borrow it from you, with interest." That is exactly what is happening with the chartered banks. We can get out of this impasse if we stop saying we have to get into debt.
If we have to get into debt, it is because we live under a crazy system. That is the only reason why people get into debt. Do not think for a second that Canada is not rich enough to feed a mere 19 million inhabitants.
I am convinced that if our economy were truly strong, our fellow citizens could get what is rightly theirs. For that to happen, however, Canada would need to have its own bookkeeping system.
In short, the only way to achieve that end would be for the Bank of Canada to have full control over such bookkeeping.
As long as chartered banks are not forced to operate on a 100 per cent liquid basis, all other reforms will be useless. That is what we want and that is what the government must require-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there could be a better example of putting the cart before the horse than the introduction of this bill into the house at this time. The house is charged

Private Bills
with the responsibility of taking action on the report of the royal commission on banking, as well as revising the Bank Act next year. Yet at the same time we find the government bringing forward measures which would allow the establishment of, not one, not two but possibly three new banking institutions in this country. Before any action is taken by the house with regard to the establishment of new banking institutions, surely we should have some appreciation of what the government intends to do about the report of the royal commission on banking, and what it intends to do in respect of the revision of the Bank Act next year.
I do not believe it is fair at this time to ask members to approve or disapprove of the establishment of one, two or three new banking institutions when we are not fully cognizant of what the government intends to do with regard to the Bank Act. At the same time, it is my personal opinion that we have no great need for the establishment of new banking institutions in this country. Indeed in recent years we have witnessed the merging of various substantial banking institutions with other banking institutions. I am not referring to banking institutions that have been in existence for one or two years, but those that have been in existence for a great number of years and have a broadly based business in this country. Yet these institutions felt it was necessary to amalgamate with other institutions in order to get a still broader base so that they could compete in a satisfactory manner for the banking business of this country. With this point of view in mind, I feel we should take a very long look at these bills before we allow further institutions of this nature to be established in this country.
Now, it seems to me that the government did not want to face this issue, that it did not want to make any specific decision as to whether or not there was a need for more banking institutions. The government has allowed a large number of people to spend a great deal of money in endeavouring to establish new institutions of this nature in Canada. The government is now in the unfortunate and unfavourable position of having to make a decision which they would rather not make. It would appear to me that we will meet with no success during this session in attempting to pass any of these bills. For this reason, and for the very obvious reason that the Bank Act has to be revised, I feel it would be much wiser if these bills were withdrawn until such time as we, as members of this

house, know exactly what the government's intentions are with regard to the Bank Act.
There is a further problem here and it is a very important one; it is one that will weigh heavily upon the mind of each member as he considers this matter. As I pointed out, we have seen banking institutions amalgamating in this country on numerous occasions in the past few years. It would be a most unfortunate thing if we were to approve the establishment of these banks, then find out within a year or two that their boards of directors decided they should amalgamate with some other bank that is presently in existence and has available a broad base of branches across this nation which are providing a service the people need and like. As a result of this we would find a few people reaping huge benefits in the way of profits because we, as members of parliament, had approved the establishment of these institutions before we were fully cognizant of all the facts related to them.
This is the type of decision that I am sure members would just as soon not be saddled with. Certainly I am in that position. I have not learned that there is any lack of availability of credit through the existing banking institutions. As a matter of fact it has always been my opinion that we probably have the best banking system in the world. We have a system which provides service through branches to communities which, under any other type of system, could not look forward to having a branch bank in their community. This has resulted, in the main, from the fact that we have had a small number of banks with a large number of branches which have been in a position to build up this type of support right across the nation, and the type of financial backing that allowed them to suffer losses in some areas because of the benefits they were able to derive from other areas.
We have a sound system. I would not like to think we would do anything to damage this banking system in any way. At the same time if it is proven to me that we have no fear from the establishment of a new banking institution in this country, that it will provide benefits that are not available now to the Canadian people, that the competition would be of benefit to everyone concerned, then certainly I would be quite willing to give my approval to the establishment of a new bank. However, I feel there are a lot of questions to be answered and that we should not be establishing new banking institutions on an ad hoc basis. I feel this question should be part of the government's revision of the

Bank Act, in association with the royal commission report on banking. Until this is presented to us by the government of the day I do not believe we, as a parliament, should be charged with making a decision on the bill before us, or on the other two bills which I believe are ready to come before us.
Before another private members' hour comes up, Mr. Speaker, I hope the government will give some thought to this problem so that we will not spend another hour on this bill. We should know the long range plans of the government in relation to the Bank Act in general before this bill is considered further.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; the hour appointed for private members' business has expired.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Churchill.
Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I had a few minutes start before private members' hour, but I think it would do no harm to remind the house that the gist of my remarks is simply that the government is going about this flag resolution in the wrong way, that there now seems to be stiffening of attitude, that there does not seem to be any desire to meet half way, and this in face of the fact that there is no explanation why the government should give the matter such haste and urgency, and that no one has been able to explain to the house or to the people of Canada why a flag design must be rammed through.
I do not want to be just negative. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution, or these resolutions, really, should be turned
Canadian Flag
over to a committee of the house. I do not agree with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) that 15 members would do;
I think it should be a good sized committee. Most of our committees consist of 60 members. Many of them have difficulty getting a quorum, and I can only imagine the difficulty of the task imposed on just 15 trying to be there all the time, especially when some seem to be so desirous of speed, as we have seen evidence to that effect.
It is my purpose this evening to point out to the house, in perhaps a more emphatic manner than I did before, the results already observable in the country because of the Prime Minister's determination to force a choice of a flag down the throats of the people of Canada. I say the situation is getting worse because the government persists, even though there is plenty of evidence to show that aside from having a majority of the people of Canada in favour of the flag there is much evidence to indicate that a majority are against it.
The hon. member for Red Deer mentioned the low repute into which parliament is falling. I can only repeat the words of the hon. member for Mackenzie (MT. Korchinski), who said it so well, that this is the government's doing. It is the government which has the responsibility of bringing on business. It is the government that wanted to introduce this flag. It is the government which has so many pieces of legislation on the order paper, and it is entirely in the government's hands whether it wants to proceed with those measures which will cure some of the ills of the country or proceed with this one measure which it thinks will be such a political gimmick and palliative to many who are in economic difficulty. The effect on the country is simply that, and I suspect partly it is because the government is so slow in doing anything for the province of Quebec.
The previous government was berated by some of our members from eastern Canada, Ontario and Quebec, because they had felt that the western farmer had been given too much attention, that too much had been done for him and not enough for the other farmers. There is much evidence to show that the small Quebec farmer is in almost desperate straits. He needs the type of action which the former government gave. He is looking to the present government for that type of action. I would think part of the difficulty here is that everybody across Canada, especially in the west of Canada, knows so well that what this government is doing is substituting politics for government-

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: -asking the people to accept a banner instead of the concrete action that they have waited for so long.
As I think I mentioned previously, a parallel situation would have been the awful plight the western fanners would have met in the last three years by asking them to put a sheaf of wheat on the red ensign, and wave that to show how much the government thought of the farmers. That is what this government is doing to the Quebec farmer.
I suggest that trying to convince the people of Quebec that, because we are holding up this flag debate we are stopping all necessary legislation, is a lie so big it can only be credited to that party which has the greatest success in selling lies to the country, the Liberal party. I want to assure the house that I have had no part in trying to lend any fuel to divisive thought in the country. In my last speech I only mentioned part of a couple of letters, but I do feel my duty to the house is to represent as fully and completely as I can the type of feelings which, as I say, are the result of the way in which the government is now proceeding, and to ask the government again to reconsider.
I had mentioned the first paragraph of an article on page 4 of the Edmonton Journal. Now I am going to read a considerable part of it because I am sure many members of the house will be shocked at its tone, will be surprised at its vehemence. I know through private conversation with some of my Canadian friends of French origin that they found it almost incredible, but they finally had to accept that such is the result of the way in which the government is trying to foist this flag on Canada.
I feel the house should be subjected to the reading of this, in order to give it a little second thought on how we are proceeding. With the permission of the house I shall reread the first paragraph:
I suggest that the "blackmailed" Liberal government of Mr. L. B. Pearson has done more to dissolve confederation than any group could have done had it deliberately set out to accomplish this fact.
In their bid to buy the 75 Quebec seats, the Liberals dropped Canadian politics to a new low by appealing to the nationalistic spirit of the French.
Irresponsible and unconstitutional promises bought them a Quebec majority at the expense of Canada. Cowering to pressure from Quebec has won the Liberals the support of French speaking M.P.'s regardless of political affiliation.
Liberal strategists who formulate policy might well have provided their minions with calling cards with the legend "Have tails, will grovel."

I think the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Horner) mentioned that paragraph the other night. While I believe I should put this on the record because I think it is so scandalous, I hasten to assure the house that these are not my feelings, but the only way in which I am sure the Edmonton Journal could be persuaded to print this kind of article at all is because that newspaper is aware that this sort of feeling is being expressed more and more in the country.
I would remind the house of the Prime Minister's words when he said that what a flag should do is unify the country, and that it should be a unifying banner. I wish the Prime Minister had explained to the house how his unifying banner is going to patch up all this. To continue this article:
The Liberal government has opened a Canadian Pandora's box which it cannot close. We have the spectacle of a federal government that is controlled by Quebec.
Certainly, that reflects a feeling in this country as a result of the actions of a government which, without explanation and contrary to all common sense, contrary to the feeling of parliament and in place of other methods such as trying to get co-operation from other parties, has attempted to ram this decision through. This is bound to give rise to some suspicion, when one considers the predominant number of Quebec ministers in the cabinet, that the Prime Minister has his hands tied-that this resolution must go through, no matter what happens.
French Canadians to a great extent feel strongly that we should have a new flag. This feeling is common knowledge. In the absence of any explanation from the government these circumstances are bound to lead to a feeling that the Prime Minister has had his nose twisted by the Quebec ministers. I suggest that whether this be true or false, and no matter how anxious these people are to have their flag design go through, no responsible prime minister could see such a feeling grow, or observe the divisive effects of this feeling across the country and not realize that its actions are doing more to divide Canada than any flag could unify it.
I am paying particular attention to this article in the Edmonton Journal because it appeared in a paper which has usually supported the Liberals at election time and which has not been too kind to Conservatives in connection with the flag debate. I suggest, again, that it must have some meaning or

this newspaper would not have given it such prominence. It continues:
We have a federal government that intends to force the rest of Canada to accept changes in the B.N.A. Act that will make Canada a bilingual country and accordingly perpetuate the life of the Liberal government.
There are those who would have us believe that Canada is a bilingual nation.
We are not, nor was it the intention of the authors of the B.N.A. Act to make French a second language for Canadians.
The use of French in Canada has caused us all concern from time to time. We have seen its use greatly expanding. No parliament can compare with this one for the manner in which French speaking Canadians have insisted at every opportunity that French be given an equal place in this house. I would say, too, that there has been no resistance to this trend, except on occasions such as when a committee has been unable to provide a simultaneous translation system, when we felt that the French Canadians could all understand English, though the reverse was not true, and that in the interest of co-operation they might have shown a little less insistence. I can understand the feeling of our French Canadian members that any slackening of their demands would be taken as an indication of bad faith by their constituents. However, I feel they have a responsibility in this house now and then to lead public opinion and not be driven by it to unreasonable lengths. I suggest that more friends are won by reasonableness and compromise, by pointing out an unfairness, than by taking up the club and saying: We will have this, or else.
I know that despite what is said in this article and despite the expressions of opinion in some of the letters I get from my constituents, the ordinary Canadian in Alberta, in my area, would feel nothing but a sense of outrage if he felt that French speaking Canadians were being discriminated against. I would remind the house of something which took place not too long ago. When the railway committee made a fuss about the manner in which promotions were handled by the Canadian National Railways, the president of the railway said he would have an investigation conducted and the situation would be corrected. And he did. He brought in some new rules, and in the following year there was no trouble with the committee whatsoever. The lesson, therefore, is that there are certain areas in which there may be legitimate grievances, and when these grievances are brought forward reasonable men will listen to them .and give effect to changes which will correct
Canadian Flag
the position and do away with any feeling that people are not being treated fairly. People in western Canada can understand the desire of French Canadians for justice where they think it is being denied. This is in accordance with a theme I have often pursued in this house-the people must be heard; their voice must be listened to. It is in this light that I ask the house to consider the feelings of those who live in my area respecting the manner in which this flag question is being handled and the attempt which is made to ram it through without sufficient consideration for their point of view.
I have referred before in this house to the tendency in western Canada in depression days to blame the "Bay street boys". The flag is only a symbol of our country, after all. It is the health of the nation, the position of each citizen, no matter what his ethnic origin, that really matters. It is the duty of the government to pay heed to the economic wellbeing of the nation rather than to political propaganda associated with this issue.
Now I should like to continue reading a little further from this article. The heading is "Bilingual?"
Section 133 of the B.N.A. Act clearly states that French is an official language in Canada only for the purpose of debates in parliament, the provincial legislature of Quebec, the official records of these governments, proceedings in the Supreme Court of Canada, Quebec provincial courts and the Exchequer Court of Canada.
I say that the French language has no official or legal status in any other area of Canada.
May I say that my constituency contains only a small percentage of French speaking Canadians. Despite the fact that I get very few votes from these particular electors, I have some close friends among them. I have been here in parliament for six and a half years and I have never heard any voice raised by these people telling me they were afraid they would lose their language or their religion. I never heard any expression of opinion from any of them that they were being treated as inferior Canadians. I know they use the French language in their homes, and that their children speak it. I know they are brought up to be Catholics and I know they get along very well with their English speaking neighbours across the road. My fear is that it will be very much more difficult for them to do so, should the government persist in the kind of action it is now taking.
Why does the government try to divide Canada at this time? What is wrong with doing the normal business of parliament in

Canadian Flag
this house? Why cannot we treat the flag resolution as any other resolution and debate it in this house in the same manner, with all members having the guts to stand up and speak their piece?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Then send it to a committee, which can do its work in a worth-while and efficient manner and report back to the house in due course? Where are all those of so little faith in this house? I suggest that if the parliament of Canada is falling into disrepute with the people of this country, it is because of the calculated campaign in that regard by the Liberal government, which always feels that the way to perpetuate a Liberal government in power is to downgrade parliament so that legitimate criticism will receive little attention from the nation.
Where are those voices in the Liberal back benches that go home and make such a great pretence to their constituents that they are looking after their affairs? They have not the nerve to stand up in this house and refute those arguments which we say are legitimate criticisms of the manner in which this issue is being handled by the government. Why cannot members who feel strongly about the flag get up and tell us why? Why is there no voice from the province of Quebec that will interpret the feeling in that province to the rest of Canada, so there might be understanding? Where are these pseudo spokesmen from Quebec? Why are they afraid to get up and explain their stand?
The hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Pru-d'homme) had the effrontery the last time I was speaking to ask whether I have explained to my constituents what Quebeckers want. I pointed out to him that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) and other Quebec members in this house have not yet told us or explained what the people in that province want. Is it not time, Mr. Speaker, for those who want a symbol that is not wanted by most of Canada to explain to us the meaning of that symbol; to explain to us exactly what new type of Canadianism they think a new type of flag will signify? My constituents are reasonable people. If you have a reasonable argument, they have the right to hear it; and I want them to hear it. You show us some reason, and they will buy it. I say to the government they are not going to shove this flag down the throats of the people of Canada when the majority of the people do not want it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: We are not going to abandon our duty to fight that kind of tactic and that particular flag. I would suggest that instead of just standing here talking, from now on there should be no estimates passed, no supply passed, no money granted this government until it decides that the voice of the people of this country shall be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I am challenging my friends
opposite to bring forward the reason; to get up in this house and debate this issue. I ask them to point out the fault in my reasoning, to explain to us and to the people of Canada the Prime Minister's method of handling this matter. Let those members from the province of Quebec who are most vehement and most concerned about it explain to the rest of Canada the injustice that must be corrected and how this new symbol will do it. The people of Canada are entitled to at least that much. I say again, Mr. Speaker, that I for one am getting just a little fed up with just delaying this matter. If the government does not want to get on with essential business, I for one want to grant that government no more money. It is not fit to carry on as a government of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: You may all think I am on the wrong side in this matter and that if this were to result in an election I might be defeated. But I will tell you something. I will have been defeated as an honest man; and I wonder how many of those silent members over there could go home with the same feeling of honesty and patriotism.
I am not going to read the rest of this article, Mr. Speaker, but I want to remind the house that it is something I have read. This appears in the only daily newspaper in the northern part of Alberta. I say it was printed because a great deal more of that feeling has appeared-and that feeling has only come about in the last little while. I ask the government backbenchers over there, is that what you want to do to Canada? I am reporting to my constituents that this is a deliberate plot on the part of the Liberals to do just that to Canada. I hope there is an election soon and that I will get a Liberal opponent like one of those hon. gentlemen opposite to run against me, because on every public platform I would love to tell this story to my constituents.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, like previous speakers in this rather prolonged

debate, I plan to place before the house a proposal with regard to which I hope all members will take an opportunity to express themselves. Before I do so I would like to express some views, a few of them personal and some of them partisan in the sense that I speak for my colleagues in the debate. The personal remarks really deal with my regrets over some of the overtones that have been brought in by some of my Conservative colleagues relating, for example, to French Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You are one to talk.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The hon. member from Alberta says, "You are one to talk". He is quite aware that I am not the most popular political figure in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Ormiston:: Or anywhere else.


Mr. Monieith:: Trying to make it up, eh?


Douglas Mason Fisher: But the point is that I happen to be one of those who were prepared to vote for the new flag, and I am not one of those who consider it is any concession to Quebec or French Canada. I am sure I have the right as much as anyone else to say that. The second point I wanted to make is also a reaction to what I think has been an unnecessary wrapping of patriotism and chauvinism around the support of the red ensign. I have nothing against the flag, but I have heard so much about the red ensign waving in shot and shell and our soldiers dying and fighting for it. Maybe symbolically there is something in this; but I had a fair measure of experience in one war and I was certainly around the front a great deal, and I only remember seeing the red ensign in view in two places-one was on General Simonds' Staghound that he used to trundle his way around in, and the other was on a Canadian corps headquarters tent. I never saw it any other place.
I wanted to make this point because there seems to be an attempt to generate the opinion that our soldiers were in action with the red ensign fluttering, in a sense, as their national symbol. It seems that people who try to accentuate that point of view make a mistake about what was the character of recent wars. I would also like them to consider what the character of future wars may be, if they are thinking of a flag solely in terms of a military symbol around which to rally.
The other personal point I wanted to make has to do with the tendency of our Conserv-
Canadian Flag
ative colleagues who have dominated the debate in the sense of the number of contributions. This is very much a personal reaction and has nothing to do with the issue before us. I could have forgiven them a lot easier if in their speeches they had been less ready to pat themselves on the back for the quality of those speeches. It is a minor point but I wanted to put it to you.
Mr. Speaker, I should like now to turn to the more general points. We are now going to have a free vote.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Oh, yes.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to point out to my hon. friends that the Prime Minister made that clear in the form of a statement, which I think was a concession in this house, which we certainly took in our group as meaning there would be a free vote which would depend on our individual consciences. I think everyone here is aware that the sum of the consciences of our particular parliamentary group does not add up to the total of promised support. There are a number of our members who are prepared to support the red ensign while a number are prepared to support the new flag.


Malcolm MacInnis: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, I will not permit a question, Mr. Speaker. This willingness to compromise is not something in which we have any special righteousness. I do not believe, however, that the proposals which were put forward by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), in connection with the design, and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in connection with parliamentary procedure, or by my leader in connection with arrangements for a house leaders' meeting, have been mere ploys in a partisan game, or represent anything underhanded or opportunistic from our own point of view in this particular issue.
Throughout the development of this issue from the fateful evening reception of the press-specially selected-by the Prime Minister, through his Winnipeg appearance, which I much regret, before the Legion; through the introduction of the resolutions; the early debate; its temporary hoisting; through the long summer; through the long and continuing interim supply debate, which prefaced this present debate, until we got into the four days a week continuity of debate, and throughout this whole business, until we are now debating very broadly a rather narrow

Canadian Flag
subamendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill)- through all this we have been somewhat unwilling watchers of the confrontation between the government's determination to have a flag and the official opposition's determination to block it. I think a substantial majority of the official opposition is obdurate and wants or intends to block it.
We have heard the stories about 14 more amendments to follow. I do not know whether there is any substance in them or not, but I assume that my hon. friends in the opposition are determined, as evidenced by the remarks of the last speaker. Just today during the question period we were told that there was no change in the government's position. Just today the Prime Minister told us he knew nothing about any private negotiations between the major parties' representatives for a way out of this dilemma.
I am chary of saying I speak for the Canadian people or any portion of them in this debate, after hearing from my hon. friends, with a repetition which makes me despair, that they speak for thousands, and even millions. I am hesitant to talk about history, even though I have been a history teacher, after listening to some of the historical interpretations of my hon. friends, some of which have given me a different and unusual light on events back to and including the Norman conquest.
I am not anxious to dwell on the issues of parliamentary efficiency or filibuster, or whether this is just a noble sense of duty that is being displayed. I do not feel that I should go into that in any great detail; but I believe that one substantial body of opinion in this country has not been well represented by spokesmen in this debate. This opinion, at its most radical, is that we in parliament in this debate are making fools of the electors. This opinion, at its mildest, is querulous and confused over what is going on. Or, putting it simply, it demands: When are you going to get down to business; when are you going to tackle laws and spending items which mean something to me?
Get down to business; get on with it. Let me put a plea to the government and the official opposition. Your confrontation is not helping parliament. Your stubbornness is not helping the cause of the federal government at this particular time when we have burgeoning provincialism. This may not be so dramatic as saying, a plague on both your houses; but I certainly feel in respect of this

particular issue, each side of this confrontation has egg on its face.
While we sit and listen and listen, and some talk, ostensibly to this subamendment on the voting procedure of a plebiscite, a lot of things are not being considered which we believe should be considered. Look at the order paper. Even the measure we most want, the Canada pension legislation outline, is not on it. There is only an expression of the intention of the government.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman will permit a question?


Douglas Mason Fisher: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not permit a question.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak on a point of order. What has the hon. member's remarks at this moment to do with the subamendment, or is he playing the Liberal game?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. MacEwan:: He is one of the kissing cousins and has finally come around.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked a very pertinent question on the point of order, but I point out to him that all hon. members have been allowed a great deal of leeway in their opening remarks. We are discussing the subamendment which refers to the conducting of a plebiscite, and whether or not certain methods should be used in announcing the result. However, in the subamendment you will notice the words ''inter alia, in the interests of national unity". Aside from that, hon. members were invited as of last night to express their personal opinion. It does seem to me that during this type of debate an hon. member is entitled to honestly give his own opinions in this house, which is a forum and not a courtroom.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to press the point of order at all. I understand Your Honour has made a ruling, but I wonder whether the hon. gentleman can tell us when this fine act of co-operation was developed, because I have noticed the Liberal members opposite seem ready for what the hon. member is about to announce.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the hon. gentleman is in for one big surprise.


John George Diefenbaker: We know what is coming.


Howard Russell MacEwan: We know what is going on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say to you that we have a subamendment before us which in effect would put the suggested plebiscite on a national scale in such a way that there would be no local counting of votes. This may be very important, but I would prefer to see a consideration of legislation in respect of redistribution, a consideration of railway legislation, about which we have been talking for days, and consideration of crop insurance. I think we should be considering the Department of Forestry rather than this item.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that people who want to search for principles under which to stand should look at redistribution legislation, which in itself is a principle that we are denying by our inattention. When the prospect is before us that we will possibly be fighting an election on the basis of 1951, what greater sacrilege could be committed? What greater sacrilegious move could one make in the parliamentary process than by putting off or postponing legislation of the type I mentioned?
With all the talk we have heard, the time of parliament is fleeting and this session is moving toward an end. I suppose this parliament is moving toward an end. We are at an impasse. We are in a state of legislative paralysis. I do not want to overwork this word "sincerity", which people have been throwing around, but with some sincerity we have debated this whole question in respect of that which this country wishes us to do. We believe the country wants us to get about our business. If the opposition will not let us move the flag issue along to a vote; if it will not accept a compromise in the form of a committee and then a limited debate; if the government insists, as it does, that it cannot go any further in the way of concessions, then there is nothing much we can do to register our opinion that we should be looking after the business of this country that is before us on the order paper, or has been promised for the order paper, than to make the move I now make.
If we did this, at the very least it would put the spotlight on who among us want to tackle more substantial and I think less deflated matters. I want to make the point to you, Mr. Speaker, that the flag design put forward by the Prime Minister has generated no tremendous enthusiasm. I suppose that is a responsibility he bears, but in essence we have a force supporting something that goes back to hereditary emotions, and against it we have something that seems to be supported 20220-483
Division
in a quite lukewarm fashion both by the government and to a degree by many people in this country.
I want to make it clear that we are prepared to vote and we would like to vote-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: For something lukewarm?


Douglas Mason Fisher: -but obviously we are not going to get the opportunity to vote for some time. It seems that we have almost a negation of the parliamentary process. In this particular situation we have mulled over the problem and we have decided that there is at least one thing that we can do, and we are not doing it frivolously. If it does not work or have effect now we intend to repeat it and perhaps add further substance to it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), that this debate be now adjourned.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I knew it. Nice co-operation. Heads were together over there.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosihern):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate on the 
subamendment I think my first remarks should be directed through you to the hon. members across the way who tonight have shown that they have discernment and good taste, and that they really appreciate the remarks that have been made by members of the official opposition and others on this side of the house who have taken part in this debate so far. One of the remarkable things about what has happened tonight relates to the entrance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to take part in the vote, accompanied by many members of the cabinet who, as soon as the vote had taken place-a vote in which they indicated they wanted a continuation of this debate-immediately left the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. I am sure the hon. member for Rosthern would not have wanted to make that remark had he realized that the Prime Minister was presiding as host at a dinner for the delegates to the commonwealth educational conference and that the ministers who came back for the division interrupted their dinner to come here to vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Speaker, if hon. gentlemen feel that is the kind of exhibition they want to put on for our guests from other countries, I cannot share that view.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Transport for the remarks he has made. Of course I agree that the Prime Minister has a responsibility to be where he is tonight, if the minister's remarks are according to the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not want to cast any reflection on the Minister of Transport-


An hon. Member:: Oh, no?


Edward Nasserden: -and I sincerely want to make that perfectly plain. If what he has said is so, I wonder why the members of the Prime Minister's party voted the way they did tonight. To me it indicates they have no legislation to bring before the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do hope the hon. member will not continue along that line, because his last few remarks were really out of order.


An hon. Member:: They are true but they are out of order.


Edward Nasserden: We have had a vote tonight that will be remembered in the history of this parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edward Nasserden: Those who cry filibuster, those who cry obstruction, what was their cry tonight? They wanted more of the same. Speaking in the debate tonight the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) referred to those pieces of legislation for which the country is crying. What was the answer from members across the way? They want a continuation of a debate they have called futile, a debate they have called damaging to the image of parliament and to the welfare of the country. I do not want to say anything more along that line, except to note that they had some notable allies in the vote that took place tonight.


An hon. Member:: Where were your Quebec members?


Edward Nasserden: This debate has been one of the most dynamic in the six years that I have been a member of the House of Commons. I was never prouder to be a member of this party and to be associated with those on this side of the house than I was yesterday when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) placed upon the record some of the history of this country. He spoke as one who appreciates those things that are built into the traditions of a people, those things that went into the building not only of the part of the country with which he has been associated but also every part of this nation, as he put forward the case for the flag that throughout the world today is known as the Canadian flag.
Every morning when I have come to the parliament buildings while the commonwealth educational conference has been in session and have passed the front of the west block I have seen the flags of the commonwealth there, and I know in my heart as every Canadian knows that the Canadian red ensign is a distinctive flag not to be-


An hon. Member:: Not to be.


Edward Nasserden: -not to be mistaken for any other flag. Mr. Speaker, there are some across the way whom I would like to see
20220-483i
Canadian Flag
on their feet giving the reasons why they believe Canadians should accept the three maple leaf flag. After all, we have not heard any arguments from the other side of the house indicating why the three maple leaf flag should be the flag of this country.
The other day the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) placed upon the record some proposals that he thought might be a solution to the impasse that now faces parliament, and to an even greater extent the Canadian people. I believe he spoke as one who had made a reasonable and forthright appraisal of the situation that exists in this nation today. I think he also showed he had an appreciation of the history involved in the building of this nation from the very earliest times. All of these things have contributed and are contributing to a developing situation in Canada from which I believe those who support the Prime Minister and his personal flag can take very little comfort.
I remember the words of the Prime Minister when he put the resolution before the House of Commons. If I understood his remarks correctly, he thought that this measure was necessary if we were to have an increased degree of unity in the country. I also recall the early days of the debate on the measure and remember those who said that perhaps it was already too late to bring forward such a measure. We have seen the transformation that has taken place across the nation. Many were prepared to support the new flag, many thought that perhaps there was some good in this measure, but every day we see the opposition to it increasing from one end of the nation to the other. That is one of the reasons we have the subamendment before the house at the present time.
Hon. members will recall that prior to the last general election campaign there were those who said they had the answers to the problems that confronted the nation. There were those who said that the prime minister of that day, now Leader of the Opposition, was unable to meet the challenge of the problems that faced the nation. An election was held and a minority government was elected. I want to place on the record at this point what they said when they were elected, as found in the Ottawa Citizen for April 18, 1963:
Lester Pearson and his ministers will come to power equipped with sheaves of policy papers, priority lists and agendas which they expect will enable the quickest take-off of any new government in Canadian history. One Liberal backroom boy, flipping through a neatly bound and confidential Pearson program guide, commented, "No party ever came into office as well prepared to draft

Canadian Flag
legislation and take executive action". The business of fining down broad party policy into programs which should be put into effect has been going on for years.
This was the situation when this government came into office. You will recall the legislation that was brought forward after 60 days of decision. You will recall the time that was wasted. Again tonight we have had an example of a government that is not prepared to meet parliament with legislation. I maintain, sir, that this is no longer a matter of simple determination when you take into consideration the question that this parliament is being asked to consider at the moment. It is no longer a matter of those things of which the Prime Minister spoke when he introduced this legislation. It is a matter of trying to salvage something out of national unity. This is the challenge that faces the Prime Minister and the government. I say this to the Prime Minister and to those around him: He never faced a greater challenge. He will never face a greater challenge in his career. The people of this country are watching and waiting to see if he is equal to that challenge. None of us is so faultless that he has never made a mistake. None of us is so faultless that he has not something in the past of which he is not altogether proud. On this occasion, although there may be an element of that kind facing the Prime Minister, surely in the name of national unity, for the welfare of this nation and the generations that will follow, this Prime Minister has the courage, the decisiveness necessary to make a decision that will bring this parliament back to active consideration of a legislative program that will give the people of this country the instruments of unity through the economic use of the resources this nation has.
There are those who say that a plebiscite is not the answer. I remember the plebiscite of those other days. I remember the way it was brought about. I remember too what followed that plebiscite. I remember the animosities and those other intangible questions that were left in the mind of one Canadian as he faced another Canadian. This is one of the reasons we have the subamendment before this house moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). We are trying to prevent that kind of thing from happening in Canada again. There is no one on the other side of the house who, in his heart, does not know that this is the course which should be followed in connection with a matter as important as the one before us now.
There are other aspects of this problem with which I should like to deal as well. In thinking of the whole problem of national unity, thinking of the problem of trying to decide what shall be the flag of this nation, I find myself confused by the action that has been taken by the government in proposing a two pronged resolution which promises the people of this nation two flags. Every one of us in this house knows that the union jack is the flag of Great Britain. There is no need to pass a resolution in this parliament to recognize Great Britain as the head of the commonwealth. I am a little shocked, and I am a little sad too, to think that he who is the Prime Minister of this country would try to introduce a measure of such shallow consequences before this parliament and before the Canadian people in an effort to try to justify one section of the proposal he has made.
The other day the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) brought up the matter of the amenities that should exist as between one province and another in deciding on a distinctive Canadian flag. I think he brought forcibly to our attention the fact that confederation means more than the simple terms embodied in that act. After all, there will always be an argumentative situation in this connection, but there are some things that belong to the provinces, while other fields belong to the federal government. In a matter of such importance as the flag, surely there should have been consultations with the provinces to secure their views before any design was placed before parliament.
I see the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Des-chatelets) smiling. I do not believe that a minister representing the province of Quebec-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No, no, on a point of order-


Edward Nasserden: -should be smiling at this reference.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not smiling; I was laughing.


Edward Nasserden: Then, the greater is the shame that a minister representing a province containing a third of the population of this country, a province that has fought for provincial rights down through the years, a province that has held out for those things distinctive in its own life, should smile at a reference such as I made in regard to the


amenities that should exist as between the provinces and the federal government.
Of course, when I think of the resolution now before us, the amendment and the subamendment, I think of my own riding which is one of the historic ridings of this country. It is a riding composed of people of many origins. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) upon the speech he made this afternoon. I must confess that it would be a poor Canadian, it would be a poor member of parliament indeed, who did not approach this subject with some measure of hesitation. After all, we all know that in a matter such as this there is a variety of opinion. There is a widespread division in this country. There is a widespread division between some of the ethnic groups. As I look at my one constituency, as I think of the correspondence I have received and as I recall the visit I made to my riding, I am moved to reinforce some of those things that have been said in this debate.
Five years ago, four years ago, three years ago, perhaps even two years ago, you did not find in western Canada what you find there today. You did not find any animosity toward the province of Quebec. I want to remind hon. members that during the period when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister some actions were taken that were not altogether of a non-controversial nature. I remember one of those-the adoption of bilingual cheques. There was not a murmur from any place in Canada when that action was taken, but what would have been the situation had there been the manoeuvring at that particular time of a government like the one we have opposite? They would have fed the fires of isolation, as they have always fed the fires of isolation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Maurice John Moreau: Explain.


Edward Nasserden: Somebody says "explain". I could talk here all night and explain, and you would not know any more than you know now. Some people have a closed mind when it comes to taking a look at the aspirations of Canadians in all parts of the nation.
I recall that when I first came to the House of Commons I was very conscious of the fact that the people from whom I descended had not been in Canada very long. My father came to Canada from Lebanon. My mother was born in Canada of Swedish parents, and I remember the community in which we lived and in which we were a minority-I would
Canadian Flag
say a very minor minority. I can recall first going to school, and I think many other hon. members who were in the same situation can remember some of those experiences too. I believe I know something about what minorities in this country have faced over the years.
Later on, as the years rolled by, I became interested in politics. One could not help but become interested in politics in western Canada when we had a government here in Ottawa that for so many years neglected the problems of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: You know, Mr. Speaker, they were so negligent that a socialist government was elected in our province for the first time and in the first place anywhere on the North American continent.


An hon. Member:: In what year?


Edward Nasserden: 1944. As I recall, the first campaign in which I took part, in 1953, was the first time I had a chance to become acquainted with some of the French speaking people in my riding, and I have 1,500 of them. I want to say they are among the best farmers and businessmen to be found in that riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: When I go back to my riding, as I did a week ago, and find people of other origins pointing their fingers at them because of the actions taken by this government, I know someone has not been working for national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Nasserden: That situation did not exist five, four, three, even two years ago.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Six months ago.


Edward Nasserden: Well, I think that we could go a little further back than that because, after all, there have been other actions that have been the most divisive in the entire history of this country.
I recall the remarks made in this debate by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), and it was he who referred to a troublesome minority. It was he who referred to appeasement-and these are not words for a minister of the crown. But what do concern me at the moment are the actions of some of those on the treasury benches opposite. I wish they were here tonight so that they might hear what I have to say, although I know that they know all about

Canadian Flag
these things, having been responsible for the clippings I want to refer to very briefly.
I do so, sir, not to try to stray away from this subject but to try to keep to the theme of national unity, the influence that a flag can have, the necessity today of taking the action proposed by this party of having a plebiscite because the actions taken by the Prime Minister have ruled out any other possibility, unless he still has in the back of his mind the sending of this measure to a committee of the house for consideration.
Here in Canada we expect leadership from those who are given responsibility. There are no officers of the house who are given more responsibility than those who sit behind the Prime Minister on the cabinet benches. Now I want to refer to a quotation from the Winnipeg Tribune of April 4. This is what one cabinet minister has been going around the country saying:
If Quebec leaves confederation western Canada will be forced to its knees, begging for help and aid from Washington-
This is a quotation from a cabinet minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Teillet).


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Edward Nasserden: Then he went on to say this:
He warned his audience if the present situation between Quebec and the rest of Canada is allowed to continue, confederation will be dissolved.
Where did this talk of separation start? It started right in the cabinet opposite. Then he went on to say this:
If Quebec secedes, confederation as we know it will be gone. Western Canada will be on its knees, begging at Washington's doors.
He went on to say this:
We may wake up and find ourselves too late.
I want to direct these remarks to the attention of hon. members opposite, through you, sir, and particularly to those from the province of Quebec:
Mr. Teillet said the crisis Canada now finds itself in has been caused by a complete lack of understanding and communication between French and English speaking Canadians.
Sir, what party in Canadian history has always said that it was the only party that could communicate the hopes and aspirations of French Canada to the rest of the nation? There they sit, and they have their members from the province of Quebec, but in the words of one of their own ministers they have failed to communicate the hopes and aspirations of their people to this parliament and to Canadians from other parts of this nation. I ask you, sir, is this the kind of represen-

tation that the people of any area have to expect from those they send to parliament? For more than half a century, with the exception of a few years, la belle province has sent to the parliament of this nation those majorities that should have been compelling in persuasion, in understanding, in the translation of those problems dear to the hearts of their people, and yet only a few short weeks ago 16,000 farmers from the province of Quebec had to register their disgust with the agricultural policies of this country. Due to lack of action from hon. members opposite, they marched on the capital of their own province. Somebody said they do not get $10 an acre. We never got $10 an acre in western Canada. I remember a prime minister who told the people of Quebec: Elect us, and we will do for you what John Diefenbaker did for western Canada.


An hon. Member:: Out of order.


Edward Nasserden: If I am out of order it is because of the interruptions from across the way.
I recall that a delegation came down from western Canada. We did not give them all they asked but we tried to place legislation on the statute books the benefits of which they could share together with the rest of the farmers of this nation, and I am proud to see sitting in this place one who was responsible for this achievement to a greater degree than any other Canadian in recent history- the minister of agriculture of that day, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton).
National unity means not only symbols but the tangible things that touch the every day living of Canadians. There never was a government which came to office with so many answers, or a government which took so little action, as the present administration. Once again tonight hon. members opposite have shown by the way they have voted that they would prefer to listen to this debate than admit they have no legislation ready to bring before parliament.
Earlier, I quoted some observations by members of the cabinet. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) is not here tonight; I understand he has a reason for not being present. I believe he told us that he did not know what the people of Quebec wanted.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: That is what he said. Behind him he has supporters galore. Apparently they have not been able to reach the cabinet, either. I see the hon. member for St. Law-rence-St. George (Mr. Turner) in his place.

This is what he had to say on one occasion. He condemned what he termed-
-the "monopoly of information" and charged that the bureaucracy-"that mandarin class of faceless experts, protected by the cloak of anonymity of a government department, operating beyond the range of the people's control"-is fighting a running battle with members of parliament.
"The M.P.", he said, "is losing that battle with the civil service."
I do not hear him denying he ever said that.


Mr. Turner:: I did not realize the hon. member was so well read.


Edward Nasserden: You do now.


An hon. Member:: That was your contribution to this flag debate.


Edward Nasserden: That quotation tells a tremendous story. It is the story of what is happening in this parliament today. Backbenchers are not doing their job, or else the Prime Minister would never have placed before us the measure which the country does not want and which many of his own supporters do not want. They say that we on this side are engaged in a filibuster. We are said to be obstructing. But you, Mr. Speaker, know that debate is the life of parliament. You know, too-


Mr. Choquette:: Not debate-legislation.


An hon. Member:: Bring it in then.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member had an opportunity tonight but he would not grasp it. His leader would not grasp it either. What I wanted to say was this-those interruptions almost got me off the track.


John Napier Turner: They almost got you on to it.


Edward Nasserden: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George revealed something which has been reiterated by backbenchers across the way on more than one occasion. In debate, when one is faced with a proposition which is not only threatening the unity of this nation but destroying it, what else can an opposition do but take a course such as we are following tonight? No one would say that a plebiscite is the first answer to this question. But no one would say, either, that the Canadian people should not be consulted now, in view of the division which has appeared in almost every part of this country. This is why I feel so strongly that we should give consideration to the subject matter of the subamendment and of the amendment.
Before I pass on to deal with other matters, I have some clippings here.
Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edward Nasserden: I know I have a few here tonight, but they do not amount to 132,000, the number received by the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) in regard to this proposition, as he told us in answer to a question. I have a telegram here from a zone rally of the Royal Canadian Legion as follows:
Recent Legion zone rally respectfully urges continued support red ensign.
Here is another:
The Royal Canadian Legion at its 20th biennial convention in Winnipeg overwhelmingly endorses the Canadian red ensign and asks your unqualified support of its stand.
I have another here from the Royal Canadian Legion, Saskatoon. This was sent to me during the period when Saskatoon was without a member:
In view of the fact that at present there is no sitting member for the Saskatoon constituency the members of our branch request that you give your consideration to the following resolution-
Perhaps I should read the resolution. This is the way they put it:
Resolved that we urge delay in the proposed legislation for the adoption of the new flag and propose retention of the red ensign as Canada's flag until more assurance is obtained that this legislation has the concern of the nation.
Is there a single member on the other side of the house who would argue that they have the consent of the nation when they put forward this resolution? They are a minority in a house of minorities. They received a minority of the votes in the last general election. They have completely reversed the stand taken by the order in council put forward by one of their own former prime ministers. When I read the debates of those days I find tremendous arguments which could be used against the adoption of a resolution such as they are now trying to put through the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired.


Raymond Langlois: I had
not intended to take part in the debate at this point. However, we have passed a great many days on this single issue, and tonight we had a vote. For my part I voted against the motion that the debate be adjourned. Why did I do that?


An hon. Member:: Tell us.


Raymond Langlois: I will tell you why. I do not know whether the Conservatives are getting a little fed up. I would just as soon see them with their tongues sticking out, if they expect

Canadian Flag
to bring into the house a series of amendments. Let them bring in one amendment, with one flag proposition, and let us have the vote. I am willing to have a vote on it and we in this corner of the house have been taking this stand since the beginning.


Mr. Alltenbrack:: You have been sitting on your hind end.


Raymond Langlois: I may have been, as one hon. member has said, sitting on my hind end. That may be perfectly true, but I still think that is more useful than what he is trying to do. This country and this house wants a flag; there is no doubt about that. We have now spent 20 days on the flag debate. If we did not want a flag, we would look pretty silly at the moment all across the country in every province. People are wondering what is wrong with this parliament. They ask "What are they trying to do? What are they trying to prove? They look like a bunch of school kids that has lost its teacher". You just cannot go around blaming the people, blaming this guy or that guy.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We will blame you now.


Raymond Langlois: But you can blame some Liberals and their past administration, and some Conservatives and their past administration. We have had these two parties sitting in this house as the government for practically a century. The mess we are now in has been built up by nobody else but them. We have heard a great deal about this flag debate, Mr. Speaker. People have been waiting a long time for this flag. But they do not want the flag brought in through disunity and misery; they do not want a flag that will tear this country apart. Right now this issue is tearing the country apart. Perhaps the leader of the Liberal party, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is as much to blame for this as anybody else because he has been too much of a fancy skater; he has tried too much to save the goat and the cabbage at the same time. But perhaps the greatest separatist we have in this country right now sits on the front bench as Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in this house. When I hear the Leader of the Opposition-


William Skoreyko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Raymond Langlois: -say in this house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Edmonton East on a point of order.


William Skoreyko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the last remark of the hon. member for Megantic (Mr. Langlois) should be withdrawn. That is a complete falsehood and should not be accepted by this house. I insist that it be withdrawn because it is an irresponsible statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand perfectly the feelings of the hon. member for Edmonton East, but all hon. members have an opportunity to give an explanation or an answer, in subsequent debate, to a statement like that.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Nobody will pay any attention when they know where it came from.


William Skoreyko: Mr. Speaker, is the word used by the hon. member for Megantic in reference to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) parliamentary?


Mr. Davis:: Sure.


Mr. Speaker:: These questions are, of course, not easy to answer. I would say that the word used was rude; but in my opinion it was not unparliamentary.


William Skoreyko: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker. It was indeed very rude and shows the ignorance of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Raymond Langlois: I know perfectly well that the word was rude, but the truth is often difficult to accept.


Mr. Bigg:: It is a scurrilous lie.


Raymond Langlois: Just to prove my point, Mr. Speaker, when we hear a man such as the Leader of the Opposition, who is before the eyes of the people of this country just as much as the Prime Minister himself, go out in this country and say that the three maple leaf flag is a major concession to Quebec, I will not accept that statement; Quebec will not accept it, and Canada will not accept it, from the Leader of the Opposition or anybody else.


William Skoreyko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a statement to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition has said that the three maple leaf flag is a massive concession, or a concession, to Quebec. That is also a falsehood. Those words were never used by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But they were used by his supporters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A little earlier today I counselled one hon. member to stop referring to another hon. member in the house in his general argument. It is a matter of courtesy and custom that, while you may attack a political party, its politics, its activities and all the rest of it, one does not launch an attack on the leaders of particular parties. We are here to discuss general principles, and not personalities.


Raymond Langlois: I agree with you in that respect, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Withdraw the remark.


Raymond Langlois: It is not the personality or his integrity that I want to attack. I attack the man, as leader of a party and representing a philosophy, if they have one-


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It isn't funny money, that's for sure.
Business of the House


Raymond Langlois: I am not attacking the man as a man, as the hon. member for Prince Albert in his personal life, or anything like that; that is certainly not my intention. I am attacking the man as the representative of the party and the spokesman for that party, normally.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Well, stay with the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is now 10.30.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether the order of business for tomorrow holds as announced?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
7655

Friday, September 4, 1964