1964-09-01

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct the attention of the house to an event of national importance and historic significance which occurred in my constituency. Exactly 100 years ago, at two o'clock in the afternoon of September 1, 1864, the Charlottetown conference was called into session in the legislative council chamber of Prince Edward Island. Later that afternoon the official delegates from the maritime provinces agreeably and readily opened the conference doors to their fellow legislators from Canada and, by setting aside the smaller plan of maritime union and discussing a greater federal union instead, the conference delegates of 1864 laid the foundations of the great and free dominion whose people we collectively represent in this chamber.
As with other gatherings, Mr. Speaker, before and since, the Charlottetown conference illustrated that many human endeavours begun poorly may end brilliantly. Delegates from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were not met by their island hosts, and there was not sufficient hotel space for the Canadians. Not surprisingly, the Prince Edward Island government was criticized by the press for its inept and inhospitable performance. But again, not surprisingly, the government had its explanations; the Nova Scotia delegation arrived earlier than expected, the New Bruns-wickers later and the Canadians in greater numbers than had been anticipated. Happily, history records that these little slips were soon quite overborne by the lavish hospitality which the islanders in succeeding days extended to their visitors.
Many at the time were unimpressed, Mr. Speaker, by the actions and utterances of the politicians of 1864, but others more perceptive appreciated more fully what was taking place in their time. The Charlottetown Monitor viewed the conference as "perhaps the most important event-as far at least as
the future destinies of these colonies are concerned-that has occurred during the present century". It hoped that the delegates' deliberations would "culminate in the creation ... of a great nation in this western hemisphere of which neither we nor our remotest posterity will ever have cause to be ashamed".
May we today, Mr. Speaker, as we honour the fathers of our nation, drawing strength from their devotion, inspiration from their accomplishment, and example from their performance, go on to preserve that which they bequeathed us. Of them it was later declared, "Providence being their guide they builded better than they knew". Of us may it be said "They destroyed not what their fathers left them, rather did they ever cherish, strengthen and extend the nation which faith had conceived and wisdom constructed".
As one of the representatives of the cradle of confederation, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of saying these few words, inadequate as they are in relation to the magnitude of the event they are intended to honour.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught), I should like to echo the words of the hon. member for Queens, my fellow academic, and I will not in the least attempt to differ with him about the historical view he has given to the house this afternoon. Indeed, the hon. gentleman is a lily I would not attempt to gild. But it did occur to me, sir, that since at Charlottetown a meeting is taking place to commemorate that original meeting of the founding fathers which, whatever the welcome may have been at the beginning, seemed to be very hospitable before the close if one can judge from the accounts of the food and other dainties which were consumed at the time, I doubt whether these latter day statesmen would have as strong stomachs as the original Fathers of Confederation, though I am sure they have just as strong hearts.
I do think, sir, that on this day we should look forward to even greater development
7514	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry than we have seen in that century that has
passed.
It did occur to me, sir, that the house might wish to have the opening address which is being made in Charlottetown today by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister added not in the record but as an appendix to the record in commemoration of this day- a day, I might add, very much happier than that day a quarter of a century ago that all of us remember when that terrible war started from which the world is still recovering.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of address see appendix.]



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES CONCURRENCE IN FOURTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ottawa East) presented the third and fourth reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the fourth report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry. It has to do with the serious agricultural situation, particularly in the province of Quebec. I would ask him what he meant when in a speech at Ste Lucie, Quebec, he is reported, as found in Le Soleil, to have made this statement:
Mr. Sauve explained to a couple of hundred farmers that the task would be difficult-
That is the task of bringing ARDA into full and factual achievement.
-once the new program was put into effect because "at that moment the game of politics will come into the picture".
What did the minister have in mind in that regard, and what are the difficulties he anticipated by the use of those words?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, at that time I was not referring to ARDA but to the problems of eastern agriculture and the new outlook that would be necessary to solve those problems; that would 

be very difficult political decisions to be taken by all parties concerned, provincial and federal, and that there would be political opposition to some of the proposals which would be made because some people might benefit from contrary views for political ends. I have not in mind any particular party or people, just the straight game of politics as we know it in the provinces.


John George Diefenbaker: What were the particular proposals the minister had in mind as he placed them before this gathering, and what particular political interference would there be in the application of such a non-political plan as the one which was set up under the distinguished leadership of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle?


Maurice Sauvé: I was not referring to ARDA but to the problems of eastern agriculture, as mentioned in the eastern farm survey which was tabled in the house about two months ago. All the problems were mentioned in this report; I brought it to the attention of the people. We were discussing the general situation of eastern agriculture. I was not speaking of ARDA. I did not divulge any of the proposals we intend to make to the provinces for the renewal of the agreements.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry.
In establishing his farm program for eastern Canada, does he propose to take into account the political consideration to which he referred in his speech?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that extremely serious problems will have to be worked out when the federal and provincial governments advance proposals to find a solution to the farm problem of eastern Canada.
When we have proposed those solutions to the people, there will undoubtedly be some who will have opposite views, which is entirely normal. Never in the statements I made in Ste Lucie de Beauregard did I talk about anything except the normal game of politics. I have not seen the report or newspaper clipping which the Leader of the Opposition holds in his hand, but I am sure that I did not say anything wrong there.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago, if I am not

mistaken, the Minister of Forestry said: Politics as we know it in the province of Quebec.
Could the minister tell us-


Maurice Sauvé: No.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: When reading over your
blues, you will find those words at the end of your first reply to the Leader of the Opposition. You said: "As we know it in the province of Quebec."
Does the minister mean by this that such a situation only exists in the province of Quebec?


Maurice Sauvé: I never said that, Mr. Speaker. [Text]


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: have a supplementary question for the Minister of Forestry. Is the minister undertaking an unusual recruitment drive for technical personnel in view of the expected expansion of the activities of his department?


Maurice Sauvé: No, we are dealing through the civil service commission in the normal way.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Forestry.
Could he tell us if one of the decisions he is supposed to take in co-operation with the Quebec government and which, as he put it, might not be a popular one is consistent with the rumour now going around to the effect that the federal government and the Quebec provincial government would be advising a fairly large number of farmers to leave their farms and go into some other industrial fields?


Maurice Sauvé: I do not know anything about such rumours or decisions, Mr. Speaker.



TURKEYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has any progress been made since the minister told the house that he would look into the very difficult situation faced by the turkey growers of Canada?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting the turkey people at their annual meeting in Winnipeg on the 14th. The hon. member will
Inquiries of the Ministry be pleased to learn that there has been no importation of turkeys in the past 12 to 14 days.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Agriculture. On August 26 I asked the same question and the answer was about the same. He said:
-I shall be at that meeting to explain to these people why we do not feel we should impose these quotas at this time.
If the minister has an explanation for the people at this meeting, would he not give it to the house?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, if I have time I will be glad to do this, but it will take about an hour.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, and its urgency is based on the logical concern of eastern dairy farmers over the recent statement in the house by the minister. I should like to ask the minister whether, since he made his statement in the house on the eastern dairy industry, he has consulted individual dairy farmers or officials in his department. Does he feel that the eastern dairy industry is in better shape today than it has been in the last 15 years?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I still feel that the dairy industry is in much better shape than it has been for some time. Nevertheless we realize that there could be great improvements, and we are working toward this end.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister's point of view expressed after having consulted individual dairy farmers, and whom did he consult before he made his statement to the house?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, I just looked at the dominion bureau of statistics reports.


Clément Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Did the minister consult the Prime Minister before the latter's departure for Prince Edward Island concerning the possibility of
7516	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry calling a meeting of dairy producers and representatives of farm organizations in order to establish, before the house adjourns, an emergency policy concerning the dairy industry as requested by farmers?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to meet with organizations of dairy farmers at any time in so far as their problems are concerned. If I may be permitted, I think I can reply to this question best by reading briefly from an article which appeared in the Family Herald weekly, although it is not altogether too kindly toward this side of the house. The article refers to the dairy problem and states:
What is Harry Hays up to? In mid July the federal agriculture minister told cattle breeders at Waterloo, Ontario, that the list of government business at the fall session of parliament will include a new dairy program.
"We are now working out a whole new approach to Canada's long-standing dairy problem"... "As you can imagine, I'm sure, this is a complicated and delicate job and one which we must work out in close co-operation with all the provinces-"
I could go on and read quite a bit more, but the last paragraph I think would be of interest to the hon. member. This article is written by one of the members of the parliamentary press gallery, and he says:
With the industry healthier today than it has been in years, one wonders why Mr. Hays has chosen this moment to act.
-David Suderman


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. After the minister's statement about the dominion bureau of statistics, does he now feel that Marie Antoinette's statement "Let them eat cake" should now read "Let them read statistics"?


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Agriculture say whether he has taken steps to meet with the farmers who have announced a march on Ottawa?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, we should be very pleased to meet them if and when they march.



INCREASE IN FEED GRAIN PRICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Latulippe (Complon-Fronlenac);: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Can he explain to the members of the house the reason why the price of feed grain and their by-products must rise in consequence of his policy of subsidizing truck transportation?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, on Friday, August 28, I announced to the house that a number of amendments have been made to the policy of payment of transportation costs for feed grain. Those amendments will become effective on September 14.
The hon. member will find details of this policy on page 7439 of Hansard for August 28, 1964.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Minister of Forestry tell us whether a farmer making use of his own trucks for transportation will be getting those subsidies? If so, what steps should he take to take advantage of them?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, this is a technical question. I shall give a detailed answer to the hon. member tomorrow or the day after.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perih):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Due to the alarming increase in business failures during the month of July, as reported in this morning's Globe and Mail, will the minister not consider rescinding the sales tax on building supplies and materials and on machinery and equipment, or at least cancelling the additional tax due to take effect at the end of this year?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I read the account in the morning paper. There has been an increase in the number of bankruptcies, due in large measure I believe to the overexpansion of certain smaller firms and some medium size firms with inadequate capital, prompted by

the general expansion of business activity. I do not relate the basic reasons for these increases to the other question my hon. friend raised.


Jay Waldo Monteith: As a supplementary question, the same article pointed out that such an increase in bankruptcies in Canada was in direct contrast with the situation during the month of July in the United States, where there was actually a decrease in the failures, and I am wondering if, since that country has introduced tax reductions and Canada has increased taxation this would not have a great deal to do with it.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I am not sure if that was a question or just a wonderment on the part of the hon. member.


Jay Waldo Monteith: It is a question. I am simply asking if the minister would not agree with this assumption?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the minister refer this matter to his new outside advisers?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if that was a serious question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Sure it is.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The various commissions that have been looking into business and financial activities in Canada, and the Canadian tax foundation, have advised that the Department of Finance staff should be strengthened, and I am taking their advice seriously. I think it is important advice, and if the staff of the department can be strengthened I think it will work out to everybody's advantage.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that he is enlisting at present additional staff to advise and assist him in the preparation of his next budget, has the Minister of Finance considered inviting representatives of the working class as well as farmers' representatives to assist him in that work, in order that the views of those two important social groups be represented and can permeate into the ivory tower of his department?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, first of all the individuals we are recruiting for the depart-
Inquiries of the Ministry ment are to assist departmental officials in respect of the recommendations that will be forthcoming from various tax commissions in Canada. In answer to my hon. friend's question, I will most certainly welcome all the help and advice I can get from labour organizations, agricultural organizations or any other organizations in this country that will improve the economy of this country still further.



OILSEEDS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldt-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance in connection with the recent tariff board report. The minister must be aware of the board's recommendation that would allow oilseeds, including soybeans, flax and rapeseed free entry into Canada despite the fact that farm organizations and I have strongly opposed this. Could the minister look into this situation to see that no injustice is done?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as I was required to do, I tabled the report of the tariff board in respect of this matter within the prescribed period, and when doing so I asked any interested party who might have any views in respect of the report or recommendations to submit those views to me. I can assure my hon. friend that such views will be given most careful consideration.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council. I asked a question of the Prime Minister on Thursday which he promised to look into, and in his absence I would like to direct it today to the President of the Privy Council. I wish to ask him whether he has had time to look into the allegation by the national unemployment insurance employees association that the salary increase granted to group B employees represents approximately 50 per cent of what was recommended by the federal civil service commission. Has the minister had time to look into that, and can he give the house an answer?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will realize that an answer to his question in the

Inquiries of the Ministry form in which he asked it involves giving information about the recommendations from the civil service commission. These recommendations are, by a decision of this house, held to be confidential. That decision was confirmed by a vote of the house in 1960, so I cannot answer his question in the form in which he asked it.
However, if the hon. member is dealing with the general matter of the pay increases in group B, recently announced, I can add by way of explanation that on Friday of last week the Prime Minister and I received a delegation representing the staff side conference of the public service. The staff side conference made certain representations and presented some additional arguments and data, and that matter is receiving consideration at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether this means that the salary increases which were granted are now going to be reviewed in the light of the representations which were made, and that there is some hope they may be revised upward?


George James McIlraith: Well, all the additional representations made at that meeting, together with representations from one or two other organizations that are not represented in the staff side conference, will be given full consideration and a decision will be taken on the whole matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: By whom will this review be made; by a committee of the cabinet or a treasury board committee?


George James McIlraith: The treasury board is a standing committee of the cabinet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Then it will be the treasury board which will do this, not a special select committee?


George James McIlraith: I do not know how much detail the hon. member wants me to give about the processes of the government in arriving at a decision of this sort, but I presume it will be a treasury board decision, dealt with by the full cabinet.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and


National Resources. I do so because of a telegram I received only a few moments ago. I would like to ask the minister whether he will accede to the urgent request of the Fraserview veterans for an open meeting with himself as their federal M.P. and a representative of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to discuss their housing problems, in view of the recently announced and soon to come into effect government policy on increased rentals and home purchase prices.


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection whatsoever to seeing any of my constituents at any time. As a matter of fact I have met this particular group before, sometimes when the hon. member for Vancouver East was present. It would be my hope that he could also attend when I meet them again.



CONSIDERATION OF REPORT OF ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF AUTHORITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General?
Could the minister tell us if he has read the report on public housing submitted recently by the Ontario association of housing authorities, and if he intends to present shortly a program to improve the lot of a great number of ill-housed families in Canada?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot truthfully say I have read the full report. It has several hundred pages. I can say that I have read parts of it; I have read the conclusions; and I have read an analysis prepared for me by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I would like to assure the hon. gentleman and the house-and if the hon. gentleman will read the report himself he will see this is so- that a great many of the recommendations contained in this report have already been incorporated in the amendments to the National Housing Act that became law in late June of this year. Others of the recommendations have been incorporated in the complementary legislation passed by the province of Ontario earlier this year. The others that have not been dealt with will receive careful consideration.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-
Bagol): Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Could the minister tell the house whether it is a common practice with this government to put at the disposal of ministers going on trips for the government a coach for their families and friends? I refer to trips on government business.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not a common practice, and the hon. gentleman might be more specific and perhaps commit this question to writing.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES TORONTO    CANADA COUNCIL GRANT TO CREST THEATRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Has he yet transmitted my question of yesterday concerning the Crest theatre to the Canada Council; and if so, has he received any comment?
Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of
Stale): Mr. Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member has been transmitted to the Canada Council but no answer has yet been received.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is waiting for a reply and comment in this regard, would he also ask the Canada Council where they hope to secure actors for all the centres for the performing arts that are being built as centennial projects, if the grant to the place from which the actors come is to be discontinued?


Mr. Lamoniagne:: I will, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Labour. I would like to ask it again now that the minister is here. Could the minister give us any explanation as to the 20220-475i
Inquiries of the Ministry reason for the I.T.U. strikers in Toronto being ruled ineligible for unemployment insurance?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the insurance officer, reviewing the applications for benefits by the persons employed in the composing rooms, came to the conclusion that a substantial stoppage of work had taken place and this had been due to a labour dispute. For that reason the insurance officer disqualified this group from receiving benefits.


Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether it is true that the unemployment insurance commission have sent questionnaires to the publishers, and that if the answers to these questionnaires show that an 85 per cent production has been resumed, will they then be eligible for unemployment insurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have no information as to the existence of a questionnaire, Mr. Speaker, but I do understand that just as soon as the insurance officer satisfies himself that a substantial resumption of work has taken place in this particular area of activity, the applications for benefits will be reconsidered. I will attempt to get information with respect to the questionnaire.


Mr. Reid  Scoll@Danforlh: I have one final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is seeking this further information, can he ascertain how the unemployment insurance commission decides whether there is a substantial resumption of work? I understand the questionnaires have already been sent out and are sitting on the desks of the publishers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The insurance officer will probably consider the restoration of normal working conditions and the disappearance of what apparently is still considered to be an emergency situation in the working operations of the newspapers.



REPORTED STATEMENT RESPECTING MEMBERS AND STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has to do with sordid and, if I may use language within the restrictions of parliament, scurrilous statements made by one Macdonald which cast aspersions on all members of

Inquiries of the Ministry this house who were members in 1961, as well as on the staff of parliament. This was a general allegation that was made. Believing in freedom of speech as I do, and as I know the hon. gentleman does, is it the opinion of the government that the allegations that have been made constitute a disparagement of the House of Commons and its members and a contempt of this house?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that I read the same press report of these utterances as the right hon. gentleman. I read it immediately before coming into the house and have had no chance at all of discussion with any of my colleagues. Moreover, it is well known that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice are absent in Charlottetown. It would not have been possible therefore, I think, for the government to form any opinion on this matter.
I must say, speaking as a member of parliament, that I think it is a perfectly shocking kind of allegation to appear, and quite frankly I am most reluctant to believe that it has any kind of substance whatsoever. When we think of what was said by this same person about Hon. M. J. Coldwell, which was refuted completely yesterday, I think his credibility as a witness has been somewhat discredited already. However, I do think it is a matter on which it would not be the government but the law officers of the crown that would form an opinion as to whether any kind of appropriate action could be taken which would not in any way endanger the right to speak foolishly and recklessly, which is one of the prized possessions of free people.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the summation on the part of the Acting Prime Minister is an excellent epitome of freedom; but freedom does not, of course, include the right to libel in general or in such a way as actually to cast a shadow on all the members of this house and on all the staff of this house who have been here since 1961. Personally I am not concerned about contemptible statements of this kind, but I do think the minister should bring this matter before the Prime Minister, and any decision made by the Prime Minister in his position as custodian of the rights and prerogatives of parliament will, I am sure, be in the best interests of us all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman. I would go further and say that I believe the only way in which there should be any abridgment of freedom

of speech is by the rule of law; and while this house is frequently referred to as a court, it is not a court in that sense. The only proper place for the adjudication of questions as to whether freedom of speech has turned into offensive licence is in the law courts of our country, and I hope no decision of that kind will ever be made anywhere else.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the implications of this to all members, may I ask which member of this House of Commons is going to take the matter to a court of law?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If there is anything
actionable I am sure the right hon. gentleman, whose view I accepted, is quite correct when he says that the Prime Minister as the leader of the house should give consideration to the matter in consultation with the Minister of Justice. I am quite sure that it would be for them and for our colleagues to decide whether it was proper for action to be taken, what kind of action should be taken, and in what jurisdiction.


Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he is aware that donations to the organization known as Underdog are exempt for income tax purposes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge either of the organization or of the question the hon. gentleman refers to, but I am sure that my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue will look into this point.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Acting Prime Minister, when considering this matter, would also consider looking into the responsibility for republication of this type of scurrilous material by the press and whether, consistent with the freedom of the press, anything could be done in that regard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I assume the utterance itself and the diffusion of the utterance are matters which would have to be considered together. It is quite true that this person would perhaps not be very widely heard if there was no reporting of his remarks by people who have greater financial resources than he appears to have.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, most of us do not object to being reported.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact the right hon. gentleman frequently complains about the way in which he is reported.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have had assistance in that regard from the Minister of Transport on several occasions.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is an excellent point to answer the question asked by the hon. member for York-Sunbury yesterday with respect to Mr. Calvin Macdonald and his statement accusing the Department of Veterans Affairs of listing him as a communist and preventing him from obtaining employment.
First of all I want to assure the hon. member as well as the house that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not, has not and will not deal in this fashion. It does not list people according to ideological or political concept. Second, it has never prevented Mr. Macdonald from obtaining employment. Quite the contrary; over a period of time attempts have been made to assist in his rehabilitation including attempts made to locate suitable employment for him.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canfelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration of which I have sent him notice. The minister has received a letter from the credit union league of Saskatchewan having to do with contract bonds between the department and contracting firms. I quote one paragraph:
Our information received from the manager of the Meadow Lake credit union indicates that your department has refused to accept a certified cheque on the credit union and insists that such a cheque be drawn on a chartered bank.
My question is, will the minister remove this discriminatory provision against credit unions?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I
Inquiries of the Ministry thank the hon. member for having given me notice of this question. I am not personally aware of the letter to which the hon. member refers. However, I should point out that procedures in respect to tendering and security deposits are governed by the government contracts regulations. These regulations, applicable to all departments, provide for security deposits in the form of certified cheques drawn on banks to which the Bank Act or the Quebec Savings Banks Act applies.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to my recent question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I understand the regulation to which he referred, but my question was, would he see that this regulation is removed?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I have been informed that those regulations are under consideration at the moment. However, I will bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance.



CANADIAN CONFEDERATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Has he received any communication from the premier of New Brunswick relative to his proposal made at the Charlottetown conference that there be a union of the Atlantic provinces?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any communication, and the Prime Minister's office has not advised me of any which has been received, but I will make inquiries.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Has he a reply to the question I asked him the other day with regard to the prevailing rate employees at Dana?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The question the hon. member asked had to do with the difference in prevailing rates paid to certain government employees in Dana and in Saskatoon. On investigation we found that in

Inquiries of the Ministry some classes of employment the rate was the same in Dana as in Saskatoon but that in other classes there was a difference. As a result we are having the whole matter looked into by the Department of Labour to see whether there should be a revision of the rates in the classes where there is a difference. I do not have that answer, because it will take some weeks for that process to be completed, but it is being considered now.



REPORTED INTENTION TO DISBAND SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN REGIMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence. My question is based on an article appearing in the Estevan Sun Advertiser of August 27 and a telegram I received from Estevan today. Can the minister say there is no basis for the rumour circulating in western Canada that the South Saskatchewan Regiment, with its glorious war record, is to be disbanded?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, decisions in respect of reorganizations of the militia have not yet been taken.



REPORTED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO COMMUNIST AGENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Pontiac-Temiscamingue (Mr. Martineau) asked me to make inquiries about a statement made by Mr. Macdonald to the effect that a wireless operator in the Department of National Defence would have given secret information to a communist agency.
After investigation in the Department of National Defence it appears that there is no report indicating that a wireless operator in the department has given such secret information to a communist agency.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of National Revenue with reference to

Hal Banks, income tax and the question I asked yesterday. Has the minister taken steps to see that the assets belonging to this man are not entirely removed from Canadian jurisdiction?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question raised by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary yesterday, I would like to indicate that Mr. Banks' whereabouts is not known to the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, and that there is a question as to whether he is still a resident of Canada for income tax purposes. While it is not in the public interest and is contrary to the Income Tax Act to reveal information about Mr. Banks' income and taxes that may be due, since it is a matter of public record, I can inform the hon. member that there is a hypothec registered against his property in favour of the crown to secure taxes due.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Ciiy):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Can he announce any decision in respect of keeping the important port of entry at Regway, Saskatchewan, open on a 24 hour basis after September 14?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Now that we are in the month of September, and now that our recess is just around the corner-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I refer, of course, to the Christmas recess-during which week of this month will the resolution respecting the revised version of the Canada pension plan be placed on the order paper?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take up my hon. friend's question with the house leader.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that as long ago as April 23 the Prime Minister promised that we would proceed with this matter as soon as the constitutional amendment had been agreed to?


An hon. Member:: What's a promise?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, the rhetorical question just asked by my hon. friend is one, of course, the answer to which everyone in the house knows. As my hon. friend is well aware, the difficulty is that the program of the government has been brought very much to a halt by virtue of the action of hon. members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The order paper is already filled with very important matters which we have not been able to deal with, and it is thought there is really very little to be gained by adding more items to the order paper now before those already there are dealt with.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the minister not realize that it would be evidence of the government's readiness to go ahead with the Canada pension plan if it would at least put the resolution on the order paper?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to repeat that the government is ready and willing, and with a little co-operation from the other side we will also be able.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the legislation now ready?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I am in a position to say this. I do not have a copy in both languages on my desk, and I will have to check.


Jay Waldo Monteith: A different story.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. On Friday last I asked her a question with regard to a national survey of health and nutrition. Is she in a position to answer the question today?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
My parliamentary secretary gave me the question which was asked the other day. I should like to say that I noticed the newspaper report suggesting that there should be a national survey of nutrition in the country. I am advised that members of my department have been in consultation with officials of the Department of Agriculture and the dominion bureau of statistics, and that they have been looking into whether there is any value to be derived from having a national survey.
It is quite true that in Canada we do not have the kind of information that is available in the United States, and the effect of not having such detailed information is being thoroughly reviewed. It is appreciated that such a survey would take considerable time and staff and would be very costly. It will also have to be determined whether this is the most effective way to use the staff and resources we have available.
I can only say to my hon. friend and the house at this time that the departmental study is not sufficiently advanced for me to take any final decision in the matter.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. It stems from a newspaper report of an interview in Toronto last Thursday with Robert W. Latta, industrial development director of the Buffalo area chamber of commerce. The report reads in part as follows:
He said that 7 of 17 firms he canvassed in Toronto this week were interested in setting up branch plants near Buffalo. He plans further trips here to meet officials of another 37 firms.
Could the minister's department not get in touch with these firms to try to encourage them to stay in Canada, manufacture here and export their products so as to help our export trade, which we need so badly, between this country and the United States?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, while there will probably be some difficulty in ascertaining the names of these firms, since I assume the industrial development officer from Buffalo is not going to make their names available to me so I can work against him, I will be glad to look into the matter and see what we can do.

Canadian Flag


Jay Waldo Monteith: Surely you have enough employees to find out something.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the Indian families at Batcha-wana in the Sault Ste. Marie district who have been served with eviction notices by Scott Misener Steamship Company Limited.
In view of the statement by the local parish priest that these people lack the financial resources to protect their interests properly in court, can the minister assure the house that the Indian affairs branch will be given the necessary authority, encouragement and financial resources to make certain that the rights, privileges and desires of these Indian Canadians will be fully protected in court?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, after making inquiries I found out that of the 250 persons who might be affected by the company anxious to take over their properties, only 47 were Indians coming under the Indian Act.
I understand that those 47 persons can avail themselves of all the advantages provided by the department for a location in the two reserves already allocated to the Indians living there.
On the other hand, I am informed that the 47 Indians coming under the Indian Act consider themselves as forming part of this group of 250 people and they wish, as individuals, to assert their claims to those properties.
As far as I know no request has been submitted to the department for legal or financial assistance, in order to put forward the group's views to the company wanting to take over the properties in question.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, August 31, 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. More.
Mr. Eric Slefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, at 10.30 last night when the house adjourned I was speaking in support of the subamendment to the amendment to the flag resolution, and had not quite completed my remarks.
At the conclusion of my remarks last night I was urging all hon. members to lend their support to the subamendment. I strongly urge some member of the government to rise in his or her place and indicate the government's support for the subamendment, for if someone did this we could immediately move on to other urgent business. However, on reading Mr. Newman's article in the Toronto Star yesterday it would appear that the government has no legislation ready. Under the subheading "No Bills Ready" Mr. Newman says:
The Conservatives' (filibuster has not, as is generally believed, prevented parliament from dealing with a backlog of essential legislation. The Liberal administration, unaccountably, has no major bills ready for debate. The pension plan, which was supposed to be the showpiece of the Liberal's first year in office, is now in its fourth sad mutation.
It does seem inexcusable that the government has no legislation ready. It is further proof of a mismanaged and badly organized session. The Prime Minister and the government house leader have to take full responsibility for this. The order of business is in their hands. The Minister of Justice entered the debate last Thursday when he suggested the extension of the hours of sitting. This shows a lack of understanding of the situation.
This is the 139th day of this session and so far there has been no recess. I urge that some consideration should be given to the welfare of the staff. I merely wish to point out that the Hansard reporters, the Hansard staff generally and others are working under pressure and against time. If orderly recesses were arranged it would be much better for everyone concerned. This is another indication of the mismanagement of this session.
Our Indian citizens have not been consulted about the flag. Their wishes have not been taken into consideration. The Indians

do not like a flag which does not contain the union jack. They are afraid that removal of the union jack would mean that the treaties they have made with the Queen would also be done away with. Anything which gives rise to fears or suspicion in the minds of people should be avoided.
The only logical and reasonable approach to this issue is the holding of a referendum. Many members have stressed the need for unity, and have pointed out that a flag should unite people. There is no point in changing the present flag until our people plainly want a new one and until there is an agreement among the majority on a design. If such a flag, when selected, would tend to bring about a greater degree of unity, then it would serve a useful purpose. The present proposed flag does neither of these things.
If the Prime Minister believes that the flag proposed in this resolution would bring about unity and respect, then I suggest he accept the subamendment forthwith and pass the matter on to the people for their consideration. I have faith in the tolerance and understanding of the people of Canada.
I believe that any decision they themselves make will help the ties that bind and result in a stronger and more united Canada. I personally want to see a free, strong and united Canada. There is no room for dictatorship or dictatorial methods in our society. Let us forthwith pass this issue over to the people for them to make a decision. Then parliament can move forward and take action on the many important pieces of legislation which should be dealt with and which affect the economic well-being of every Canadian.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was impressed at the opening of this sitting when the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) and the Minister of Transport, as Acting Prime Minister, recalled the days of 100 years ago when we saw the beginning of the action which culminated in the British North America Act and brought about the uniting of Canada with Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick.
It is well to recall the events of those days at a time when we are discussing a matter of great importance to Canada, to her people, to her destiny, and above all to her unity now. And it is well to recall the difficulties of those days for many, especially for the faint hearted. The position was one of defeatism. There were separatists in those days, too. There were annexationists who believed 20220-476
Canadian Flag
that the ultimate destiny of Canada was to join the United States. Indeed, as the house very well knows, from 1776 under the articles of confederation Canada had the right and the prerogative to join the 13 colonies on an equal basis on the terms under which they entered their journey into history as the United States of America.
One of the matters dealt with during this conference in Charlottetown might well have been consideration of a general agreement by the premiers of the provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada on designs, or on a design, for a national flag for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: However, that was not to be; for the Prime Minister had seen fit months ago to determine his design and to determine, as well, that parliament should accept that design or face an election. It took three months for the Prime Minister to realize that the bludgeon, the threat, would have no effect on Her Majesty's loyal opposition. When he found that to be the case he decided he would in fact grant a free vote.
The Prime Minister and the premiers are meeting. I hope they will be able to achieve the repatriation of the constitution. We almost succeeded and would have done so but for one or two comparatively minor matters to which objection was taken by the province of Quebec and, even more so, by the province of Saskatchewan when that province was under a socialist government. Now there has been a change. It is not for me to discuss the merits or demerits of that change, but there has also been a change in the premiership, and the new premier has agreed that action may be taken. So we may hope that after the many failures of the past we shall attain now, with the assistance of the tremendous contribution made by the minister of justice in my administration, that which has eluded Canadians for many, many years.
It is well to recall the speeches of 1864 and 1865. Some today talk about Canada being two nations. That did not represent the views of John A. Macdonald or Georges Etienne Cartier. It does not represent the views of two members of the cabinet today. The Minister of Forestry has come out foursquare for one Canada, and the Minister without Portfolio has stated that he believes this is one nation and not two. Also I recall that another member of the cabinet, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, ridiculed the view I expressed of one Canada and said it was nothing but a futile slogan; but in the intervening months

Canadian Flag
two members of the cabinet have broken with the views of other members of the cabinet in this regard, and it is worthy of note that they are both from the province of Quebec. Indeed, they represent the views of Macdonald.
I quote Macdonald's words in 1865 at the third session of the provincial parliament of Canada:
-it seems to me as to them, and I think it will so appear to the people of this country, that, if we wish to be a great people; if we wish to form-using the expression which was sneered at the other evening-a great nationality, commanding the respect of the world, able to hold our own against all opponents, and to defend these institutions we prize; if we wish to have one system of government, and to establish a commercial union... obeying the same sovereign, owing the same allegiance. ... if we wish to be able to afford to each other the means of mutual defence. .. .this can only be obtained by a union of some kind between the scattered and weak boundaries composing the British North American provinces.
I suggest that hon. members also read the speech of Cartier, the embodiment of French Canada and its aspirations, made on February 7, 1865. He dealt with the discussions that had taken place:
The matter resolved itself into this, either we must obtain British North American confederation or be absorbed in an American confederation. Some entertained the opinion that it was unnecessary to have British North American confederation to prevent absorption into the vortex of American confederation. Such parties were mistaken. We knew the policy of England towards us-that she was determined to help and support us in any struggle with our neighbours.
Those days and those fears of course no longer exist. Then he went on to say:
The absorption of this province into the United States had long been contemplated, as would be seen from the 7th article in the original draft of the constitution (American).
Then he referred to article 7, which ends up with these words:
But, except Canada, no other colony shall be admitted into the confederacy without the assent of 11 or more votes, as the case may require, by the confederation being extended.
Then he said:
As early as 1775, the French Canadians were solemnly addressed in a proclamation by General Washington, who called upon them to abandon the flag of their new masters, inasmuch as they could not expect anything from those who differ from them in language, in religion, in race, and in sympathies. But what was the conduct of the French Canadian people under these circumstances -what was the attitude of the clergy and the seigneurs? It was the right in treating this chapter of our history, to render justice to whom justice was due and it was truth to say that the seigneurs, forming as they did, the educated class of our

population at that early epoch, had fully understood that the object and aim of those who appealed to them was the downfall of the monarchical system in America.
Then he went on to say-and these are not his words, they are mine-they had not been moved. Then he said:
Incited by these motives, and encouraged by the advice of many friends of liberty among you, the grand American congress have sent an army into your province-
Then he dealt with the reaction of those who but a few years before had found themselves in the position of having lost. They joined; they stood. Then he said this:
The question for us to ask ourselves was this: Shall we be content to maintain a mere provincial existence, when, by combining together we could become a great nation... a great nation could not be formed-
-unless there was a joining with Lower Canada-
-in great part French and Roman Catholic, and Upper Canada.. .English and Protestant-
-the other provinces mixed.
That was their aim. That was their purpose. That was their dream, and I think that purpose and that objective are as true today as when they were uttered by the Macdonalds and the Cartiers, repeated by the Lauriers and the St. Laurents and by the Lapointes throughout the years of Canadian parliamentary life.
Today I am going to review something of the elements that have been brought before this house so powerfully by so many members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in recent weeks. I read in the press, I hear from the voices of those who see nothing good in any stand the Conservative party takes, criticism of parliament today and criticism of the speeches made. I hear the strident voices of criticism saying the speeches have been boring. No one can say I participated except for 25 minutes, so I have been a listener; and I say to you, sir, that in almost a quarter of a century of membership in the House of Commons I have not seen or heard more consistently good speeches than have been delivered here, coming as they were from the heart, coming from the soul, and coming from the feelings and traditions that we support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not talking about hon. gentlemen opposite. Their contribution has been the contribution of the hon. member for Lotbiniere, who has led them. No longer

is he to be with us, Mr. Speaker. The voice of interruption is to be stilled. For the last two weeks he has been rotating from seat to seat, apparently representing a new leadership on the government side, because certainly they have not shown other leadership in this regard. They have been silent. Why, the silence of the sepulcher does not exceed the silence of a government under attack.
And do you know why they are silent? Well, hon. gentlemen sometimes reveal the reasons they are silent when they speak outside the house. The hon. member for Port Arthur has a program on television, and he has been able to mobilize hon. gentlemen from all parts of the house. I regard it as a most interesting program, "Fisher's Frolics," and I do not say that disrespectfully because I say that he is able to draw out-I think the expression is "draw out"-the truth, by that bedside manner he exhibits.
It is amazing what he has been able to achieve. Do you know why they are silent, Mr. Speaker? I am not going to read it all, but if any hon. gentleman would like it tabled I would be glad to do so. He had an interview with two Liberal members on August 2, and he started out by saying of them:
Neither in my opinion is a rubber stamp-
In other words "there are no rubber stamps here." They gave their experience. They talked of these great men who occupy the front seats of Liberalism. They spoke of it, and what did they say? They seemed to detect an attitude of domination. They believed these great men should have their say. Let me quote one hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Name?


John George Diefenbaker: He said "They have a special place". He was referring to ministers:
It was said, I won't say where it was said, I'll say very recently it was said by a minister to a backbencher, "You are not the same as we are".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The typical attitude.


John George Diefenbaker: "You backbenchers, you are made of other stuff. In fact", said the hon. member-these are the very words he used-"How dare you say you are the same as we are?" The hon. member occupies a prominent place in the ranks of Liberalism opposite. Then another spoke and he said in effect, "Well, we don't know what is happening. We never know what is going to take place. They don't tell us anything". Then he said:
20220-476J
Canadian Flag
Our people are amazed when an order is issued and they will call you up and say to you you know about these new wharfage charges. No, I don't know anything about them. Yet they could defeat me, but somebody initiated them that even the minister doesn't know too much about.
There is where he touched a tender nerve. Perhaps hon. gentlemen opposite would like me to read some more. Even the Minister of National Defence is mentioned. This Liberal member said, in effect, that the minister could not trust them:
He didn't even trust it to be typed by the establishment.
The minister had to make his notes in his own handwriting, otherwise he might have been overwhelmed. Then he said:
I know how people tick and this is the trouble in Ottawa.
One of them said the trouble in Ottawa is that they don't know what is happening. Mr. Speaker, now you are beginning to see why it is these people are silent. They are strong, silent men who make their observations from a seated position because they are afraid to stand up.
Sir, never have I seen anything approaching the attitude of this government. Only one minister apart from the Prime Minister has spoken. The Minister of Justice has made two general observations. Why is this, sir? These two members to whom I have alluded, who bared their souls to the Canadian people on television, who opened the secret recesses of their innermost depths, say "We don't know anything about these things because we belong to a different category". That is why they are not speaking. Two of them spoke, the hon. member for York-Humber and the hon. member for York East; and what they said was tremendously revealing. It indicated that nobody knew anything about what was going to be brought forward.
I am now going to deal with the course that was taken by the Prime Minister. I am going to be very restrained in my observations regarding him today, in his absence, because there will be other opportunities, I am told, for me to speak before this matter is concluded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: We would like to know, not what the private members had to say; not the digits referred to by the two hon. members, but who were the four English speaking ministers who sold the Prime Minister on this flag design. There is one of the great mysteries. Mr. Stewart of the Montreal Star said over the C.B.C. that this

Canadian Flag
was so. Who were they? I do not want to embarrass anyone, but the information I have is that two of them come from Toronto and one from the Pacific coast. I immediately absolve the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I designate the Postmaster General, because he came up with the three maple leaves on a stamp. I am going to deal with that, because what he said in April was different from what he said last week in this regard.
Who were these four? Why don't we get this information? These men deserve to have their names perpetuated in the annals of parliament. They showed the Prime Minister something that he never showed to his members until after he had revealed it at a siesta at 24 Sussex drive. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that he placed this design over the fireplace and said "I hanker after it". On the basis of recent experience he is hankering after something else at the moment.


David Vaughan Pugh: A handkerchief.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister said he hankered after it. These members had it given to him, and they cannot defend it. That is why they are silent. Why was this matter rushed before the house? What happened? To whom did the Prime Minister make promises? We don't know. In the month of February there was no reference to this matter in the speech from the throne; several weeks later there was no reference to it among the priorities.
Mackenzie King knew what a matter like this would do to the unity of this country. The Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent knew what would happen. Why was this matter suddenly brought forward? Never at any time in the election campaign had the Prime Minister said that by a distinctive flag he meant one from which was removed the union jack. There was not a word about that. That impression was left in the province of Quebec, but not by the Prime Minister. In other parts of Canada it did not appear in the program or in the advertisements, and I have them here. There is not one word. This parliament has no mandate and this government has no mandate to do what they are trying to do.
I am going to deal, Mr. Speaker, with some of the frenzied fantasies of the press and radio in their criticisms of the Conservative party for the stand they have taken. For who else is going to stand with us? Is it going to be the hon. gentlemen of the New Demo-

cratic party? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on January 12, 1964 advised the Legion in Manitoba that he was for the red ensign. He has changed; a metamorphosis has come over him in recent months. Will we get from that party the support of any more than two, three or four members in this regard?


Mr. Peters:: Let us vote and you will find out.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the Social Credit party? We have yet to find out where they stand, with the exception of one or two members. We want to know.


Some hon. Members:: Let us vote.


John George Diefenbaker: Ah, they say let us vote. Mr. Speaker, that illustrates above everything else the philosophy of the people who have said that. That is what they say under alien forms of government, just "vote". We know where the Creditistes stand. I look at my hon. friend the Minister without Portfolio and recall some of his statements regarding the leaders of the Social Credit party and the Creditistes. It must be the words of love and affection he spoke which now bind them to the bosom of Liberalism.


Mr. Dupuis:: Are you jealous?


John George Diefenbaker: May I point out this fact. There are matters of immediate consequence on which action is needed. For example, what about the economic situation of which the Minister of Finance speaks so blandly? What about the pension legislation? We had an explanation of that when the question was asked, "Have you got it ready? If so, put it on". Why do not the government bring in that legislation? Are they changing their minds again for the third time?


Jay Waldo Monteith: The fourth.


John George Diefenbaker: For the fourth time.
Where is the legislation promised by the Minister of Agriculture. This is legislation which is going to bring about a new heaven and new earth agriculturally. Where is this legislation? We are not holding up anything, and hon. members opposite have not anything to hold up except themselves. There is not one iota of truth in the suggestion that we are holding anything up. We are holding up-


Mr. Mandziuk:: A vacation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I would say to my hon. friends opposite that all of them have qualifications for drama in an animal field. What

are we holding up? We are holding up the government-


William Arnold Peters: Right.


John George Diefenbaker: -on behalf of millions of Canadians. We are putting up a meaningful fight for a meaningful flag for Canada. We have said, and I repeat, in the addresses given by hon. gentleman in this party that we have always stood for a distinctive flag; but never at any time did the Conservative party, any more than the Liberal party, openly contend for anything other than a flag which was called distinctive by Mackenzie King and by Louis St. Laurent. Do you know where they made their mistake? They let their sycophants believe there would be a token fight and they would push this thing through and achieve what the Prime Minister wants as a personal flag.
The hon. member for York East revealed something that must be of interest to hon. members in various parts of Ontario and elsewhere when he said "We did not expect that there would be such a strong feeling on the part of Canadians". Mr. Speaker, Gallup polls cannot convey the soulful things of life. Where would Canada be today so far as the flag is concerned if it were not for the fight put up by this party standing alone?
I intend, sir, to call the great parliamentarians of the past to give their views as to a government endeavouring to push through something that the people generally do not want. They have played with parliament. They want the people to believe that all this legislation which they have in their minds but which they have not been able to translate into legislative form would be brought in if only we abdicated our responsibilities. They misconstrued the attitude of the people.
A few weeks ago the government were talking about an election. They said that was the reason we were fighting. We have made it perfectly clear that this is not so, because this is not the kind of issue upon which a general election should take place. But that is what they said. Today the Minister of Transport said in effect that the achievement of freedom demands the right of free speech. He is one of those to whom the press and radio have been most free in their free speech, and they have never heard me take a stand against it.
I ask, and parliament has the right to ask, that both sides be given not an expurgated edition, not a translated interpretation,
Canadian Flag
but actually the other side of the equation. We have not been able to get that so far, but someone has stated that the stand we are taking is getting through to the people. I do not know how it is getting through, but whereas three weeks ago there was criticism, more and more the attitude in every province, including the province of Quebec, indicates that the importance of this debate is finding its way through.
Mr. Speaker, they have been assisted by one United States magazine that masquerades in Canada as Canadian, but which week after week reveals one side of the equation. We have had our experience in the past, in 1962 and 1963, with extraterritorial interference. Let me interpolate here. There is an election campaign now on in the United States. Canadians should use that same discretion regarding an election in that country as we ask from them for Canada.
It has been argued that Canada does not have a distinctive flag. She had one, as was said in parliament by Mr. Ilsley, now the chief justice of Nova Scotia. The red ensign flying over parliament from 1867 to 1904; the red ensign was declared to be the flag for the army overseas in 1943; the red ensign was declared in 1945, until parliament otherwise directed, to be Canada's national flag. I have heard some say "But think of it; the Prime Minister brought this matter before parliament rather than doing it by order in council". Mr. Speaker, he could not do it by order in council, because that order in council of 1945 stated explicitly that a change could only be made by parliament.
Sir, I summarize these few general remarks I have made by referring to an article by Guy Lamarche in magazine Maclean's, September edition. Mr. Lamarche was speaking of our country and, reading from the translation, he said:
Here, we deliberately chose to adopt a national flag under the worst possible conditions...
Not only should we have waited, but it should have been orchestrated and executed with brio as an important step in our adolescence.
It was a question of public relations and I cannot understand how the image makers of Mr. Pearson, who work so hard to make us swallow their productions, were unable to convince the Prime Minister that at least in the matter of the flag, the public interest demanded that they should be allowed to make a success of it...
Instead of this, they spent their time saying the flag was a question full of sentiment and emotion, going right to the heart of every Canadian: and then nothing at all was done to reach the heart and sentiment of these Canadians...
Mr. Speaker, we have nothing to apologize for or explain in respect of the stand we

Canadian Flag
have taken. This is not a frivolous or captious stand. This is a stand based on abiding principles. I say this to you, and through you to the government. We in Her Majesty's loyal opposition are here to all intents and purposes standing alone in this house, but we do not represent a small minority of the Canadian people. Sir, we have a responsibility, and the government tries to becloud the issue by saying they have got legislation ready. Mr. Speaker, no arteries of legislation are being stopped when the government has no legislative items ready. We have passed all the legislation that has been brought before parliament-


An hon. Member:: What about redistribution?


John George Diefenbaker: -except redistribution. Everything has received consideration, and the only reason redistribution was not passed is because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre decided he wanted to change the ideas of the government regarding appointments being made, one by the prime minister and one by the leader of the opposition. There was also a question raised as to the relative tolerance that should exist as between urban and rural areas. We showed signs of being able to come to an agreement. We suggested 20 per cent was too low. What about Mr. Lesage in the province of Quebec; what did he do? He raised this to 25 per cent in his province, according to the press.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman has suggested that the only piece of legislation the opposition held up was redistribution. Does the right hon. gentleman think that a minority in the house, if it disagrees with something, has the right indefinitely to refuse the majority the right to express its views through a vote?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will receive his answer in a few moments, when I deal with the words of a parliamentarian with whom I am sure the hon. member will agree, irrespective of his feelings. I refer to Right Hon. Mackenzie King. I will deal with that subject when I reach it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not make the question clear to the right hon. gentleman. I should make it clear that

I was referring in my question to the redistribution matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has a way about him, and I do not take him any more seriously than he sometimes is taken outside the house. I did say to him courteously that I would deal with his question, but then he ran away from it by asking another question.
Mr. Speaker, he brings me to this position. In spite of all the Liberal mythology in relation to parliament being brought to an impasse, who brought it here? Did we bring in the Prime Minister's personal choice? Did we prevent him bringing in legislation regarding the economy, the necessity of expansion of trade, and the subject of the question raised by the hon. member for Perth, in reference to the declaration of national goals? Who brought about division within this country? Who created it or, if not created, who added the fires to division? We have never seen anything to equal the separation, the division, the antagonisms expressed within our country that we have seen since the present government came into office. One of the major reasons is this: They promised everything and they have executed little or nothing.
It was not the Conservative party that had the separatists. It was not the Conservative party that had an hon. member in their midst who would abolish the Queen and remove the British connection. I thought that hon. member was speaking for himself, but in the last 10 days it is apparent that he has become a paragon of perfection as he moves around, interrupts and receives the warmest plaudits from those who I would have thought would have contemptuously spumed one who expressed views such as he is expressing.
Did we bring about the bitter division? Sir, this parliament has a great responsibility. Some newspaper editorials say: Mind you, the Prime Minister made a mistake, he should not have got us into this, but the opposition is terrible because it dares to stand against his personal desires. Sir, we have no excuses to offer. An hon. gentleman says, should it not be brought to a vote? Shades of Laurier and Borden. I have two volumes here that I am sure will take their place alongside the volume on Mr. King that was edited by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
I make an appeal to the government. I know it is late to do it but we have a sacred trust. Do not let us continue this course and

build up controversies for the future. We believe that policy should bring Canadians together rather than disintegrate them. All of this was encouraged by the Prime Minister when he made that speech in the month of April after the election, in which he said he believed in two nations. That is when the trouble began. In other parts of Canada it was explained that he really had not meant it. In the House of Commons one Friday he came forward with a commission to investigate separatism but when he saw the effect of it somebody issued a press release that night.
Who has been building up false hopes for the people? What about the wild and unrestrained statements that have been made by influential men not in the Conservative party? It is not being anti-Quebec to say that certain men have spoken in a way that cannot help but divide this country. Yet when one takes that stand it is argued that one is anti-Quebec. Not at all; I have never in my life uttered a word that could be so construed.
I go back to 1924 when I took a case in the province of Saskatchewan on behalf of French school trustees. I was told: Do not take it; it will cause you difficulty in the future. Sir, I have never failed to take the stand which I believed was necessary and proper. When I spoke, as did many members of the N.D.P., regarding the injustice done to the Japanese Canadians, their only offence their colour, I was alone among my colleagues. When in June of 1940 I made a speech for the first time in the House of Commons I appealed then for a Canadianism. At that time terrible criticisms were being uttered against those of German origin. I said: These people are Canadians. It was not popular to take that stand.
I recollect what happened in 1961 and 1962 when I said that we must have a colourblind commonwealth. What did hon. gentlemen opposite say? They said that I lost favour with the United Kingdom; but today this is accepted. Speaking for this party and the government of that day, I said to the British people in 1962: You have full right as an independent country to join the common market but you have responsibilities to the commonwealth which you yourselves have admitted and we ask you not to forget the institution that above everything else in the world represents something that no other group of nations has ever been able to achieve. I was criticized; I was bitterly denounced. Do you hear any of those opposite saying today that they want to get into the
Canadian Flag
common market? Today they are using the arguments for which they criticized us. Great is the experience of public life when you see people sitting opposite who in the month of May, 1962, said that nothing more terrible had ever happened than the pegging of the Canadian dollar but who now embrace the heresy of those days as their own.
One must take a stand. One cannot always be on the side of a majority, but when there is a great principle at stake parties have a responsibility. A very prominent Conservative wrote me and said: Don't fight them, they are thirsty for this flag; let them have it and when a change of government comes bring in your own flag. The hon. gentleman says, let us get to a vote, because he has the artificial certainty of a quiescent majority with him. Sir, that is not parliament, as I will show when I refer to the words of Laurier.
I want to see this institution not derided, not downgraded. There are one or two who are doing so whose knowledge of democracy is not in keeping with their enthusiasm for condemnation of the Conservative party. The relation of parliament to public opinion is a serious matter. That is why the press has its place. The elector requires and is entitled to a fair and impartial view of what is going on in parliament. I ask you, sir. Is it a fair division when the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on the day when two speeches were made, one by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) and the other by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) speaking from the wells of experience, those wells from which his people have drawn their sustenance and power for a thousand years, should devote to one speech eight times the amount of attention devoted to the other?


An hon. Member:: Typical.


John George Diefenbaker: That is one-sided. No one can argue that it is not. And you will never build a Canada if information is to be denied when it is critical of a government, but given first place when it consists of the declarations of a government. I speak realizing that what I say may be misinterpreted. But I do not want to be misinterpreted. I want to say this finally and unequivocally-that only now, in the last week or so, is the feeling getting through to the people.
I should like to read what some of the hon. gentlemen opposite are hearing from their constituents. "Get to a vote". Yes. If they would heed the call of their constituents it will be of interest when they do vote. We

Canadian Flag
must work tor national unity. We did. When were in office, we tried to unify. We made the House of Commons a living place when we installed the simultaneous translation system. Today there is a degree of exchange which never took place before in this house. We did not contribute to separating the people of our country on the basis of race, religion, or province against province. Somebody will argue: Oh, if you only fall in line with this and allow the three maple leaves, all will be well. Mr. Speaker, the niggling knife would still continue. I said I would be restrained in what I have to say in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) because I will be able to say more when he is back. But I find it difficult to explain why, knowing in advance that there was going to be division, he got into this and carried his supporters along, the speed of the caravan being determined by the right hon. gentleman.
I do not intend to follow on this occasion the sinuous course the government has followed. The Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) is not here; I will have some reference to make to him when he is. But I simply point out in this regard the fact that what has happened is now being blamed on us, because we dared to stand. Well, last evening I read the words of Ulysses, which are the embodiment of our attitude-"strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yield". Members opposite thought they would dominate us by a campaign of vituperation the like of which I have not seen in this land. I do not complain, but I point out that this is the situation. Sir, why did they do it? Why did they act? Why did not the Prime Minister, unless he wanted to make a political matter of this, go to the leaders of the various parties before the seeds of dissension had been planted by his aggressive speech in Winnipeg to the Royal Canadian Legion? Can we not sit down together and talk things over? Was there any attitude of compromise when, knowing that he had a multitude with him, he could ride roughshod? We said, no.
Sir, have we a national flag, a distinctive flag? I ask you to turn to the answer given by Mr. St. Laurent as prime minister in 1951, on November 21 when he was asked the question:
What steps are being taken by the government with respect to the adoption of a distinctive national flag?
To that question, his answer was: "See order in council P.C. 5888 of September 15, 1945."

Why did they do this? What did they think they would achieve? Why do they now try to blame us for standing in the way of one of the most barefaced attempts in Canadian history to overwhelm an opposition which represents millions of Canadians? Again, I ask the question: Why? You do not choose a flag that way. You do not change a flag in the systole and diastole of political controversy following an election. This is something for Canada's next hundred years. Yet the government decided for political purposes -that is what La Presse said-for the prospect of votes, to bring about a stifling of the outpouring of the spirit of millions of Canadians. And they did it by fooling the people of the province of Quebec. I have had a great deal of correspondence from that province lately and the question asked me is this-
What is the constituency of my hon. friend-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, that is one of my
afflictions; I can never remember the names of constituencies. I have not that kind of memory, though hon. members opposite may have it. But I remember the great things, and the great principles, and this is something they might bear in mind.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Can you imagine hon. gentlemen opposite-I would like to identify them if they would let me know who they are, so that they would be on the record- when we are discussing a matter of importance to Canadians as a whole indulging in that kind of exhibitionism?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: There is no identification. Their silence is their own rebuke. What they are trying to do is to cover up their failure to act on so many matters that desperately need to be solved, and they bring up an issue of an emotional nature to conceal their failure.
I do not want to impose anything on the people of Quebec. I have acted for the French Canadians through the years. As one gets on to my time in life he can look back. I have acted for them throughout the years. I know them. I do not want to impose. That is not the spirit of 100 years ago today-to impose. Neither do I want them to say to the rest of Canada. "We must do this." I am sure they do not have that view. This is not a country that can be governed by the imposition of brute force.

Sir, I speak with more emotion than usual when I think of what is being done to this, my country. I am of mixed origin too. I am not one with a colonial viewpoint. Conservative prime ministers and leaders from Macdonald to date have not been colonialists. They have led the way on behalf of an independent nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Sir, when I say that, I also want to add that we are prepared at all times as Canadians to hold out the right hand of fellowship in a spirit of compromise, for after all this is a country where compromise is of the essence, so long as compromise does not violate principles.
I have not forgotten the question put by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill). I shall come to that rather too soon for him.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You cannot come to it too soon.


John George Diefenbaker: He was one of the devotees, one who was described by pamphleteers as the power behind Mr. King. I see he wags his head in a horizontal position. Such modesty is unusual even though unvoiced. Sir, on August 11, 1944, near the end of the war, I spoke immediately before the prime minister, who was my member. We had that relationship of member and constituent that did not
Canadian Flag
always bear the relationship of Damon and Pythias, but Mr. King had his views. Let me read what he said. In my remarks, I mentioned that, when our men came back from overseas, let them be Canadian. I am not going to quote my speech. I have never made a habit of doing that, but I preceded him, contending that we should build Canada with Canadians, maintaining the constitutional rights by assuring to those of us in whose veins flowed blood not entirely British or French equal rights as citizens, equal rights as Canadians, and Mr. King said:
May I say to my hon. friend that in that I am in entire and wholehearted agreement with him.
I cannot express too strongly the feeling I have that some of these practices which have been carried on by the census branch for statistical purposes, or possibly for ethnological purposes-
I believe that is the way it is described-might be done away with. I would be happy to join with my hon. friend and with any others in seeking to do my part to see absolute recognition, or recognition made in an absolute way of men and women who were bom in this country, and those who have become Canadian citizens being regarded as Canadians first, foremost and all the time.
Sir, what do the three maple leaves typify? The Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) in his speech to the philatelic organization, said one stands for the British, one stands for the French and the other stands for the other racial origins. He never got to telling them what the centre one stood for. It was nonsense.
Were they thinking about other ethnic groups in Quebec in 1868 when they came out with their coat of arms? Were they thinking of them in Ontario? Not at all.
As a matter of fact this flag was first placed on a stamp as a result of the action of the Postmaster General after he took office. He told us the other day it had been decided in July of 1963. That is what he told the house, but he forgot what he said in the month of April. I will read what he said then, according to Southam news services:
Postmaster General John R. Nicholson, however, said he knew nothing about this design representing the new Canadian flag, although he chose the stamp and decided its colours himself after entering office last February 1.
Ten days ago he told us he had nothing to do with it, that it had been decided before any question of a change of flag was being considered. Then listen to these words:
Mr. Nicholson admitted that it had been proposed that the stamp be issued with the maple leaves red on a white background, but he decided to try a little background colour.

Canadian Flag
"I thought of that pale blue they use in the United Nations flag," he said-
I say to him, on the basis of his statement of April 17, that this was just part of the propaganda to soften up the Canadian people.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: Good.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The right hon. gentleman is glibly suggesting that the statement I made here in all sincerity is not true, that it is hypocritical.


John George Diefenbaker: I did not say either of those things.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I did say the maple leaf design was chosen in or about the month of July, 1963. The records of the Post Office Department show that. I did make a modest contribution to the final design when I learned, through technical advice, that there was a question of whether a red stamp on a white background could be picked up electronically. After I became Postmaster General I directed that a colour change be made from a white background to a blue background. That is the simple explanation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it is a simple explanation but it is far removed from the explanation of April 17 that appeared in the Canadian Press. But I am really not concerned about that, because all the minister has succeeded in doing is assure the house that he was not one of the four wise men who induced the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) to accept the three maple leaf design.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the right hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him a question?


John George Diefenbaker: No. If the hon. gentleman would-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am asking if the right hon. gentleman will permit me-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


An hon. Member:: He isn't speaking to the subamendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition is making a speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) said I am not on the subamendment. I am glad he raised that point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I know the right hon. gentleman suffers from the same defect I do, that of hardness of hearing; but that does not excuse his misrepresenting what I said. I asked the right hon. gentleman, very politely, if I could ask him a question and I made no other remark of any kind. And I was denied the question.


John George Diefenbaker: I hasten immediately, Mr. Speaker, to say that if the hon. gentleman says he did not make that remark, I accept it; but it just shows the influence he has on backbench members, one of whom has a voice that sounds very much like his, apparently in emulation. I was reading what Mr. King said, and I would have thought it would have commanded the attention of the Minister of Transport. Mr. King said:
And may I say this to my hon. friend, that he has touched upon a very real subject, when he speaks of men who have fought and died as Canadians, irrespective of race and religion. X regret much to see in this country at the present time some gentlemen who are in positions of high respect, and who know better, seeking to raise matters of creed and race, with the suggestion that things are being done for people of one area rather than for those of another. May I say to this committee that if anyone wishes a battle on the question of whether we are to have one part of this country singled out as non-Canadian as against what by others is said to be Canadian, no one would welcome that fight any more than I would.
And anyone who raises the question of race to prejudice anyone of another race in this country is doing the greatest disservice that can be done to Canadian unity and to Canadian nationality. And not only do I wish to see our people recognized as Canadians, but I also wish to see a Canadian flag recognized in this country. I would like to see it the flag that our Canadian men are fighting under today. We have a Canadian flag unfurled in battle today by our very brave men in Italy and in France. I think in time the people of this country of Canada will say we want to have as a Canadian flag the flag they are carrying in battle today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That is No. 1. Then they say we have not a distinctive flag. That is not what Mr. King said. And what did Mr. St. Laurent say? I want to nail down these misconceptions and falsifications that are being bandied about. Mr. St. Laurent said on November 13, 1945, with regard to a distinctive flag and a design for it, that any such design should include the union jack in the upper left corner. That was Mr. St. Laurent. Was he any less a Canadian for saying that? Then he went on to say that the question of a flag "should be lifted above the plane of partisan politics." Sir,

how much I agree with that view. This design was put forward by the Prime Minister for political purposes and now, finding himself in difficulties, who is blamed? We are blamed for not letting him do that. What a hypocritical stand to take. Let me read further what Mr. St. Laurent said. They say that to have the union jack on the flag is a mark of subservience and domination. What did Mr. St. Laurent say, as is reported at page 2096 of Hansard:
I do not think any member of this honourable house would quarrel with that statement.
He is referring to the preceding statement, whatever it was:
The union jack is a symbol which represents much that is best in the heritage of all those who derive their traditions and their culture from western Europe.
Then he said:
I do not believe that any of us in this country at this time regard the union jack as being a symbol of conquest or a symbol of subjugation. It is under the union jack that the institutions of this Canadian nation have grown and developed and have brought us to the point where now, and for a good many years now, the dominion is and has been an autonomous state subject in no phase of its domestic or of its external affairs to any other authority-
Then he quoted with approval Mr. King's words to the Canadian Legion.
Mr. King assured the Legion officers that, so far as he was concerned, the new Canadian flag should certainly contain the union jack. It might be debatable whether a single maple leaf in the fly would be preferable to the Canadian coat of arms at present incorporated in the Canadian red ensign, but it would be unthinkable to have a flag for this dominion that did not contain the union jack.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: That was Mr. King's stand, and certainly throughout his life he stood for independence, and strongly stood for it. In this regard Mr. St. Laurent said:
I am prepared to say now that I for one fully share the views expressed by the prime minister to this delegation, the legionnaires-
There are those who tell you, sir, and try to lead Canadians to believe that we are pushing something on Quebec. Who was in the cabinet then? Mr. King was the prime minister, there was Mr. St. Laurent, and Mr. Lesage was in the cabinet. Did we have anything to do with this flag that was recommended, with the fact that the red ensign should be the flag-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, surely the right hon. gentleman realizes that Mr. Lesage did not come into the cabinet until Mr. St.
Canadian Flag
Laurent had been prime minister for several years?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, this is one time that the hon. gentleman's memory regarding this question is correct. But Mr. Lesage was in the house. Did he raise any objection?


Mr. Nielsen:: He was honestly silent.


John George Diefenbaker: He was never one not to
speak what he thought. I have placed these quotations before the house, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of answering this kind of propaganda that the Liberal party has disseminated, namely that we are trying to push something on Quebec. It was done when the hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. The Minister of Transport was the grey eminence-although not grey-behind Mr. Mackenzie King.
I was asked by the hon. gentleman what the attitude would be as to an opposition that stands for the things that it believes in, in principle. I do not refer to questions of ordinary, every day economics but to matters that affect a nation, its well-being, its future -everything that we hold dear. I would ask him to read the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, because they represent a viewpoint that cannot be gainsaid. He pointed out during the course of his statement in this House of Commons when the house was discussing the navy bill, debate on which lasted for months and months in 1912-13, that an opposition has the right to act when there is a question of principle at stake. In the course of his remarks he dealt particularly with what had happened in the past. In 1912 the Conservative party under Sir Robert Borden brought in legislation to provide for naval assistance to the United Kingdom. Sir Wilfrid has always been regarded by friend and foe as a great parliamentarian. I read from the "Life and letters of Sir Wilfrid Laurier", volume 2. I have Hansard in my office, but not having brought it down with me I will read from this volume. At page 409 the following appears:
Amendment after amendment was made, only to be voted down.
That was by the Liberal party of the day.
Every naval commander from Noah to Nelson was quoted and quoted again. Conservatives ceased to speak and Liberals spoke double time. Tempers rose, interruption was frequent, the Speaker "named" members, and still little progress was made with the bill. Finally, the government decided to force the bill through under closure.
That is when Sir Wilfrid gave not only Canada of his day but posterity the answer to those who talk of filibuster. They did not use that expression then. Filibuster is an

Canadian Flag
had its place. The present government, alter an election, decided to give their own definition to "distinctive", and their definition is one without any recognition of the heritage of the past, the devotion of either French or English to our country.
There are others who insist on the red ensign without change or modification. There are some who in the interests of unity, and I plead that, are prepared to agree to modifications that will recognize the contributions of the two great races. There are some who want the three maple leaf flag. There are others who want a one maple leaf flag. Then, sir, there are some in all these categories who have been shocked at the course that the Liberal party took in bringing this flag before us.
The Canadian people have a right to say what kind of flag they want and they can only exercise that right through a plebiscite. But in the interests of bringing us together I repeat the suggestion of a committee, but not one to meet for three or four weeks. Her Majesty will be here on the 12th of October and such a committee does not have to be limited to that date. Let it sit for three months. Certainly I think it would take two months. The question of time is not important, but the committee should not be directed that it has to do the job within a certain time. If the committee comes up with a substantial majority, then there is no need for further argument. A short debate would be sufficient. But, sir, unless it does we are back to where we were, except that we have given Canadians a chance to think this over.
Feeling has crystallized very strongly in the last few weeks. So far as time is concerned, I have read one commentator, who in the past has achieved monetary gain by libellous statements, who says that it is costing $33,000 a day for parliament to sit. That is absolutely false. Our salaries are spread over the year. It does not cost any more for parliament to sit today than if we were home, except for the paper, the printing, the page boys and the like. That statement is a complete fabrication. If we were home all of the staff here with few exceptions, as you know, Mr. Speaker, would still be on salary. That statement is designed to hurt and to damage, and the truth can never catch up to a falsehood. But that statement should be answered. In addition, sir, I do not think that anybody should object to sitting, with the salary that is being received today, and I speak as one who does not receive the addition. Parliament is not to be measured by cost. Parliament

is to be measured by the degree to which it brings about improvement for the benefit of the nation.
We are ready. Bring on your legislative program. We will be glad to pass it as we have passed other measures. The government have nothing ready except that in their minds they have got plans. If they have anything ready, let them bring it forward. What is there to stop them bringing in the resolution on pensions which has so frequently been asked for? Let us deal with that. Let us set up the committee and let the committee go to work. The government has endeavoured to lead the Canadian people to believe that we are preventing them from bringing in anything. We will welcome legislation. Bring it in and we will give a legislative program every support. But I want to brand as another myth the suggestion that while we debate this matter that will affect Canadians for 100 years we are holding up other legislation.
Sir, you cannot make a flag for a country by putting a slug of political advantage into a jukebox. That is what they are trying to do. The Prime Minister looked over this flag and he said, "I hanker for it". What would this committee do? Would it not consider the indicia of a flag? In the darkest days of 1915 when the British and French had their backs to the wall President Woodrow Wilson spoke of the flag as the embodiment not of sentiment but of history.
I do not want to say anything critical about the three maple leaves, but does it move your heart to see this flag after it has flown for a week or ten days? Does it touch you as freedom's banner streaming o'er us? Does it consecrate in everyone looking at it the history, the struggle, the strife that brought about our Canada? Sir, a flag cannot be created by one man however powerful his position. This is a time of instant creation but you cannot create instant flags. Flags are born in the strife and turmoil of clash of history. They are not the result of an egocentric decision.
That is why we have taken this stand, Mr. Speaker. I speak again as one of two racial origins, neither one of which ever could be dominated. My paternal ancestors came here 150 years ago and until I became prime minister it was often said it could never be that one of German or Dutch origin could be prime minister. My highland ancestors were not dominated. The English tried to dominate them after Culloden. They directed that they could not wear the kilt or sound the pibroch, and the Bannermans were at Culloden. The

penalty was death. It did not mean anything. They stood because those things represented something to them, the richness of their past. They arouse the sacred emotion of loyalty. I plead with the government: Do not push on with this.
Today the Prime Minister meets with the premiers of the provinces. I will be the first to congratulate him if they bring about today something that we tried for and did not succeed in accomplishing. That is the history of mankind. Some try, and we advance. They have not lost because they do not attain. This is a step forward. If we get this accomplished, then let us together, in a spirit of Canadianism, a spirit of give and take, bring about a flag which will not disunite, as will this creation that is before us, but which will within its folds gather us all together so that in the next hundred years this country's destiny will be that for which we all hope.


John Whitney Pickersgill: When the right hon. gentleman began to speak I had no thought of taking any part in the debate on this subamendment which, it seems to me, we could best debate by deciding, because it concerns a purely technical problem. It is not the real issue before us. The real issue lies in the resolution itself, not in the subamendment or even in the amendment.
But the right hon. gentleman made one statement which, because the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is not here, I feel should be corrected. He said that at no time before the elections of 1962 or 1963 did the Prime Minister make it clear in public what he meant by a distinctive flag. I know that the right hon. gentleman did not knowingly-


John George Diefenbaker: I will immediately withdraw if the hon. gentleman can show me I was wrong. I have every one of the quotations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman might have every one of the quotations, in which case he must have mislaid the two I am about to put on record now. I think every hon. member will consider it desirable that they be put on record so that there will be no further inadvertent misquotation or misrepresentation.
On January 21, 1960, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, speaking on the program called "The Nation's Business" said- and I wish to quote one sentence from his remarks at that time:
We must agree on a distinctive national flag which cannot be mistaken lor an emblem of
Canadian Flag
any other country and which is accepted as such by the Canadian people.
Now, the Prime Minister was asked by a number of people to interpret precisely what he meant by the phrase "a distinctive national flag which cannot be mistaken for an emblem of any other country". And on January 27, from the office of the leader of the opposition he issued a statement which I intend to read.


Mr. Nowlan:: What year was that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This was in 1960. So that there may be no doubt whatever about where my right hon. friend stood, here is the statement:
In the reference which I made in my television talk on "The Nation's Business" series on January 21 to a national flag for Canada. I was concerned with the desirability of the Canadian government taking full responsibility as soon as possible for finding a solution to the flag problem by submitting to parliament a measure which-if accepted by the representatives of the people in parliament- would, I hope, settle the problem.
The present red ensign has never been given formal sanction by parliament. Furthermore (I know this from my own correspondence) it is not approved by a great many Canadians as a national flag because, in design, it is the same as the United Kingdom merchant marine flag, with the Canadian coat of arms added. The two flags can be mistaken for each other, and there are many who think that this confusion should be removed. There is no such confusion in any other part of the commonwealth, because each country, including Australia and New Zealand, has a flag which is easily identifiable with its country and cannot be mistaken for that of any other country.
The union jack, a flag which every Canadian should honour and respect, is not however acceptable to many Canadians as a distinctive national flag of Canada because it is also the distinctive national flag of the United Kingdom. In consequence as I have indicated above, there is an unfortunate division of opinion in this country on the flag question. The time has come, I think, when this situation should be cleared up by governmental initiative and parliamentary action.
Indeed, whatever action parliament might take in regard to a Canadian flag, I believe that the union jack should be accepted by Canada as an emblem to be flown on all occasions which are concerned with our commonwealth association and our status as a monarchy with the Queen as the head of that commonwealth.
When the present Prime Minister said this in 1960, it was accepted, and that position was accepted by the Liberal party, and it was the position we took at the election of 1962. It was in our literature.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In exactly the same words, that was in our literature in 1963.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Canadian Flag


John Whitney Pickersgill: No one can say I did not
listen intently, or with courtesy and politeness, to the right hon. gentleman when he was speaking, as did my hon. triends, and I think I might be permitted to say what I have to say without these noisy interruptions. What I say seems not to be palatable, but it happens to be the simple truth. I will bring these statements down at eight o'clock and if anyone wishes me to do so, I will table them. Each of these statements has been circulated throughout the country. One of them has been handed to me, now-


Mr. Maclnnis:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at the moment. I think the hon. member has not been recognized by the Chair.
This is from the 1963 program under the heading "Adopt a Distinctive Canadian Flag and Anthem".
Within two years of taking office, a new Liberal government will submit to parliament a design for a ffag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of any other country. When adopted this will be the flag of Canada. "O Canada" will be proclaimed our official anthem.
The union jack will be flown on appropriate occasions as a symbol of our membership in the commonwealth. A new Liberal government will also maintain the honour given to the traditional anthem which expresses Canada's devotion to the sovereign.
This document was published. It is published all over this country and nobody on earth has any right to say that we did not make our position clear in two general elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We did that, sir, and I suggest we had a perfect right to place that program before parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. There is a point of order by the hon. member for Cape Breton South.


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order because of the reference made to myself by the Minister of Transport when he told the house that I had not been given recognition by the Chair. I recall, sir, that within the last two days the Chair gave a specific-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. There is no point of order there. I am sure the hon. member does not wish to interrupt the Acting Prime Minister. No one interrupted the

right hon. Leader of the Opposition and I think we should have a little fair play.


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to mention in my point of order that there was a ruling given by the Chair within the last two days which indicated that a member rising on a question had the right to the floor provided the hon. member speaking would yield the floor to him. That was the ruling by the Chair with respect to a question put the other day. The Chair ruled that a member had the right to ask a question if the hon. member speaking yielded. I would also remind the Minister of Transport that on two occasions he was permitted to interrupt the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. The floor was yielded to him.


Mr. Speaker:: In this particular case the floor was not yielded by the hon. member who was speaking.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am rather astonished that after all the appeals from the other side for someone on this side to speak, when someone on this side tries to speak he is not permitted to continue.
It would be rather redundant, but I could go on and put on the record precisely the same words that were in the program of 1962. I think that disposes pretty conclusively of this talk about the resolution which stands in my right hon. friend's name being anything personal.
This resolution was not merely put on the order paper with the full authority of the government, by the head of the government, but it was put on with the full authority of the Liberal party, passed through all those channels used to put a program before the people of this country in two elections in which we were participating. And in order to make it clear it was neither personal, nor even for that matter governmental, at the request of hon. gentlemen opposite, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has indicated there will be a completely free vote on this matter and that the government would not consider its life at stake.
If hon. gentlemen opposite are so afraid that hon. members in other parts of the house- I do not mean just on this side-will express opinions different from theirs, if they are allowed free expression of opinion, then that is an odd conception of that democracy of which the right hon. Leader of the Opposition said he had so much knowledge. It seems to me, sir, that the proper conception of democracy is that under a system of delegated

democracy, which any parliamentary system is, programs are put before the people. A government is chosen, and if that government puts matters before parliament it should have a right at least to have the voice of parliament on those matters after there has been all the debate there can reasonably be.
I am not one of those who think there should be any restriction on the right of any member in this house to express his own opinions on the flag. But I may say I think it rather astonishing that all these letters from other people, and newspaper comments which we can all read anyway and which, under our rules of debate we are not supposed to inject into debate, seem to be a large part of many of the speeches made. Indeed I am rather surprised that they are represented as a contribution, a personal contribution coming from the heart, particularly in cases when a sheet of paper is lost and the heart stops beating until it can be recovered from the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I endorse the words of the right hon. gentleman opposite when he said we want consent in this house, not domination. I agree. We do not want to be dominated by a man who is dominating a minority in this house and preventing the majority from expressing its views. I am not going to take up the time of the house by quoting gossip columnists about anonymous members in the Tory backbenches and what they think about their leader. Picking up gossip and retailing it about anonymous people strikes me as being a rather second rate form of debate, and that is what the right hon. gentleman opposite did.
He also said that one man was not going to be allowed to impose his flag on this country. Sir, I hope that the people of Canada are not going to allow one man, drunk for power, to prevent the people of this country from having a flag if they want one.
The right hon. gentleman has found in my old master, Mr. Mackenzie King, a patron saint for the Tory party. I may say this is not untypical of Tories; to wear the worn out clothes of Liberals to cover their nakedness. I remember the enthusiasm with which the Tory party greeted Mr. Mackenzie King's initiative in 1945. They called it separatism and accused him of breaking up the empire. They said this red ensign was the end of all we held dear, that we must stick by the union jack. Now Mr. Mackenzie King is their hero.
The right hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, saw fit to degrade those three maple leaves which have been the emblem of this country since
Canadian Flag
confederation and which the right hon. gentleman, himself, when he was prime minister had cast in bronze-they can be seen in room 16-as a symbol of Canada.
The right hon. gentleman, when he was prime minister, proudly had them put on his motor car-before the days of stickers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He approved the Queen putting them on the royal standard. He put them on a postage stamp long before my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) was postmaster general.


Erik Nielsen: When?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman can do his own research on that.


Mr. Churchill:: Give us the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right. It was in 1959, when the right hon. gentleman was prime minister, that the three maple leaves conjoined on a single stem were put on a postage stamp of Canada, and the word "Canada" proudly underneath, and the prime minister of that time is now the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the plain fact. Sir, one thing that does shock me, and I think it shocks a great many other Canadians who have memories, too, that this maple leaf symbol of ours which is associated with Vimy ridge, which is associated with Dieppe, which is associated with every glorious feat of arms of this country-and in our short history we have had many of them-that hon. gentlemen have sought in this debate to degrade it. I think that is shameful; I hope it will not continue. Let us by all means differ, but let us try to avoid in this debate, on both sides of the house, casting any aspersions on the cherished views of others.
For myself, I do not have a very mixed origin. I am mostly a rather stolid, rather stupid Anglo-Saxon, but I also have a little Dutch blood and I am not ashamed of it. I do not think it has ever prevented me from doing anything I have wanted to do. But I do say, sir, that for me the union jack is the symbol of the land of my ancestors, and I think that land is as good a country as any other in the world, except Canada. But it is not the symbol of Canada-and the maple leaf is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Canadian Flag


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can tell the right hon. gentleman, if he does not know it already, why there is unity in the Liberal party and among its members in this house with regard to this question. There is not unity in his party, and if he doubts it, let him ask the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Bal-cer). I will tell the whole house why there is unity in the Liberal party on this question. It is because we did what has been done time and again in the history of this country. It was done at Charlottetown, Quebec and at the Westminster Palace hotel and was embodied in the British North America Act. We agreed on a compromise. That was set out in the program that we honestly and straightforwardly put forward to the Canadian people in two elections. We said we wanted a Canadian flag that was Canadian, and we wanted to fly the union jack, or a flag containing the uion jack, to symbolize our association with the commonwealth and our monarchical character and devotion to the crown. I say, Mr. Speaker, that is a position that is honourable, that is loyal and that, above all, is Canadian.
I certainly would not wish anything I might say to appear to deny to any hon. member in any part of the house his full right to express his views and to express them fully on this question. But we are not debating the flag question at the moment; we are debating a subamendment, a technical subamendment, to an amendment. This subamendment concerns a plebiscite. The right hon. gentleman talked about where his party stood. Well, where do they stand? They have never told us what kind of flag they want, because they cannot agree, because they will not agree, because the section of the party led by the hon. member for Three Rivers cannot agree with what the right hon. gentleman wants. This is not a secret. I suggest that the main reason hon. gentlemen opposite are not willing to allow the rest of us to express our opinions by a vote is because a vote would reveal the hopeless division in their own party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that we go ahead and have a vote on this subamendment and the amendment, on which there is no question of principle involved at all, and then we go on to deal with the main motion. There has only been one speaker on the main motion so far, and that is the right hon. gentleman himself. I suggest that we debate the main motion and when there has been the fullest possible de-

bate, that, like adults, we decide this question; like the other great questions that other parliaments in this country in other times have been called upon to decide. I suggest, sir, that this is the way to make parliament work and to make parliament respected.
I agree with the right hon. gentleman when he said this was an important question. I have no patience with those who say it is an unimportant question and we should get on with other matters that are more important. There is no more important question than any question which affects the basic unity of our country. We will not have much of a Canada pension plan if we have not a united country to support it; we will not have much of a railway policy. I might say, en passant, that if the right hon. gentleman will carry out his word when I bring this important railway legislation forward-and it has been ready for months-and put it through, I will be most grateful to him.


Some hon. Members:: Bring it in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If he will do the same with regard to redistribution-a principle that he claims the parentage of, but he does not want his child to be born-if he will let it be born, we will appreciate it.


An hon. Member:: Bring it forward.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, settle this question. This is the basic question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that those hon. gentlemen opposite who can read should read the order paper. They will see what is on it already. There is plenty to do. But, Mr. Speaker, having undertaken this task, surely we can find it possible to act like adults in this house and settle this matter in an adult fashion. I suggest that no minority and, above all, no minority dominated-apparently all but bewitched, by one man-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -should consider that it has a right to prevent the equal right of everyone in this house to express himself in the only way in which we can all express ourselves, and that is by a vote. That, after all, is perhaps the characteristic of our civilization. In four fifths of the world the people cannot do what we can do here in this house; they cannot settle their own destiny and they cannot get rid of the people who do it badly, either. In four fifths of the world the only way to get rid of a government you do not like is by violence and force.

The whole basis of our system is, as the right hon. gentleman said, consent and not domination.
However, Mr. Speaker, this kind of system will only work when we all honestly and loyally resolve to make it work. There is no system easier than the parliamentary system to disrupt, if the desire to disrupt is there. I appeal to hon. gentlemen: make all your speeches; say everything that is in your hearts; do your best to get your way-but if you cannot get your way, accept the democratic way and allow these matters to be settled, like adults.


An hon. Member:: By bringing in closure again?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think an hon. gentleman said something about closure. I have said nothing about closure. I do not think any of us should even be thinking about closure; I think what we should be thinking about is resolving this question. Certainly, sir, there is no reason whatsoever why we should not dispose of the subamendment and the amendment and then, if someone else has another amendment to move, deal with that. I dare say there will be several amendments. There is going to be a free vote; my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has said that. If hon. gentlemen opposite have any united conviction about a flag, there is nothing to stop them moving an amendment to the Prime Minister's motion and putting it to the test of this house.
I hope we will have, after today, an end to these reflections upon the motives of our fellow members of parliament. Mr. Speaker, I have sought in what I have said to reflect in no way upon the motives of hon. gentlemen opposite, except possibly in the case of the right hon. gentleman, the early part of whose speech was a reflection upon everybody on this side of the house, and a deliberate reflection upon them. I have not done that and I do not intend to. But I do suggest that we rise above that kind of thing. Even though we feel strongly and differ on this question we are all honest in our differences, and I suggest that we settle this thing like Canadians.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) a question. I am sure we are all grateful to him for setting out the ideas the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had when he was leader of the opposition in respect to the flag situation and the national anthem. It was set out very clearly that the union jack would
Canadian Flag
denote our commonwealth association and that "O Canada" would be our national anthem. Then he mentioned a distinctive Canadian flag. I wonder whether perchance he missed the paragraph where the flag was described as a three maple leaves flag.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Speaker. I am speaking from memory, but I do not think my memory is too bad, and I have always had a disposition in this house to correct a mistake if I make one. I am sure all hon. members will agree with that. However, my memory is that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister said on a good many occasions that he felt the only way this question could be resolved was to have a design put before parliament for parliament to decide. There is the greatest liberty being given to this House of Commons. We have a design put forward by my right hon. friend as head of the government. He has now said that the government will not consider its life at stake in this matter. Therefore it is open to any hon. member who wishes to do so-as the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) has publicly indicated he wishes to-to propose a substitution for that flag. Now, what could be freer than that?


Donald MacInnis: Would the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) permit a question now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


Donald MacInnis: The minister indicated to the house that during the last two elections the Liberal party advocated both in their literature and otherwise a distinctive Canadian flag. He said that this is the simple truth. Is the minister now saying that the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) was lying to the house on August 24?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I really do not think I need make any comments on the speech of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), because if I did I might be tempted to say something about the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Maclnnis) and I do not want to create that kind of atmosphere in the house this afternoon.


Donald MacInnis: A supplementary question. Is the minister aware that what he has said this afternoon is in direct contradiction of what the hon. member for York-Humber said on August 24?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. I have not read the speech of the hon. member for York-Humber.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then you should.

Canadian Flag


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Minister of Transport. I should like to verify whether what I thought I heard is correct. The minister read two statements made by the leader of his party, and in the second one it seemed to me that he designated the flags of New Zealand and Australia as the type of distinctive national flag which cannot be mistaken for the flag of any other country. If that is the case, would the minister not agree that this gives no indication that the union jack would be removed from such a flag? I have made my own position clear, but this seemed to me to be the intent of the statement, that it would be a flag similar to that of New Zealand and Australia; and we all know what those flags look like.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member will be able to read in Hansard what was said and can draw his own inferences from that; but I do not draw that inference from it and I do not think anyone else did. I remember very well the statement; and when you remember the fact that my right hon. friend the Prime Minister also said we should fly the union jack, that seems to be a clear indication that the union jack would not be in the national flag.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I do not think that any person who wanted to accept those words in the sense in which they were written would have had any doubt whatever about them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Then why didn't he spell it out?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) asked the question from his seat: Why did the right hon. gentleman not spell it out? He did spell it out. Why does not the right hon. gentleman opposite spell out the flag that his party stands for? I will tell you why, Mr. Speaker: It is because they do not stand for one at all.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Our flag is the people's choice.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister to clear up one point. Is he aware that I have in my hand a document published by the national Liberal federation, 251 Cooper street, Ottawa-at least, it says that on it-which was issued in 1963-


An hon. Member:: Let us have all of it.


Robert Muir: Someone is yapping in the background, something which has happened many times, and saying this is only part of it. I think this is all of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to-


Robert Muir: Would the minister contain himself for a moment. I also have here a document, issued I believe only in the Atlantic provinces, again published by the national Liberal federation, and I have found that nowhere does it say anything about a new flag. Is he also aware that the Liberal candidate in my area in the last election never at any time mentioned a flag on the radio, or on television or otherwise? Would the minister please clarify those points?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer that. I do not see why the Liberal candidate should have mentioned the flag, any more than I should have mentioned the Canada pension plan, which I never did once, in my constituency during the last election. As for putting the business about the flag in the leaflet especially for the Atlantic provinces, the flag is a national matter, not something specifically for the Atlantic provinces, so there is no reason at all why it should have appeared in the leaflet.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I
am the last one who would enter this debate with any idea of prolonging it unnecessarily, as all hon. members know. I have a suggestion which I am going to make to the house which might be an acceptable compromise to resolve this rather acrimonious debate which has now gone on for the best part of three weeks. I should like to say that this is the first time that I have participated in the debate on the flag.
Before making the suggestion which I propose to make for the consideration of the house I think that some of the accusations and statements made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who has just resumed his seat should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. He has, for instance, stated that many members have spoken in breach of the rules of this house by reading from letters received from their constituents, from newspaper reports and the like. Yet the minister himself has just finished reading from a Liberal document supplied to him by one of

his backbenchers. I believe the rules stipulate that it is proper for a member to quote from newspaper reports and letters and the like if he wishes to adopt the opinions expressed therein as his own. I do not think it is an abuse of the rules of the house to proceed on this basis. He has accused the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) of being drunk with power, of preventing the people of Canada from having a flag if they wanted one. Therein lies the importance of that statement-that little word "if". All the leader of this party in opposition has been requesting is co-operation in putting that very question to the people of Canada. If the people of Canada want a new flag there is only one way to find that out, and that is by holding a national plebiscite to ascertain their views.
Mr. Speaker, he has said that members of this party wish to cover their nakedness, if I paraphrase him correctly, with the cast-off garments of the Liberal party. I for one, sir, would rather freeze to death than clothe myself with the spurious, political approach that they are taking in respect of the question of a national flag for Canada.
He has said that the leader of the official opposition dominates this party, and he accuses us of being bewitched. I say, sir, even if that accusation were true-and I deny it- it is a far better thing to have a leader who is leading his party members than a prime minister who is obviously enslaving his backbenchers, making them kowtow to his own personal choice and silencing them in this debate. This must be true, otherwise we would have heard a good deal more from them.
Sir, he also said in a very sanctimonious and righteous fashion that he would not wish to reflect on the motives of members of this house. He appealed to hon. members to keep any reference to the motives of members out of the debate. How can we do this in the face of the evidence?
I am going to say a word or two about whether or not the Prime Minister, prior to the election of 1962-63, and during the campaign, had anything to say of a definitive nature to the Canadian people in respect of a distinctively designed Canadian national flag. I say he did not, I have press reports and copies of interviews which, if true, certainly bear out that statement.
Mr. Speaker, before I leave the subject in respect of the sanctimonious appeal of the Minister of Transport, I should like to ask him, when he appeals to members of this house to refrain from interjecting aspersions related to the motives of hon. members, to
Canadian Flag
reflect upon the words that have been used by his own leader, the Prime Minister, when he was speechmaking about the activities and motives of the then prime minister, now the leader of the official opposition.
On September 18, 1962, the present Prime Minister, in a speech to the Toronto and district Liberal members of parliament, at the Royal York hotel, in reference to the prime minister of that day had these words to utter in respect of motives. In respect of Mr. Diefenbaker he used the phrase "incredible effrontery". He used the phrase "gross and unpardonable deceit". He also said: ".... still kept up the deceit-", referring to the then minister of agriculture, Hon. Alvin Hamilton. He also used this phrase in reference to Mr. Diefenbaker, then the prime minister:
The prime minister after the election was over did not try any longer to conceal the facts.
I intend to put a few facts on the record, which I say the Prime Minister and his colleagues now in the cabinet obviously concealed from the Canadian people when those gentlemen were tramping across this country making speeches in respect of the flag. One of these phrases has already been referred to by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Aiken).
The hon. minister also said while referring to motivations:
Was there ever a greater deceit perpetrated on an electorate?
He also used the expression "farcical explanation", and "contempt of parliament". He also said:
The man who cannot make a speech without boasting how he has restored the rights of parliament.
That reference was to the prime minister of that day, made by the leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister of this country; yet in the face of these facts the Minister of Transport now makes a sanctimonious and righteous appeal to hon. members to refrain from references to motives. I suggest the hon. gentleman should pause and reflect on those phrases used by his own leader before he makes such an appeal. I should like to remind the house that the Minister of Transport rose to interject by asking a question when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition was discussing what Sir Wilfrid Laurier said about obstructionism in past years. In reading over the debates of the past week I have noticed the use of the word "filibuster" by the Prime Minister, and on many occasions by hon. members opposite and to my left, who have also shouted "ques-

Canadian Flag
tion" and "filibuster" across the floor. Mr. Speaker, I should like again to put something on record which was said by the Minister of Transport in respect of freedom of speech and the right of discussion of all members of the house. He referred to all questions, and I assume not the least of which is before us.
On November 29, 1963, the Minister of Transport said:
So far as I am concerned no one in the government has made any such allegation.
He was referring to obstruction. He then said:
Certainly I have not, and I want to make that very clear. I have not made any such allegation at any time about the opposition. I think there has been a reasonable measure of co-operation-
Sir, I suggest there still can be co-operation if those members will back down from the stiffnecked opposition that they have adopted, and perhaps consider a suggestion which I will make this evening.
Mr. Speaker, in the short time available to me before six o'clock I should like to refer to what the minister said in respect of obstruction in the debate on redistribution. As recorded in Hansard at page 5268, the Minister of Transport said:
Perhaps the hon. gentleman will remember- and here perhaps I am breaking the rules myself by referring to the debate on redistribution the other day-that I am one of those who think there ought to be debate in parliament, and I do not regard debate as obstruction. I have not said and I have not thought that, taken by and large in this session of parliament, particularly since we met in September, there has been anything I would be inclined to describe as obstruction.
Mr. Speaker, obviously in view of the applause given by the backbenchers on that side of the house to the remarks of the Minister of Transport, he has some following when he says that a minority has a right to express its views. I have gained the impression from his remarks that he feels the discussion should be limited to the main motion. He knows very well why that could not be allowed to take place. I know he does not exercise this kind of control over the backbenchers, to prevent their doing what obviously could be done. He knows that once the subamendment and the amendment are out of the way any one of the members opposite or on my left could move the previous question and have the whole matter removed from free discussion and free debate. That is why we are discussing the subamendment now, and that is why we on this side of the house have the vehicle of free expression of opinion in

respect of any matter as important as a na tional flag for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before six o'clock I was putting the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) in their proper perspective and also drawing the attention of members of the house to his remarks concerning what he called the domination of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) over his party. I had also referred, I believe, to the servility and slavishness of the backbench members of his own party none of whom except two, as far as I am aware, have risen to speak in this debate. They cry about being a minority government. Every time something arises where they feel the weight of the opposition and the justice of the criticism coming from the opposition side they start crying that they are in a minority position. It seems to me it ill behooves the Minister of Transport to speak of domination of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) over the members of the opposition having regard to the control-


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. member permit a question? I understood him to say that only two members of this party had spoken in the debate thus far. I would ask him if he has read the press report in the Edmonton Journal in which the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is quoted as saying that there is no filibuster in parliament and that out of four members who have spoken so far 19 have been Conservatives and 18 have been Liberals. That was as of August 17.


Erik Nielsen: He was referring to the first six days of the debate. I do not think the hon. gentleman would like a serious comment on that statement. That all happened in the first six days of debate. Let the hon. member get up now and tell us what his views on the flag are. Let him and all his colleagues on the back benches on that side get up and speak about the views of their constituents on the flag instead of crying about their minority position, relying on the control that the government exercises over the Social Credit party in the house, and leading a good many members to view with some suspicion the very uneasy position that exists

between the member tor Winnipeg North and the government. Every time the government wants a change in the rules or a compromise suggested, where does it come from? Does it come from the government? Does it come from a cabinet minister?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member had the wrong constituency and the wrong idea.


Erik Nielsen: I always have the right constituency, I might inform the hon. member, because he has come to be known as the constitutional conscience of the house. Why is not some of this leadership-


Mr. Barnett:: The hon. member referred to the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who sits back here.


Erik Nielsen: I meant Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is always on cloud nine as far as the conscience of the house is concerned, so he will forgive me if I was a little confused.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: He is working to become permanent Speaker. That is his objective.


Erik Nielsen: Rather than all this crying about a minority position I think we should have some leadership displayed by cabinet ministers on the other side. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is in Charlottetown today and is reported in both the Ottawa Citizen and the Ottawa Journal in this way:
Prime Minister Pearson today called on Canadians for "political realism, a passion for justice and a gift for compromise".
Where are all these things? Are they being displayed by the Prime Minister with regard to the issue before us? Where are the suggestions for compromise?


Mr. Orlikow:: What is yours?


Erik Nielsen: I have one.


David Orlikow: It will be the first one we have heard from your party.


Erik Nielsen: That is not true either, because suggestions have been made by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and by the Leader of the Opposition just this afternoon.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: He just got back. He does not know.


Erik Nielsen: It seems to me that all these suggestions are just being sloughed aside. The government, typical of Grits, feel that because they are the majority their views and
Canadian Flag
only their views should be accepted. This is traditional with them. They have never been any different. They think that because they as the government say something is so, it should be believed it is so. Nobody else is entitled to have an opinion. They believe that because we dare oppose anything, whether it be the flag or any other measure before the house, it is obstruction, and the propaganda conspiracy they have with the press of the country is giving the Canadian people a slanted view of the true facts as they exist. Simply because opposition members have views to express on a matter as important as a national flag for Canada and simply because they do not coincide with their own views or rather with the views of one man, it becomes obstruction. It does not become opposition at all, simply because it does not coincide with their views.
I referred, as did the Minister of Transport, to the announcement of a design. The Minister of Transport tries to have us believe that the Prime Minister and the Liberal party as a whole during the election campaign made it quite clear to the Canadian people that there would be a three maple leaf design. That is not true.


Mr. Walker:: It is true.


Erik Nielsen: The government whip says it is right. It is not right. It is not true at all. Not once before the government took office did the Prime Minister or anyone else in the Liberal party say that when they were elected they would introduce in parliament a three maple leaf flag. I think this is important because what the Liberal party is trying to do now is to say there is no need for a plebiscite because this design was put before the Canadian people before they elected the Liberals, and therefore they say they have a mandate from the people to insist that it be adopted as the flag.
This simply is not true. It borders on fraud. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pick-ersgill) has quoted from statements made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on June 21 and 27, 1960. I have in my hand an excerpt from the Amherst Daily News of Amherst Nova Scotia, of December 29, 1961. It is headed: "Liberal Leader Pearson Expresses His Views on Distinctive flag". I think it is illuminating, to say the least. This excerpt begins:
Wide interest has been taken in the remarks of Hon. Lester B. Pearson concerning a distinctive Canadian flag. The Liberal leader's comments were made during a press conference November 9 held

Canadian Flag
in the Fort Cumberland hotel in answer to questions by John Andrews, a Halifax radio commentator.
In view of the letters and inquiries received a transcription of the interview has been prepared as follows:
Andrews: Mr. Pearson, how do you feel about a distinctive Canadian flag?
Pearson: I feel very friendly toward a distinctive Canadian flag. In fact, it's been on our program now for some years. ... a distinctive Canadian flag. ...
Andrews: What particular design do you have in mind?
Pearson: Well, I haven't any particular design in mind; but I certainly. .. .you can't advocate a distinctive Canadian flag without being willing to take the responsibility for deciding in parliament what the design shall be.
Andrews: Would you have the union jack in it?
Pearson: I would have a distinctive flag which would not be mistaken for the flag of any other country. .. .that's as far as I've got.
That is a fine, evasive answer by the Prime Minister. And the hon. gentleman would have us believe that the Prime Minister never left the impression that the union jack would be eliminated from any flag finally selected. It is not true. The interview goes on:
Andrews: Then you wouldn't have the union jack in it?
Pearson: Well, I just made that statement that it couldn't. ... I think the present red ensign can be mistaken for the flag of other countries. It's the British mercantile marine flag, almost; indeed, I noticed in the advertising the other day, it's very much like the Bermuda flag.
Andrews: You say the Liberals are working on a design. What...
Pearson: Oh, there are hundreds of designs. But it would be the responsibility of government to make up its mind which design it would submit to parliament.
Andrews: How would you poll the people on this?
Pearson: We would poll the people when we have a general election. And if they don't like the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag which can't be mistaken for that of any other country, they'll let us know in no uncertain terms.
Andrews: Which of the present flags would you retain? Anything at all from one of these?
Pearson: Oh. ... I'm not going to get into the question of flag design tonight.
This was in 1961, a year after the quotation put before the house by the Minister of Transport. The interview goes on:
Andrews: But you do think the country needs this symbol to hold us together?
Pearson: Yes. I think it would be a good idea to have a distinctive Canadian flag in the interest of national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite applaud. But newspaper articles expressing Canadian opinion in all parts of this country, not only from coast to coast but from north to south, have said there is no greater factor

contributing to disunity in this land than the design which the Prime Minister has selected and the manner in which he has placed it before us. The article continues:
Andrews: How about unrest in Quebec? Do you think it would help to quell that?
Now we come to the real reason for the Prime Minister's unseemly haste to ram this issue down the throats of the people of Canada.
Pearson: It's one of the things they talk most of in Quebec... the necessity of having the symbols of our nationality and unity in flags and national anthem, and that we should try to solve these problems in a manner which would create the minimum of division and the maximum of unity. That's a good way of putting it.
It is a pity he could not have thought of a better way of putting it before he placed this plumber's nightmare before parliament.
Andrews: Do you think Quebec would oppose anything else except a part of their fleur-de-lis in it? Must they have this part in it?
A very interesting answer was given to this question and I ask hon. members to ponder it.
Pearson: Well, we would have Quebec members in our cabinet decide what the design would be, and they would make their views very clear at that time, I'm sure.
That takes a bit of interpreting, it seems to me.
Andrews: What do you think they might say?
Pearson: Oh, I haven't picked the members for my cabinet yet from Quebec. ...
Andrews: Then you won't be having a parliamentary committee like your predecessor?
Pearson: I think we've had quite enough in the way of designs submitted over the last 25 years. I can't imagine any new kind of design. I've got about 50 in the last year submitted to me... some very startling ones, too.
Further on, it says:
Andrews: Well, as a Canadian, Mr. Pearson, what is your conception of a new Canadian flag?
Pearson: I'm not going to tell you what the design should be.
That is as far as he was prepared to take the Canadian people into his confidence in December, 1961.
How did the Prime Minister proceed when he finally got around to action? I have a lapel pin here which came into my possession. It is an exact replica of the Pearson design and it was in production at the time the Prime Minister made his speech to the Canadian Legion at Winnipeg. There is no manufacturer's name to be found on it, though manufacturers' names do appear on those lapel pins which can be bought in airport jewelry stands, newspaper stands, and so on, across the country, now. It makes one wonder who was so privileged as to have obtained prior

information which enabled him, obviously, to make several thousand dollars, because this is not a pin which has been cheaply manufactured; it is coloured in three colours and it is gold plated. Obviously a good deal of profit has been made by the manufacturer of this pin.


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. member permit a question? Can he indicate the manufacturer of this pin and, if not, how can he say it was in production before the speech was made in Winnipeg?


Erik Nielsen: No manufacturer would be foolish enough to put his name on a pin manufactured before the flag was introduced in parliament. In the second place, I know it was manufactured before the speech which was made to the Legion because it was in my possession before that speech was delivered and before the resolution was introduced in parliament. That is very simple. I wonder how many other people were able to make a profit from manufacturing flags, bumper stickers, and so on, before the information was given to parliament.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: It had to be popular
to make it profitable.


Erik Nielsen: The Toronto Star carried an article on May 20, 1964 in connection with a certain news conference. It was engineered, probably, by the Liberal organizer-at any rate the Prime Minister has given him credit for it. I think this article is extremely interesting, and it begins:
At a few minutes before 6 p.m. last Thursday, eight men, all members of the parliamentary press gallery, left their desks in various parts of town and made their way to the Sussex drive home of Prime Minister Lester Pearson where they had been invited to discuss the issue of Canada's national flag.
This was on May 20, 1964. It goes on:
The eight, all editors, reporters or magazine writers, were shown into the newly decorated, gray-green living room where the Prime Minister relaxed with a scotch and soda, waiting to try his hand at "kite-flying" or, as some who attended the session called it later, "news management." Kiting a news story is a long-established political technique. Certain newspapermen are fed information from what they believe is a responsible source, and are encouraged to write it without attribution.
Government or party higher-ups then can judge public reaction and take this into account when they decide to go ahead or withdraw from the course they are considering.
The eight who had been summoned-Walter Stewart of the Toronto Star Weekly; Tim Creery and John Walker of Southams; Bob McKeown of Weekend; Ron Collister of the Telegram; Stan Westall of the Globe and Mail; Geoffrey Scott of CHCH-TV: Hamilton, and Chris Young, editor of the Ottawa Citizen-expected a flag discussion.
Canadian Flag
It is doubtful whether any of them anticipated the "hard" news they got-
The Minister of Transport would have us believe that it is not a personal choice of the Prime Minister.
-that he had sent a telegram to the Queen informing her;
And we remember the questions asked of the Prime Minister as to whether or not the telegram had been sent, and the denials we received.
-that the red ensign would not be on a new Canadian flag, and that he was going to lay the whole matter before the Royal Canadian Legion convention in Winnipeg the next Sunday.
This was all before parliament was told about it.
As drinks were served and the newspapermen nibbled on sandwiches, Mr. Pearson brought out several flag designs on cardboard, selected one with a cluster of three maple leaves and two blue bands and placed it on the mantelpiece as his choice.
He said he was prepared to have the government stand or fall on the maple leaf flag.
The Prime Minister was careful, however, to make clear that the flag on the mantel was his personal choice.
Needless to say, with that kind of a kite in the air, the newspapermen lost no time, an hour and a half later, in rushing to their typewriters and giving the Prime Minister's views on the flag exactly as they heard them.
Despite the fact that two of the biggest news media-the Canadian Press and the C.B.C.-were not invited to 24 Sussex drive, the Prime Minister presumably got exactly what he was after: widespread debate on a specific flag design, for which he could not be held responsible.
That is the type and level of responsibility we have come to expect from the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the cabinet.
In the House of Commons next day, Prime Minister Pearson denied emphatically three times that any decision had been made by the government on the flag, and he was technically correct.
Most political reporters considered it came dangerously close to trying to shape the news that appeared in the newspapers, although the conference included representatives of some which opposed him on this issue.
But the Prime Minister certainly didn't distort his views, nor hold anything back to make the government look good. In fact, he said too much.
But next time he wants a kite flown, he'll likely allow someone just a little lower down to hold the string.
I think he needs a little more string to hold this kite.
Before my time runs out I have this proposal to make, and it is based on what I read in the debates, but particularly on the contribution of the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton) made on August 20,
7550

Canadian Flag
1964. In that speech he set out very capably and lucidly four principles for the guidance of members of the house and Canadians, as elements in selecting any flag design which is to be Canada's national flag. He suggested, as did others on this side of the house, the setting up of a committee.
We have heard members speak of the desirability of a recess so that they could go to their constituents and ascertain their views. I wonder if the government might consider proposing for agreement by all parties that such a committee be established, its terms of reference to be along the lines already suggested, that is to say, its decision or selection of a design should be a majority decision, and I have heard 80 per cent discussed as an acceptable indication that there is a majority opinion.
Let us assume that the committee was set up and the agreement was reached now. If all party leaders would say, "We will agree to set up this committee as soon as parliament returns from its recess," then a recess could occur if members wish, on the understanding and agreement that the committee would be set up immediately upon their return, let us say at the end of the month, and that it would immediately tackle the problem of selecting a design.
Some have suggested three months, others two, and other periods of time have been suggested during which the committee should be limited to its discussions. But rather than attempt a compromise as to a time limit within which this committee must reach a decision, how about the committee's terms of reference including an instruction to report back within 30 days as to whether or not its members feel they will be able to reach a decision on the design?
If the committee members after 30 days of deliberation find that they cannot, or feel that they cannot reach accord by an 80 per cent majority, let us say-
I hear a chuckle over there. That is as much as the hon. member is prepared to give this suggestion. It might even be a giggle. But if members of the committee report back, in that interim report to the house, that they do not feel the matter can be decided by a majority, then back comes the issue into the house immediately without any more delay. This suggestion is a compromise and it is a compromise which will work. It is a compromise that will not prejudice any members either on the government side or on the opposition side.

However, if within that 30 days committee members find they are making progress and that there is every likelihood they will come to accord on a design, then the interim report will so disclose and they will be free then to return to their work and complete it, and make their final report to parliament, which would be subject only to limited debate, say, by the party leaders. In this way a great deal of time would be saved. It is possible that a design acceptable to all parties would be reached, a design which would reflect more accurately the feelings of all Canadians than this debate over one particular design. There would be more likelihood of coming up with a design acceptable to all parties, in a manner in which this should be done, in which views can be sought and the feelings of all ascertained.
This is the suggestion which should find at least sufficient merit in the minds of all members of the house to compel the party leaders to consider it.


Mr. Cole (Longueuil):: Would the hon.
member permit me to ask a question.


Erik Nielsen: Yes.


John Cole: Supposing a committee did come to an agreement on a certain design and it came back to the house, then after a limited discussion would the hon. member then say that we should go for a plebiscite, or that it would be accepted as a flag right after that?


Erik Nielsen: 
Some hon. Members:: Question.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, we have had some very interesting speeches this afternoon and this evening. It was gratifying and interesting to see the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Pickersgill) express some views and make some revelations, because we have had very little contribution from the government side during the last 10 or 12 days of debate. He justifies the introduction of the flag resolution by the fact that this was in the Liberal platform. I have tried to check with hon. members from various parts of Canada and have found that when it suited the convenience of the Liberal party, it was in the platform; but when it did not specify, when it did not spell out that any flag that would be introduced was going to do away with the union jack, it was not said that the flag would not have the union jack on it.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal members and the government should have been frank with the people of Canada. They were not. They have no mandate to introduce a flag and to try to ram it down the throat of this parliament. We have no reason to accept it, because we have no mandate from the people of Canada to accept or reject that flag. The Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Pickersgill), if I understood him correctly-although he was quite excited and tried to say a great deal in the short time at his disposal, and I think tried to answer the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in as few words as possible-said that the amendment is not so important, but that the resolution is very important. However, Mr. Speaker, if the resolution is very important, what justification has the hon. gentleman for saying that we are wasting the time of this parliament and the time of the country? If it is important, it should receive every consideration and this question should be referred to the people. In this regard the official opposition has been consistent. This party has said that the question should be referred to the people of Canada, and the subamendment
20220-477J
Canadian Flag
has set out certain questions which the people of Canada should answer before they decide on the particular design of their choice; I realize that there are people in Canada who are in favour of the flag proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). We know very well that there are thousands of people and many organizations who have appealed to us by way of petitions, telegrams and letters which indicate that they are behind the red ensign. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not becoming for the Acting Prime Minister to throw out this charge, that we are the only ones who are obstructing the passage of this resolution. The Acting Prime Minister says we are withholding approval of the maple leaf flag from the people of Canada. But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada are just crying and dying to have a choice in this regard, although the government says they want the flag proposed by them.
We have to admit that there are people who wish neither, if we can judge by the letters and other communications we have received. I have received such letters, and all hon. members on the government side of the house have received this type of letter. We have received requests for three leaves, four leaves, five leaves or more; rectangles, diagonals, and all sorts of designs. Everyone has a different design and interpretation of the flag we should have. But the people of Canada, together with us on this side of the house and those on the government side, have one thing in common, and that is that we want a flag that would have a legal status in this country.
We have such a flag, Mr. Speaker. I maintain that it has a quasi-legal status, because it was established by order in council. I believe the people of Canada want a flag which is established by legislative enactment, by a bill of parliament. Some countries have no legal enactment which legislates that such and such a flag is the flag of their country. But the union jack of the British Isles has come into being and has been accepted as the flag of that country by usage, although our neighbours to the south, who pride themselves on the stars and stripes, did pass an act of congress declaring this to be the design of their flag.
We are in agreement that we would like to legalize a flag for this country. Let us be reasonable in this matter, Mr. Speaker. We are not saying that there are not people who are in favour of the three maple leaf design. I am among the first in this house who would not want to smear the maple

Canadian Flag
leal design; I have a great deal of respect for it. However, something has happened in this house. I admire the courage of the hon gentleman who sits behind me, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), who charged that nobody on the Liberal side of the house has spoken on this matter with any authority. I remember that in the first six days of this debate there was speaker for speaker put up from the Liberal benches. There were even a few speakers from the splinter groups, who have since become the silent allies of the government. But since then, what have we had? There have been one or two gentlemen who have agreed with the Prime Minister, and one or two who have had the courage of their convictions to rise and express contrary views. What have we had from the rest? We have had groans of agony; we have had jeers; we have had childish grins on some of their faces; we have had questions of privilege raised and questions asked-and nothing more. There has been general silence from the other side of the chamber. In spite of this, Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister has the gall to say that this party is dominated by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Who dominates the members of the government? Who has clamped their mouths shut? Who is behind the Berlin wall in this regard?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Who is responsible for this Mr. Speaker? Is it fear of their leader, or is it because they have nothing to say and have no principles of their own? In the first six days of the debate we learned that they have wonderful talkers in that party; men pleasant to listen to. We know they have talked to the press and have talked in the country. They have written letters of apology to their constituents and have tried to impress upon them their support for this flag. But, Mr. Speaker, it would be nice to hear from them in some way other than by interjection from a seated position. We would like these gentlemen to speak up; to have some courage and stand up on their feet and speak of the petitions, and so on, that they have received. Then their constituents would know what attitude they are taking and would realize these members are not afraid to speak up.
The Acting Prime Minister has said that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition dominates this party. In this connection the Acting Prime Minister was vehement and roared away. He said that the Leader of the Opposition was obsessed with power and

dominates this party. I ask, Mr. Speaker, has he dominated thousands of legionnaires of the Royal Canadian Legion? Does he dominate the Legion branches in my constituency, to which I shall make reference? Does he dominate the I.O.D.E.? Does he dominate the Orangemen? Does he dominate the Protestant league? If he does, he must indeed be a great man, and I would love to have that power. This is a ridiculous silly statement for the Acting Prime Minister of today to make. We hear from time to time that they shall indicate their wish by a vote. We have requested that a plebiscite-


An hon. Member:: You are afraid of a vote, are you?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I shall come to that, Mr. Speaker. I hardly dare take a moment off to partake of a sip of water, because I hear "Question, question, question" or, * Carried, carried, carried". That is the sort of chorus any parrot could learn, especially the parrots we have on the other side. If it were not a musical falsetto we might even enjoy it. But that is all we hear: They are going to give their decision when they vote. I would assure them that those who voted them in are liable to give their decision as well. We do not mind the silence on the other side and we rather enjoy these interjections. But I would like to see one hon. member opposite recognized and stand up on his feet. If he asks me a question, fine; I will try and answer it and if I cannot I will say so. If he wants to speak afterwards, then he can do so. But we enjoy their silence and I think the country does also. Their constituents must enjoy their silence and wonder where they stand. One can draw his own conclusions from their silence. Is it not an admission that they have nothing to say? Is it an admission that if they have anything to say they are afraid to say it. Of whom are they afraid, Mr. Speaker? I will tell you: They are afraid of their leader, the Prime Minister. If they are not afraid of their leader they are afraid to tell their constituents where they stand. I know every hon. member on the opposition side of the house who has taken part in this debate, and I know that I will stake my political future on what I say. I have to live with myself. I have to live with my principles and I have to live with my conscience; I cannot just sit on the fence. I should like to see some of the letters written by hon. members opposite to their constituents. They must be marked "Personal", "Confidential", and so on, but I expect we are going to come across a few. I

have heard rumours, but I do not want to base any argument on rumour.
Since the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Pickersgill) has once and for all spiked the argument that we are wasting time on this very important issue, let me say it is important to us that it be discussed, and that is why we feel it should be handed over to the people. I think the Prime Minister too must consider it a very important issue because he has shelved everything else, all the important legislation and promises hon. members opposite had made to the electorate of Canada. All this has been put aside and is gathering dust or has been put into cold storage because this present issue is an important matter. I realize that it is important and I have already told the house that I think it is important. The Acting Prime Minister said that the resolution is very important. While it contained the two flags it was most important; but fortunately the resolution was split in two, providing for one flag for our association with the British commonwealth of nations and the other for association-with what? With the ambitions of the Prime Minister.
I ask the government, or those who support this flag, to consider the question why they are afraid. Why do they not trust the Canadian people? Why do they not permit the Canadian people to have a voice in deciding the flag they want? We have quoted witness after witness from various organizations who have gone on record as saying they want a plebiscite. Why is the government afraid to submit this matter to a plebiscite? Why are they afraid to go to the people at the time of the next general election on this issue? Are they afraid of their decision? How can they be when I have heard some hon. members on the other side of the house give statistics to show that the three leaf flag carries a majority of support in Canada? In this case we who support the red ensign are in a minority. But, Mr. Speaker, even if the supporters of this new flag are in a majority, and even if they, the government, are in a majority in this house, thanks to that unholy alliance with certain splinter groups, has a majority the right to trample on the feelings or principles of a minority? If they have, then tell our French Canadian boys in Quebec-


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: We are defending the rights of minorities.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am talking about holding
a plebiscite.
Canadian Flag


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: You are talking of
the red ensign.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am saying that the plebiscite should decide; and if the hon. member wants to make a speech after I am finished then it is his privilege to get to his feet.
For the first three months, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister staked the life of his government on the decision on the flag he proposed. This hung like the sword of Damocles. A lot of those who were not supporters of the three leaf flag, being afraid of an election, got on the bandwagon and decided to support it.


David Orlikow: Is that why some of your members are going to vote that way?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, I really think that if a member wants to ask a question he should receive your recognition by asking for it.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: He does not answer.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: The question was not properly asked.


William Arnold Peters: He does not know the answer.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: For three whole months the
sword of Damocles hung over us. I feel that the reason for this was that the Prime Minister was sure that if he did call an election he would win it. However, like the good politician he is he reads the press, not only those papers that flatter him but the others as well, and he must have read the article by Patrick Nicholson, a respected pressman, who wrote an article which appeared in the Quebec Chronicle of August 12. It was headlined "Election of flag could kill Liberals". The Prime Minister, having seen that, then withdrew his threat and said: "Boys, you can have a free vote as long as you leave me alone".
What Patrick Nicholson says, Mr. Speaker, is so interesting that I think it is worth while putting some of it on record. I have a lot of respect for the opinions of this man. He says:
The campaign strategists have been halted in their tracks-stunned.
I include in those campaign strategists, of course, the Prime Minister, as the chief strategist.
As most, but not all, Canadians know very well, parliament has long been stalled in its work largely because of "the flag issue". As the majority but by no means all, of Canadians are uneasily conscious, this is dividing the country-
This news must have disturbed the Prime Minister. The article then continues:

Canadian Flag
*-this is dividing the country even more disastrously than the stormiest issue recorded in our history books-the execution of the leader of the Metis revolt, Louis Riel, in 1885.
That is what Patrick Nicholson had to say. He then went on to state:
There is a parallel between Riel and the flag. The public uproar about the punishment of the chiefain of the French half breeds gravely divided Canada's two main ethnic groups, and changed the balance of federal politics for three quarters of a century.
The Prime Minister must have realized the situation and, as this article states-
-stepped in where Diefenbaker failed to tread.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest he did so because he could not foresee what this situation would do to this nation.
The article then refers to the French language newspaper, Le Droit, in which much has been said about this poll that was carried out. The article which I have been quoting continues as follows:
This poll discovered that a majority of Canadians, in every province except Quebec, prefer the Canadian ensign-
This is a long article and I do not intend to take up the time of the house to read it all, but Mr. Nicholson ends up by stating:
The significance of these figures, in the eyes of all Liberal strategists thinking in terms of an election-
Yes, an election is important.
-is that they clearly show that the flag issue would bring disastrous Liberal losses in nine provinces, and leave that party largely as the political arm of French Canada.
I suggest it was because the Prime Minister realized the situation as outlined by this article, rather than out of the goodness of his heart, that he freed his members taking the bit out of their mouths, allowing them a free vote. The Prime Minister became aware of these statements, which appeared in a great many more than one newspaper. I am sure that hon. gentleman is a politician to the extent he can appreciate the meaning of such statements.
. Mr. Speaker, since I spoke last on June 30, at the time the sword of Damocles hung over our heads when, if we had voted against the resolution, we would be forced out on the hustings, I have received a great number of letters and petitions. I do not intend to read the personal letters I have received, because of an impression I have that the Acting Prime Minister objects. I do however intend to read some representations made by organizations.
I received a petition from one Royal Canadian Legion branch in Elphinstone, Manitoba, [Mr. Mandziuk.j
which was signed by 50 members. This is not a large Legion branch, but I am sure if you check the names on this petition you will find that these members represent a great number of racial origins. We even have a few Indian veterans who are members of this Legion branch.
I intended to be generous to the Prime Minister in sending him a photostat copy of this petition, and like a gentleman he acknowledged receipt. Since his acknowledgement is not personal or confidential I hope hon. members will permit me to put it on record. The Prime Minister's letter is dated August 13, 1964, and is on the stationery of the office of the Prime Minister. The letter states:
The Prime Minister has asked me to acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 12 enclosing a copy of a petition that you received from the Royal Canadian Legion branch at Elphinstone, Manitoba, and to advise that he has noted it.
With kind regards.
Yours sincerely,-
I treasure the signature, Mr. Speaker. It is that of Jules Pelletier, secretary to the Prime Minister.
I received another letter from the Prime Minister's office, actually signed by his own hand. I received a telegram from the strongest Legion branch in my constituency, the branch in Minnedosa. I usually call this the capital of my riding. I received the telegram dated August 18 and, to be fair to the Prime Minister, thinking he would be interested to know that we were not just talking through our hats, as some hon. gentlemen opposite have suggested, I passed it on to him. He sent me this reply dated August 19, 1964:
Thank you for your letter of August 14 enclosing the telegram that you received from the Minnedosa branch of the Royal Canadian Legion, advising that the branch membership supports the red ensign as Canada's official flag, and which I have noted.
Apparently the Prime Minister decided that valour was the better part of policy and retreated, deciding to give a free vote. The vote has always been free as far as we are concerned, in spite of what the Acting Prime Minister has suggested.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that any party that does not listen to the opinion of the grassroots cannot know what is taking place and will lose out in the end. I have attempted to keep in touch with the grassroots in my constituency to find out how these people feel about putting this issue to a plebiscite or referendum. I have written many letters to my constituents, although without the same

influence as bumper stickers have, financed by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis), or those large buttons, of which I have seen little in the past months.
A small weekly newspaper in my constituency, the Gazette Reporter of Rivers, Manitoba, published an article under the heading "Flag Fight". Rivers, Manitoba, is in an area very close to C.G.A.T.C., which is the largest air training centre in western Canada. This newspaper is read by a great number of people in this area who cannot express themselves because they belong to Her Majesty's armed forces. This newspaper is published by Mr. Larry Bell. During the past four elections I have attempted to find out which political party he supports, but to no avail. He always greets me pleasantly but refuses to disclose his affiliation. He stated this in his editorial dated July 16, 1964:
A writer in the Toronto Star waxes exuberant in describing Prime Minister Pearson's handling of the "flag issue."
As that T.V. star, Hazel, would say when something of excitement takes place: "This is a doozie". The article continues:
Recalling how the great Mongol conqueror, Genghis Khan, stormed out of the east in 1215 waving a banner of nine yak tails, he pictures Pearson similarly storming out of Ottawa in 1964 holding aloft his gonfalon of conjoined maple leaves.
The most remarkable thing about the Big Flag Fight (says the writer) has been the transformation of Mr. Pearson from a mild, diplomatic, even hesitant leader to a purposeful commander, storming the bastions of public opinion with a new battle banner and a strident cry of "Excelsior!"
Somehow, other news media reports and comment just don't back up the picture. Pussy-footing, cat-and-mouse tactics, backing and sidling-all duly headlined in the public prints-have overtook the original "Excelsior", marred its brightness. In any event, it is to be hoped "Mike" doesn't meet the same fate as that cryer and his banner with the strange device.
I think that is a masterful editorial which reflects accurately the thought of the people in respect of the tactics used by the Prime Minister and those who support him in trying to hoist this flag on the Canadian people. In a close circle of friends let us do it with as little debate as possible-that is what the Prime Minister hoped. The less the people know about it the better it is for us, because they only campaigned on the flag issue when it pleased their fancy, where they figured they were on safe ground. They did not dare to mention the flag in my constituency, I assure you. I never heard it mentioned during the last two election campaigns or before that.
Here is an anonymous poem which appeared in the Hamiota Echo which is pub-
Canadian Flag
lished by one, Fred Venables. I must admit he is a supporter of mine but I do not think that was the reason for publishing the poem. He is not a poet so it must have been written by someone else. It is a real masterpiece. It is titled "Freedom of Choice" and reads as follows:
Little boy blue come blow your horn,
Your flag's in the making, an era is born.
What matters the people you swore you would serve.
Just show them you still have an unholy nerve.
You know that the ensign is loved by us all,
Especially those who answered the call.
We fought and we died for the old union jack.
And wherever it took us we never looked back.
Those flags bravely flutter all over our land,
From ocean to ocean, and many a strand.
From Arctic's cold shore to the southernmost seas,
They proudly unfold themselves in the breeze...
But you L. B. P. think you know what is best.
You've made up your mind so to heck with the rest.
But let us remind you just what is at stake.
We don't give up easy for something we hate.
You look to the people to keep you in power,
But your own lack of judgment turns everything sour.
You dream of your three maple leaves on a
stick.
No wonder you've edged it with blue, good and thick.
It is a rather long poem and I know some people do not appreciate good poetry. I say that because I see they are talking among themselves, but I will give copies to those who really want to read the whole poem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is that part of the poem?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: It does not rhyme. I can say that much to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The poem ends this way:
We know you are badgered but never say die.
There are things in the offing that will make it quite clear,
You can't fool with people nor what they hold dear.
And if you are wise you will draw in your horns,
And go to the people as you should have done.
Our freedom of choice that we fought to retain,
We have it before, we can do it again.
You know now what the threat consists of, Mr. Speaker. I think this poem written in August gives a clear indication that the propaganda of stamps, bumper stickers and press releases which wasted the time of the house has not caught fire in any part of Canada to any extent. If it were not for the remarks of the Acting Prime Minister I might read two short letters, but perhaps I will anyway. They are very short. One reads:

Canadian Flag
I hope you will do all you can to save the red ensign.
The letter is signed and if you want the name I will give it. It is a beautiful girl.


An hon. Member:: Give it.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You are married. I do not think I should. I have another one which reads:
T am in favour of keeping our Canadian red ensign flag.
I could bring dozens and dozens before the house. Today's Ottawa Citizen has a very interesting headline, "Pearson Can't Escape Flag". That is interesting. Here is what the article says in part:
-in a city which has decked itself in hundreds of red ensigns and union jacks-in about equal numbers-for the confederation centenary celebrations. Even the Maple Leaf bakery flies the red ensign here.


Mr. MacEwan:: Where is that?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Charlottetown. That is in today's Ottawa Citizen, and it is very interesting.	-


William Arnold Peters: Order.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Is somebody out of order?


An hon. Member:: You are.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: We have heard nothing but "order, order, order", "question, question, question", "carried, carried, carried". We have heard nothing else during the last 12 days of debate. I have told you the reason why and you can guess the rest. I want to refer the house to an editorial in the Telegram, a Toronto paper-good old Toronto. It appeared in the issue of August 22 last. Apparently the Telegram is not sick and tired of our obstruction.


Mr. Drouin:: We are.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: You see, there is another member who is glued to his seat. I sympathize with him. I know that the tongues of many on that side are aching because they want to get up and say something, but an order is an order and the discipline of an army must be obeyed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Vincent Drouin: If the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) had attended more regularly the house sittings he would know that I have delivered a speech on the

amendment and the subamendment now under consideration.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: It must have been all right, Mr. Speaker, because some members applauded but this device does not work and I did not catch a word. If the hon. member would care to repeat it after I am finished I would appreciate it. All I can do is blame the government.


An hon. Member:: It has not worked for six months.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I was about to refer to an editorial in the Telegram headed "Ask the People". I am only going to quote a few sentences. It starts by saying:
The Canadian ensign must not be lowered without the consent of the people.
That is what we have been trying to tell the house for the last 17 or 18 days that we have been debating this matter. It must not be done without the consent of the people. If a majority of the people prefer to have the three leaves I will be the first one to salute the new flag, because a law is a law. We are a civilized nation. I quote further:
No decision of the House of Commons, by free vote or otherwise, to strike our historic ensign and replace it with a pennant of the Prime Minister's choosing can be construed as expressing the consensus of the nation.
Those who are pushing the new flag, Mr. Speaker, did not even receive a majority of the votes in the last election. They do not have a mandate any more than we have. The editorial goes on to say that certain legislative programs are introduced by the government and the government takes its responsibility for its plans and policies. Then the editorial continues:
But the flag issue is different. Here is a matter that touches the hearts, the emotions, the loyalties of virtually all Canadians. A parliamentary vote that would destroy the country's flag would leave deep and festering scars for years to come. It is far too important to be settled by parliamentary compromise.
Even if a compromise were arrived at by members of parliament I feel that it should be put to the people in a plebiscite or some other way to find out whether they accept that compromise. I read further:
There was no suggestion that parliament would be presented with a single, peculiar pennant design and be told that this must be our flag. If there had been such a proposition, it is quite possible that Mr. Pearson's minority representation in the House of Commons would have been considerably smaller.


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


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: At the outset of my remarks I should like to draw to the attention of this house a gross exaggeration which appeared in the Toronto daily Star last Friday to the effect that this debate had cost the Dominion of Canada half a billion dollars up to that date. I hope the Star corrects this mistake. Even if one accepts its own figure of $33,000 a day as the cost of running the House of Commons and multiplies it by the number of days we have been sitting on this issue, it becomes apparent how far from accuracy this figure really is.
My first observations will be on the subject of the government's proposed flag. The weak position of the proposed three maple leaf flag has been revealed by the lack of support from the government benches. If government members were enthusiastic about it and were sure of their constituents' backing I would think they would be on their feet speaking of its merits and advantages. They have passed up many opportunities to tell this house and the country why they prefer the three maple leaf flag and why they think the Canadian red ensign should be pulled down and discarded. Some of them have expressed their opinions fluently and I will make reference to these deliberations later.
I would like to dwell for a few minutes on incidents that indicate further the weak position of the three leaf flag. We are all aware of the many and varied schemes which were used to no avail to promote this flag. When it appears on cars it is now a sad spectacle-it has become a tattle-tale gray. Much of the promotion must surely have been embarrassing to the Prime Minister, especially when one of his ministers lowered this flag to the position of a bumper sticker. This three leaf flag has taken a terrific slide-from the top of a pole in front of the parliament buildings to a bumper sticker, which is just about as low as it can get. Indications coming in from across the country verify that its popularity and support have slipped about the same degree in the opinion of the vast majority of our people.
Surely by now, after this vain effort to break the will of the Canadian people, the Prime Minister will get his political ship 20220-478
Canadian Flag
back on course and go along with the wishes of the majority by allowing a plebiscite.
Some of his backbenchers have seen the handwriting on the wall and have so expressed themselves. On August 19 the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said:
We on this side have wondered how it is that so many people in Canada are staunchly entrenched behind the red ensign, a fact we did not expect: people who would otherwise have fondly and readily welcomed a new distinctive flag.
There are many reasons for this attitude and reasons why it is gaining strength with each passing day.
Many people across Canada did not take the Prime Minister seriously when he talked of adopting a distinctive flag for Canada. This is so, first, because many of the government promises still remain promises or died within the 60 days of decision. Second, others fully believed that the new flag would be a modification of the red ensign. Of course, when the three leaf flag design was given its back door introduction the props were knocked from under this line of thought. It was then and there that the backers of the Canadian red ensign took their stand. Their ranks were substantially increased when the Prime Minister announced the method by which he hoped to force his flag on this nation. More people took up the fight from resentment of the brainwashing methods by which he hoped to influence opinion in support of his three leaf flag.
Now, referring again to the observations of the hon. member from York East, I can assure him I am in full accord with the last statement of his speech when he said: "so that we may give the Canadian flag back to the people to whom it belongs". This is all we are asking. Give the people of Canada the flag of their choice. This problem can be settled just as easily as that, by way of a plebiscite.
There are many reasons why the three leaf design did not catch on as anticipated by the Prime Minister. One need only look at it to realize it lacked anything that would create enthusiasm. It is destitute of magnetism which would encourage the people to rally around and give support. It is too bad the Prime Minister had not taken heed of these words of Henry Ward Beecher:
A thoughtful mind, when it sees a nation's flag, sees not the flag only, but the nation itself; and whatever may be its symbols, its insignia, he reads chiefly in the flag the government, the principles, the truths, the history which belongs to the nation that sets it forth.

Canadian Flag
The three leaf flag does not embody these things which are essential.
We need only read the speech of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) when he spoke on August 24 as reported at page 7178 of Hansard to find more reasons for the failure to create any fervour for the three leaf flag. Some of the hon. member's statements have been refuted in the press by a letter signed by six of his colleagues, but to my knowledge only one of those six has spoken in this debate, and that member, when he made his speech just a little later the same day, did not contradict any of the statements made by the hon. member from York-Humber. So we must believe the statement made by the hon. member for York-Humber when he told us that the government caucus had no voice in the decision on the three leaf flag. There must have been very good reasons for keeping Liberal members excluded from information so vital to the government and to the country. This is the usual procedure for all conspiracy. Here was the beginning of the disunity which has now fanned out across this nation.
The introduction of the three leaf flag was no doubt as shocking to supporters of the government as it was to millions of Canadians, particularly to those Canadians living in constituencies where the flag was given the silent treatment during the election campaign and where they were told there were so many other goodies in store for them. After the silent treatment given government members prior to the introduction of his personal flag there must surely have been much quiet, as well as open, resentment when the three leaf flag appeared on the scene. Handcuffed as they were from the start, the government members on hearing the resolution read, at once realized they were still shackled because they could not speak out against the two top men of their party-the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau)-unless they had a lot of intestinal fortitude. The die was cast. They had no voice, so very few of them have spoken.
Now I ask this house, could anyone expect the Canadian people to accept this three leaf flag with open arms, conceived as it was in secrecy by a few individuals; introduced to the house like a cold clam with no history or tradition; and since that time promoted by ways and means that did nothing more than build up more resistance to its approval?
Furthermore, much information has been brought to the surface during this debate which has had a telling effect across the

country. Many people are giving the matter a second look and have come to realize that a flag given approval at this time will be the flag as long as we stand as a nation. I would venture to say that if the Prime Minister had unfurled this three leaf flag during the election campaign he would have saved Canada this present embarrassment because he would not have had the opportunity to form a government.
My constituents are asking me, "If the government forces this flag on the country, who will fly it?" This is a good question and I would think the only place we could be sure of having it flown would be on federal property. Also, I find much opposition to the two flag idea. A flag we are not ashamed of in any company should be our flag, and that flag is the Canadian red ensign, which to this date has never failed to rally support in peace or war, and we will not fail it now. We want one country and one flag.
I will at this time quote from an editorial from the Owen Sound Sun-Times of May 25, 1964 headed, "Will Quebec fly New Flag?" It reads:
Midst all the turmoil over the "new Canadian flag" there can be no more moot question (nor uncertain one) than whether a new standard for the nation will bring about greater or lesser unity. And of topmost importance in this regard must be the ultimate results on relations between French Canadian Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Will, for instance, the people of Quebec accept Prime Minister Pearson's new flag as their national standard? Or will the Quebec flag, in several forms but always exclusively featuring the fleur-de-lis, continue to be flown throughout that province, along with the tricolour of France, but seldom, if ever, Canada's present colours?
Unless Quebec accepts as its own any new flag Mr. Pearson may have parliament approve, then all the Prime Minister's efforts are in vain. He will have failed to promote that unity so vitally needed for the continued progress of this young nation. In fact, it may well be that disunity has been promoted. The hard core at least of the Canadian Legion is not likely to easily give up their support of the red ensign which has come to mean so much to them as they have served their nation. Nor, if the new flag is an unprofitable compromise to Canadians of French ancestry, will it be viewed kindly by other provinces which see themselves as distinctively important to Canada as a whole as in Quebec.
We have heard members opposite say we should forget our past and our history, which is embodied in the red ensign. They say that it is insignificant and would be better forgotten. Now, it is most difficult to accept this sort of thinking because, as individuals our own past can mean so much to us. When one applies for an important position, his past record is very thoroughly investigated, and

rightly so. It is usually, if I may use another example, the deciding factor when an investor is speculating on which company or corporation he will invest in. If he is a wise investor he examines closely the record of the president and the directors of the organization. He looks into the financial statement and all the past history of the said company before investing. The same principle applies to any nation. Many decisions made by its own people and other countries are based on that country's past performance or its history. We cannot ignore history or wash it out. Some may distort it, but we can never obliterate it.
Therefore, it is just nonsense to say that the history and tradition in which the Canadian red ensign is involved and so interwoven should be forgotten. If we are to believe this, the prospects for our future have reached an all-time low. It would be a sad day for this nation if we were to sit idly by and let this calamity overtake us. We cannot let our people down. We will continue to fight until a suitable solution is presented or until it is agreed to let the Canadian people decide.
I quote from this short editorial from the Sudbury Star because it is relevant:
Quebec is only one province in the dominion of Canada. But it elects 75 members to the 265 member House of Commons. The Liberal government is a minority government. It has only 128 members in the Commons of which 46 come from Quebec. Without the support of that province the Liberals could not form a government-and this has been demonstrated time and time again in Canada's political history.
The Liberals need Quebec and Quebec needs the Liberals. Politically, it is as simple as that. Behind all the high-sounding platitudes about "rights" and "unity" can be found hard-faced politics where power and the retention of power are the rewards.
Canadians might ask themselves if there is any other country in the world where a minority group dictates to the majority to the same extent? Or where a government bends over backwards to please the minority and tries to convince the majority that they should agree to domination by the minority. That is what is happening in Canada today.
Mr. Speaker, the brunt of the attack in this flag debate has fallen on the shoulders of one man. That man is the Prime Minister of this country. Perhaps this is justified as he has made statements indicating his willingness to take the responsibility. We know he had the help of two or three people in selecting the three leaf design. We know he promoted it by way of a press release to a selected group of news reporters. We know he took it upon himself to make an appeal to the Canadian Legion rally in Winnipeg. In fact he has played the leading part 20220-478J
Canadian Flag
in the act, but I am convinced that he has taken some direction from his braintrust on some of the methods used in trying to sell it to the Canadian people.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) made his contribution by way of bumper stickers. The Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) made sure of good coverage with the three leaf postage stamp. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) broke the sad story to the Queen. Other ministers no doubt took a hand in the regrettable incident which has upset Canadian people more than anything in our history, outside of war itself.
The Prime Minister has shown good judgment on many occasions in the past during his years as a diplomat. He has been honoured many times. He has commanded much respect on numerous occasions. If I may, I will cite a recent event, a report of which makes special reference to him. This is an excerpt taken from a report in the Ottawa Journal of July 16 on the commonwealth conference held recently in London:
Pearson emerged-in the opinion of observers from Australia to Zanzibar-as one of the most effective participants in this conference. His experience in commonwealth and empire meetings goes back to the 1930's.
His speech Monday was regarded as a turning point on the Rhodesian issue when-as representative of the senior white dominion-he put forward his declaration on racial equality and called for release of political prisoners in the African colony.
Right now a great opportunity is being presented to him, whereby he can render a great service to his country. He can play the leading role in a new act with every Canadian playing a part. He can settle this flag turmoil quietly and to the satisfaction of the majority by letting the Canadian people select their flag. It is the only way he can settle the issue and keep the high respect of his fellow Canadians. He must surely see the folly of following the course leading to disunity. We know, Mr. Speaker, he is exposed to great pressure from within his party by people who do not fully realize what the consequences will be if the three maple leaf flag is forced on this nation.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) must surely realize that he would not have the support of the communists and many known radicals on this issue if he were acting in the best interests of this nation. I implore him to free himself of these millstones which threaten to strangle him and, in the interests of unity, assume the role of a free thinking prime minister who will not be intimidated
75G0

Canadian Flag
or influenced by people who would rejoice at the breakup of this young nation.
My personal contacts with the Prime Minister have been pleasant and in the past he has given me the impression that he would listen to reason. Why he takes such an adamant stand on this issue, which means so much to so many Canadians, is hard to understand. If he would recognize the folly of his ways and would agree to a unifying compromise, the Canadian people would give him full credit and the respect due to him, and he would command full marks from this House of Commons. As I have said before, Mr. Speaker, the democratic way out would be by way of a choice by the Canadian people.
I do not think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) impressed any one very much this afternoon. His remarks did nothing more than strengthen the barrier preventing any compromise. The attitude he took this afternoon is not shared by all government members. I know quite a number over there who would be willing to consider a compromise.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Who? Name them.


Percy Verner Noble: I could name them. As a matter of fact, last night as I walked from this building with a minister of the crown we chatted about problems under his jurisdiction. Finally I said, "This debate on the flag has turned out to be a tough nut to crack". He replied, "We must reach an agreement; we must compromise"; and, of course, I agree with him. I think this is the attitude of a good many members on the other side of the chamber, which they would express if they had the opportunity to do so.
It is not necessary, Mr. Speaker, that I speak at any length in defence of the Canadian red ensign. It is becoming more respected, more loved, and is flown by more Canadians right across this country, including those in the province of Quebec, with every passing day. On a recent visit to Montreal I saw more Canadian red ensigns flying than at any time over the years. Speaking of the French, Mr. Speaker, I noticed a newspaper write-up recently about a young Canadian by the name of Joseph Cote, who by his name, I assume is French. The report spoke of an extended hitch-hiking trip which this young university history student took through Europe, Africa and Asia lasting over 300 days. To make sure he would be properly appreciated and recognized, he wore the

Canadian red ensign on the outside of his packsack.


An hon. Member:: Was he from Quebec?


Percy Verner Noble: Well, the name would indicate that he was. I would also like to say that I stood in front of the United Nations building in New York with some American friends, and there in front of that impressive building flew the flags of all member nations. The Canadian red ensign stood out among those flags and I was proud to point to it and say, "There flies our Canadian flag". I have another quote here from our daily paper, Mr. Speaker. I understand that it claims to be independent, and I know this is the case because they have never given me any favours. This article says:
We Favour the Red Ensign
The Sun-Times makes a very honest, and we believe successful effort, to be independent in our political viewpoint. Helpful in this regard is the fact that staff members connected with opinion voiced are quite diversified in the political field, including those who honestly attempt to remain free of party bias of any kind because of the paper's policy of independence.
We view the flag issue as most unfortunate at this time, as has been pointed out in these columns previously. Nor is it an issue that should bring on an election, if Mr. Pearson has such a thought, as has been suggested.
The Sun-Times editorially favours the red ensign, a flag of which Canadians of all ancestral background can be proud in that it has been bom out of the experience of a young, aggressive and farsighted nation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that regardless of what happens as a result of this debate, I predict that the red ensign or a compromise of that flag will fly over Canada long after our time.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great feeling of pride and a deep sense of responsibility that I rise to take part in this historic and important debate. In doing so I would like to take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the house the views of constituents whom I am honoured to represent, as well as some views of my own. At the outset I should like to state that I am not only quite satisfied with the flag that is universally acknowledged and accepted as Canada's flag, the red ensign, but I am strongly in support of its retention.
Constituents of mine with whom I have discussed this matter, as well as the numerous ones who have taken time out to send me their views in letters, have with one exception indicated in no uncertain terms that they

also wish to see the retention of the Canadian red ensign. Knowing them as I do, however, and being aware of their keen interest in the all important matter of Canadian unity, I feel quite certain that they would be more than willing to accept some variation of the present flag if it were felt desirable by a majority of the people of Canada. But, Mr. Speaker, I am also quite certain that the great majority of them would insist that in any new flag which may be decided upon there should be some recognition of our two founding races.
After those brief observations I should like to deal with one particular aspect which has come to the forefront not only of this debate but during the past few years when certain people in many parts of Canada have talked over the possibility of a new flag. The point I should like to deal with at this time is the emphasis which has been placed by most speakers in this house on a distinctive Canadian flag. The speakers who have preceded me have dwelt upon this point. Some have referred to the definitions of the word "distinctive" which are found in various dictionaries. Therefore, like many other hon. members I have been quite interested to try to get to the bottom of this idea of a distinctive Canadian flag, and I have found from looking through various dictionaries that the definitions show little variation. In the latest dictionary I consulted I noticed that "distinctive" is defined as "marking or expressing distinction". When I looked up the meaning of "distinction" in the same dictionary I found three definitions were given. The first variation was "an act of distinguishing a difference or differences"; the second one was "a difference"; and the third "a distinguishing quality or mark".
After looking at the red ensign flying above the peace tower, atop public buildings across Canada and many private dwellings, I would defy anyone to convince me from the definitions in the dictionary of the two words "distinctive" and "distinction" that our present red ensign is not a distinctive flag. Be that as it may, I will return to the subject I mentioned a while ago and say that I am sure that the constituents in my area would be more than willing to compromise on some variation of our present flag in respect to the all important subject of the unity of our nation. Before going further let me say that, despite the speeches we have heard in this flag debate, and no matter how long it goes on, I hope all of us realize that the unity of our country is by far the most important fact.
Canadian Flag
Before giving the house any further views on the red ensign or the possibility of coming to some agreement on an acceptable alternate design, I should like to deal briefly with some of the points which have come out in the debate so far, as well as some of the charges which have been made in the articles which have appeared in various newspapers and in statements made on television. First of all, I should like to say a few words regarding the charge, which I say is unfounded and unjustified, that the official opposition is obstructing the business of this house. Many speakers have mentioned this and many of our newsmen have given their version as to what has been going on during these last two or three weeks. I have been very interested in one or two of these observations.
Another charge which has been made is that we are filibustering. In this respect 1 should like to mention the speech delivered in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). In his speech he roamed the field far and wide, and I noticed that on seven or eight occasions, while looking up to the ceiling and possibly bowing to any members of the fourth estate who might be within his vision, he mentioned the word "filibuster".


David Orlikow: How many days ago was that?


Robert Simpson: That was a few days ago.


David Orlikow: Then it is not a filibuster.


Robert Simpson: Well, let us take a look at some of the observations from our worldly wise newsmen. I would like to quote an article which apeared in the Toronto Star on August 31, which is not too long ago, from the pen of Mr. Peter Newman. In reference to the unfounded reports of the obstruction of parliament he stated:
The Liberal administration, unaccountably, has no major bills ready for debate.
Hon. members opposite may say "So what?" They may ask: "Who is this gentleman to say that we have no legislation ready for parliament?" I recall when he penned a recent fictional edition for them, at which time he was considered the fountain of knowledge; but somehow or other when he talks in this way they seem to want to turn off the water.
I do not think by any means we need to stop at Mr. Newman's observations, because here is another one on Preview Commentary by Mr. Blair Fraser under date of August 20. He stated:

Canadian Flag
People are getting so bored with the flag debate, and so cynical about it, that it seems to me we're beginning to accept as facts a number of things that aren't true.
One is the charge that the Progressive Conservatives are blocking the business of government by their filibuster on the flag resolution. This is not true. Parliament has got through all the work that the Prime Minister stipulated must be done before the house could adjourn for a summer recess, with the lone exception of the flag resolution; if the resolution were brought to a vote tomorrow, parliament would adjourn and probably wouldn't come back until October. The only thing that's being held up by the filibuster is a holiday ..or the tired M.P.'s-a holiday and a chance to get back to their ridings and attend to the useful work they do there.
Another charge that I don't believe to be true is that the Conservative campaign against the .maple leaf flag is a mere political ploy, just a device to force an early election on an issue they think they could win on-or, alternatively, that the Liberal determination to have the maple leaf flag is no more than a piece of electoral strategy for the recapture of Quebec. This cynical view has no factual support that I know of. I don't know any reason to doubt that the people who have spoken are saying what they really believe, and furthermore that they think they're speaking for their electors.
This is the man who has seldom if ever lauded the work of the Conservative party. I can only say that it is possible his recent trip through the beautiful country of Churchill constituency, which he made by canoe, gave him for once in his life a much clearer picture of the situation. We have also heard this charge made by other people.
I will conclude my remarks in respect of this subject >
by saying ;that in my capacity during the last few days as acting whip I can unequivocally state that in the main our members are extremely desirous of speaking during this debate. Many of them have told me that they have been unable to place all their views before this house in the allotted time. In answer to some of the criticisms directed toward some members on this side who'have spoken twice during the debate, I should state that many have said they have hot used their allotted 40 minutes and wish to put further statements on the record. Many others who have not spoken as yet have not spoken because they have given way to other members who wished to speak on a specific date. I suggest that the charges of obstruction are false, and charges of filibuster can only be taken for what they are apparently worth.
Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to enter this debate and I can state here and now there are other members Who still wish to speak, probably at some length.

I also wish to deal briefly with some of the remarks made today by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill). He followed the lead of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) and took part in an unwarranted attack on the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker). It might be of interest to note, for the benefit of those members not present at that time, that the Minister of Trade and Commerce took part in an unwarranted attack on the Leader of the Opposition, until that right hon. gentleman entered this chamber, and then completely changed his speech and said no more in that vein. That performance can only be compared to children in primary school, grade five or six, who fall silent when a teacher who has been absent for some time returns to the room. The tune certainly does change.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the remarks of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate are concerned, I should like to say that I am in disagreement. That hon. minister referred to the 1940's in an attempt to suggest that the Tories did not support the red ensign. Having read that committee report I understand the official vote was 23 to 1, and there were several Tory members on that committee. That committee was established to study and recommend a Canadian flag.
The Minister of Transport made one statement with which I am m agreement. He said he was a stupid Anglo-Saxon. I agree with him, of course, if he is speaking only for himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not deprecate the whole race.


Robert Simpson: That was certainly not my intention, and I am sure the minister was speaking for himself.
Mr. Speaker, having talked with a great number of people I am convinced that many Canadians are perturbed about the way this flag issue has been brought before parliament. Many members have made this statement before during this debate, and it hardly needs repeating. However if the government is not aware of the situation as yet, I should like to say on behalf of my constituents that they are strongly in support of retaining the red ensign as Canada's flag. They also feel that any change in the Canadian flag involves far more than the presentation by government of a resolution, such as is before this house, followed by a vote by members of parliament, which in all likelihood will be in acceptance of a proposed national flag which will re-

main as such for more than 100 years. These people certainly disagree with that procedure.
Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned that I personally support with vigour the Canadian red ensign, as do the people I represent. During the course of this debate many speakers have mentioned some of the history behind the red ensign. I have a few notes here I should like to refer to in an attempt to illustrate why my constituents support retention of the red ensign. It is true that the Canadian red ensign is in grave danger of being discarded as Canada's national flag. That danger is intensified by the lack of knowledge on the part of a great many Canadians who know nothing of the historic symbols and tradition. Recorded history actually contradicts many of the things people take for granted about the red ensign. Past generations of Canadians have asked for and proudly adopted the red ensign. They used it in defiance of restraining orders. Today, sanctified by the blood of our fighting forces, steeped in our traditions, the red ensign by common acceptance and long usage has become known to every nation and country as Canada's flag. Despite all the evidence of common approval, the Prime Minister has stated that he fully intends to write the obituary of the red ensign as Canada's identifying flag.
We all know that by order in council No. 5888, dated September 15, 1945, the red ensign was declared Canada's distinctive flag. It was adopted at that time because Canada's history has been established under that flag, and there was then no question in respect of its worthiness. Why are we now faced with this sudden reappraisal in 1964?
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note about the history of the red ensign that one pamphlet published by the Canadian Legion which, as is well known, is an extremely strong supporter of this flag, contained the following very interesting observations. This is a very interesting observation.
General H. D. G. Crerar, the distinguished commander of the first Canadian army in world war II, recorded an incident of great historical significance for all Canadians when, recounting an official welcome to him in Ottawa on August 8, 1945, by our wartime prime minister, the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, he wrote in the March, 1963 issue of The Legionary:
"As we moved away from the central entrance of the parliament buildings, Mr. King turned sideways in the car and looked upwards to the peace tower where, at the top, the Canadian red ensign waved. He then said, 'And that. General, is another problem which your Canadian army has
Canadian Flag
solved for Canada-the matter of our national flag.' "
Little did he know at that time that this debate would be taking place in this year 1964. To get back to some of the history of the ensign, we find that ignorance of the Canadian flag is alarmingly prevalent and it begets misunderstanding, prejudice and bigotry. These are all weapons in the arsenal of the proponents of a new flag. This lack of knowledge is not confined to the man in the street. It is found at all levels. Some school children and school teachers know little or nothing about the flag. When it is explained to them they are amazed. Why is not this information made public, they ask. They are susceptible to the clamour for a new flag only because they are uninformed about the old one.
The trouble is that our flag suffers from underexposure in our country. Poor publicity and indifference are responsible for this. Anyone interested can find an abundance of historical and pictorial material showing use of the red ensign in Canada long before confederation. It came here with Prince Rupert and the Company of Adventurers trading into Hudson's bay. The archives of the Hudson's Bay Company have numerous references to the flag from 1670 on.
The Hudson's Bay Company was not a mere trading company. It was the government of that day. It controlled trade, settlement and the building of forts. It armed ships and soldiers, passed and enforced laws and punished offenders. Its powers could scarcely have been more sweeping. For two centuries a large part of what is now Canada was governed under the company's charter and flag.
Canada holds the west today because she fell heir to the achievements of the Hudson's Bay Company and the Nor'westers with whom they united in 1821. All that area drained by the rivers flowing into Hudson's bay was controlled by the company until Canada formed a dominion capable of taking it over. The flag of that company was the red ensign.
This is just a little of the history of the flag which of late has been in danger of being removed as Canada's national flag. There are many other points of view I should like to bring before the house at this time, but I see my time is getting on. As many speakers today have said, I think we should endeavour to arrive at some means of settling this issue, and several means have been suggested. I have mentioned the views of my constituents and my own personal views in relation to the

Canadian Flag
Canadian red ensign. I have also put on record the fact that I am quite sure the people of my area would be only too willing to compromise to the extent of a variation in this flag if they could be assured that this in itself or the flag chosen by the people of Canada would bring national unity. This, of course, is the most important aspect of the whole subject.
We have suggested that a plebiscite be held but there does not seem to be unanimous support for this idea. Another suggestion has been made that a committee should be set up. The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) mentioned the committee idea in his speech as did the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) today. I feel that this suggestion is worthy of the full consideration of the house. As has been said, if the view of that committee was almost unanimous they could then so report to parliament and if they were not unanimous they could probably be instructed to lay down the rules or terms on which a plebiscite would be held, in which each and every citizen of Canada would have an opportunity to select one of several designs which he or she felt would be suitable as a national flag. However, this, of course, is up to the house to decide.
In speaking of the committee aspect of the matter there has been considerable support to the effect that a time limit should be imposed on the committee. I think that some of the suggestions as to a time limit have been quite unreasonable. Some of our members have mentioned three or four months. I do not know if this would be acceptable to those on the government side. However, it is possibly enlightening to recall that a few days ago I asked the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamon-tagne) if he had received any report from the advisory committee on broadcasting which was set up, and he said no and went on to say that when he outlined the terms of reference last May he had mentioned that he expected a report early in 1965. So if a committee is set up I do not see why there should be any attempt to place a rigid time limit on it.
I should like to conclude my remarks tonight by stating once again that I am fully in support of the retention of the Canadian red ensign and that the people I represent, those with whom I have talked and those who have written to me, have with one exception advised me that this is their feeling as well. However, I want to emphasize again, as I mentioned at the start, that knowing them as I do and knowing of their interest in the

unity of this great nation I am sure I can say tonight that they would be willing to accept a new Canadian flag if it should be felt by a majority of the people of Canada that such a flag would bring unity to our country. I want to leave one further point with the house. My people definitely have strong feelings that any new flag should give recognition to our two founding races.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the
question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment lost.


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Skoreyko:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.) (Mr. Groos). Had I voted I would have voted for the subamendment.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Mul-lally). Had I voted I would have voted to support the amendment to the amendment.


Mr. Smallwood:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the amendment to the amendment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the debate.
At 10.50 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
It is a great honour to speak in this chamber on this centennial anniversary of Canada's first confederation conference; to meet with the premiers of all the provinces around the same table where those men of vision conceived a great new nation a hundred years ago. I think today of the words of the 60th chapter of Isaiah. "A little one shall become a thousand and a small one a strong nation. The Lord will hasten it in his time." The Lord has hastened it in our time.
I share in the gratitude we all feel to our host, Premier Shaw, for the delightful and uniquely "Island" welcome we have received. History tells us that our forefathers from Canada were not met by any such welcome when they first arrived here for the conference 100 years ago. But it also shows that when they left Charlottetown, exhausted by hard work and open-hearted hospitality, they were happy in the warmth of a new fraternity and the hope of a new nation. That hope has been realized, and the fraternity is also with us today.
[Stage Direction]
It is of course most fitting that a federal-provincial meeting should have been convened here to commemorate the centennial of the Charlottetown conference. This was the point of time and place at which the grand but distant vision of Canadian confederation emerged as a desirable and attainable goal.
[Stage Direction]
The Charlottetown conference was also the first of the intergovernmental meetings of which today's is a direct descendant; meetings which have in effect become a permanent part of our national governmental structure, through which, by co-operation, we can keep our federal system effective and acceptable.
Today, a hundred years on, there are constitutional and racial and regional tensions in Canada. At times they seem to endanger our very survival as a nation, for strains of the present always create doubts about the future -in a nation no less than in an individual. This doubt is seized by the cynics, and the faint-hearted, to belittle the Canadian experiment and diminish its achievements. To counteract such defeatism we should spend more
time rejoicing in our achievements; less in moaning about our difficulties.
Social unrest-economic pressures-federal-provincial differences-difficulties of the kind that are felt today; these have tested every Canadian generation, and no generation has failed to meet the test. Nor will we fail- we who enjoy riches and resources beyond the wildest dreams of those men who met here in 1864-if we face up to our problems in the spirit and with the resolve of our forefathers.
The fathers of confederation combined a remarkably clear and sure sense of purpose and direction with a single minded dedication and determination to reach a goal. Within three years they converted their dream into the reality of a federal state, now grown beyond their imaginings.
If it is to continue to grow-as it will-we must acknowledge the realities of the strains imposed by our times on the national structure bequeathed to us; we must acknowledge them without being daunted by them. We must define them. And remove them.
For that purpose, we must have a sense of political realism, a passion for justice and a gift for compromise. We must also recognize that the basic partnership of our two founding peoples-and the enriching diversity of our national pattern-remain our greatest source of strength and progress.
We must not over-dwell on yesterday-or even on today. We plan for the future-and it is the future on which we have to agree.
For we cannot turn back the clock. We cannot by our wish or our command restore to our problems the simple shapes, the neat, black and white alternatives of simpler times.
To solve them we must recapture the faith of our predecessors and restore their purpose in our national life. We must reaffirm those principles on which they agreed-and which are still valid-but be willing to modify procedures unsuited to our own times.
First among our national goals-prerequisite to all others, economic, social or cultural, is national unity. This does not mean and cannot mean uniformity. It does mean Canadian identity, with the symbols and even

more the spirit and the pride to foster such identity.
It does not mean subordination in any way of provincial rights, nor the alienation of provincial authority. It does mean a government at the centre strong enough to serve Canada as a whole.
Let us here agree and let our accord be broadcast for all men to know, that this nation-conceived in the hearts and minds of those who met in this place a century ago; nurtured through 26 parliaments and into its fifth generation to embrace half a continent and 10 provinces-that today this nation has no intention of falling apart; and every intention of moving forward to greater things.
Let us agree that whatever may be the difficulties facing our federation, whatever our differences, we are resolved to keep our union strong, our federation healthy and our nation one before the world; that we accept our responsibility to the past, but even more important we will discharge our obligations to the future.
Gathered here in confederation chamber on this the 1st day of September, 1964, let us declare our vow to do our part to lift our country beyond the jeopardy of forces or factions which would divide it; to strengthen and safeguard its federal system; and to regard our highest purpose to be our trusteeship over the concept of a Canada fortunate in the duality of its origin and the diversity of its development, but a Canada greater than the sum of its parts.
Let us acknowledge freely that these goals will not be easy to reach; that in their pursuit we must show tolerance and patience as well as strength and determination. But let all Canadians know that these are our goals. Their acceptance can itself be a strong unifying force.
Finally, let us ask God's help and His blessing in our task.
In this spirit, Canadians will never betray the trust of those we honour today, nor the heritage of those into whose keeping we pass our trust tomorrow.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, September 2, 1964